Thursday, 13 November 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 9 a.m., and read prayers. Debate resumed from 17 September, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(9.01) —As the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) said in his second reading speech, the Science and Industry Research Legislation Amendment Bill 1986 confirms the future directions of the intellectual resources within the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, CSIRO. Many of us enjoy from time to time speeches, articles, answers to questions and even books by the Minister for Science. I certainly enjoyed his second reading speech. Most of that speech had nothing whatever to do with the Bill that we are considering today, which was not in fact mentioned until about two-thirds of the way through his speech. The Minister said then that the Government accepted the broad thrust of the Australian Science and Technology Council recommendations published in its report `Future Directions for CSIRO' in November 1985. In fact, the Government accepted very few of ASTEC's recommendations. The Government accepted `in the Budget context' a number of other recommendations, but whatever the phrase `in the Budget context' means, it is clear that those recommendations accepted in that fashion have barely been accepted at all. Presumably the use of that phrase allows the Government to pretend that it is accepting recommendations when it really is not. Australia's international reputation in the area of scientific research is well known and, as we are all aware, CSIRO scientists have played a prominent part in the building of that reputation. Unfortunately, however, we have an undistinguished record in the conversion of the results of that research into commercial, industrial and technological development. In order to demonstrate this position a few statistics are appropriate. Australia originates about 2 per cent of the world's published scientific papers but only 0.7 per cent of the world's patents. Australia produces just 15 patents for every 100,000 of population compared, for example, with 238 per 100,000 of population in Switzerland. New Zealand ranks higher than Australia. In 1982 Australia exported $US73 per capita in high technology goods compared with $US2,508 for Switzerland and $US1,269 for the Netherlands. Of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, only Greece, Iceland and Turkey exported less technology based goods than Australia. Although Australia has about 1.8 per cent of world trade exports, our export market share for manufacturing industry with low research and development components is 2.4 per cent; medium research and development, one per cent; and high research and development, only 0.2 per cent. Australia spends on industry research and development about $1 for every $100 worth of manufacturing. Some comparative figures from other countries are $7.60 in the United States, $6.10 in Sweden and $2.40 in Canada. In a 1985 report of the OECD it was stated: The overall research and development effort in Australia is weak, whether measured in volume or as a proportion of Gross Domestic Product. In all these circumstances, it is clear that what Australia needs is a dynamic CSIRO which is closely attuned to industry needs. Clearly, there must be better co-operation and collaboration between the Organisation and the private sector. It should be noted that CSIRO makes a contribution of less than 10 per cent of all inventions by Australian firms. All that said, however, CSIRO has made a significant contribution to the development of Australia. Since its establishment in 1926 it has to its credit many major achievements, more particularly in research in the rural sector, but also over a wide spectrum, including non-ferrous materials, hardwood, pulp and paper, solar water heating, radio astronomy, leather and hides. I recently visited the Organisation's Atmospheric Research Division at Aspendale in Victoria and had the opportunity to see the work that was being done on emissions into the atmosphere. If that Division's suspicions are confirmed, the research will make a contribution to the so-called hot-house effect- Mr Barry Jones —Greenhouse effect. Mr BEALE —And what steps should be taken that will alleviate what may be an emerging problem. The Minister quite rightly says `greenhouse effect'. The previous coalition Government established the first ever independent inquiry into the CSIRO. However, the reforms resulting from the so-called Birch inquiry failed to stem all the concerns about the Organisation which have resulted from greater international focus on the benefits to be gained from science and technology, demands for greater accountability as governments impose tighter fiscal stringency, and the need for revitalisation of our manufacturing industry. Since this Government came to power, funding for CSIRO has fallen markedly to the point where Professor Birch, now the President of the Academy of Science, described the 1984 science budget as `disastrous for science'. This Bill deals specifically with the recommendations by the Australian Science and Technology Council on the future directions of CSIRO. In general terms, the legislation fails to address the more fundamental recommendations of the ASTEC inquiry. It fails to provide the CSIRO and its new board of directors with the instruments it needs to facilitate a more dynamic, applications oriented organisation responsive to rapidly changing circumstances. The Government has ignored crucial ASTEC recommendations which would have permitted greater organisational flexibility and individual incentive, and made the CSIRO more industry sensitive. The Government has strengthened ministerial control and created a part time board as the only formal contact with industry and the community. Furthermore, the Government has chosen not to face up to the tough decisions, for example, the Public Service Board link, the portability of superannuation-and therefore the only action that would lead to successful personnel exchange and facilitate real co-operation between the CSIRO and industry-and the whole question of short term appointments. This legislation lacks the boldness necessary to take CSIRO forward into the next century and lacks a commitment to scientific development. The Organisation will continue to be bound by inflexible and inappropriate Public Service personnel practices. Freedom from such practices is fundamental to a dynamic, responsive scientific and industrial research organisation. The support for the early retirement scheme is only a piecemeal approach to the central problem facing the Organisation, which is the concentration of resources needed to address relevant national priorities. There must be provision for prompt and meaningful redirection of funding to the areas of greatest potential. There is no evidence that the Government has considered this issue. The ASTEC inquiry found that a blurring of lines of responsibility had developed with the CSIRO members of the executive. Accordingly, ASTEC urged that all members of the Board, other than the Chief Executive, should come from outside the Organisation. The Government has only partially accepted this recommendation as there is no provision in the Bill that all directors should come from outside the Organisation. Furthermore, the Government should clarify as quickly as possible how many members it proposes to nominate to the Board. Proposed new section 24 (1) reads: The Board may establish advisory committees, consisting of such persons as the Board appoints, to give advice to the Board on particular matters or classes of matters relating to the functions of the Organisation. One would have thought it essential that the Board establish such committees in order to maintain appropriate contacts with industry. Without such high level committees it is extremely difficult to see how an effective and meaningful interaction between the Organisation and industry and the community could take place. The word `may' as in `the Board may establish advisory committees' is therefore of real concern to the Opposition. It is extremely important that not only are there effective channels of communication between the users of CSIRO research and the Organisation but also the Board is well advised and informed and not overly reliant on advice from within the CSIRO. In all these circumstances it appears that the Government has ducked the main issue and has lumped an enormous burden on to the new Board instead of giving appropriate direction and leadership. Clause 10j, the clause on delegation, is not acceptable to the Opposition but the Minister has assured me that it will be deleted. Mr Barry Jones —No, amended. Mr BEALE —Amended, I beg your pardon. The Opposition regrets that the Bill does not sufficiently address the ASTEC recommendations but it will not deny it a second reading. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga)(9.13) —On 11 November the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) reminded us when he addressed the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development science conference-the first of its kind to be held in Australia-of the role of science in Australia and indeed in world development. In particular, he addressed Australia's position in the western Pacific and Asian-Pacific rim. He brought to the attention of all people present at the conference, particularly I hope the business people of Australia, the need for Australia to be deeply involved in science and scientific development both in Australia and the region. At that time he also drew attention to the work of the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), who is well known throughout the country-and, indeed, the world-for his contribution to science. It always amuses me to a certain extent whenever figures and statistics are cited on issues such as this, whether it be Australia's research and development performance or whatever, that most of those figures were brought to public attention by our Minister for Science. He has contributed to the raising of the issue of science and research in Australia. As well he has awoken us to the problems we had been facing for a long time in reorganising our industrial direction. I pay tribute to the work he has done over many years. Today many people who make policy incorpor- ate his views as their own. The Science and Industry Research Legislation Amendment Bill is a very significant Bill because it sets the stage for Australia's redeployment of its primary research and development tool-the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Many people would be aware of my background-of my having come from CSIRO. Those opposite have their own basically pretty poor record in CSIRO funding and organisation over the years to blame for the fact that I am in this place today. If it had not been for their record of not caring terribly much about the way CSIRO was going or the funding that was needed to keep it operating, I may not have been as dissatisfied and may not have sought a parliamentary career. So, one way or another, let it be on their heads. CSIRO lost much of its momentum over the years until this Government came into office. CSIRO's funding was cut and, most importantly, very little was done to replace the funding cuts which were made so that the private sector could be activated. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table from the Department of Science which shows Australia's research and development performance in relation to other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. Leave granted. The table read as follows- COMPARISONS BETWEEN OECD NATIONS-R&D EMPLOYMENT AS % TOTAL WORKFORCE, AND GROSS DOMESTIC EXPENDITURE ON R&D (GERD) AS % GDP (LATEST AVAILABLE YEAR) Country R&D employ- ment as % total work force % GERD/ GDP R&D in sector* as % GDP Source of funds* Business enter- prise Govern- ment Civil Defence Performance* Business enter- prise Govern- ment Higher education Large R&D performers U.S.A. (1984)... 1.27 2.74 1.35 0.42 0.81 1.99 0.31 0.36 F.R. Germany (1983)... 1.36 2.57 1.46 1.00 0.11 1.79 0.36 0.41 (Group median)... 1.17 2.47 1.35 0.70 0.46 1.53 0.36 0.36 Japan (1982)... 1.16 2.47 1.50 0.63 0.01 1.53 0.25 0.58 U.K. (1981)... 1.17 2.46 0.93 0.70 0.68 1.52 0.53 0.33 France (1984)... 1.07 2.19 0.91 0.84 0.44 1.24 0.47 0.34 Medium R&D performers Switzerland (1981)... 1.23 2.29 1.72 0.26 0.04 1.70 0.14 0.45 Sweden (1981)... 1.00 2.23 1.26 0.76 0.21 1.49 0.14 0.60 Netherlands (1984)... 1.01 1.87 0.86 0.96 0.03 1.02 0.38 0.44 (Group median, excluding Australia)... 0.89 1.65 0.89 0.63 0.04 0.98 0.20 0.33 Canada (1983)... 0.55 1.42 0.60 0.65 0.04 0.73 0.35 0.34 Belgium (1979)... 0.78 1.40 0.91 0.49 . . 0.97 0.13 0.29 Italy (1984)... 0.46 1.19 0.54 0.60 0.05 0.64 0.26 0.19 AUSTRALIA (1981)... 0.65 1.01 0.21 0.70 0.07 0.23 0.47 0.30 Small R&D performers Finland (1983)... 0.79 1.37 0.72 0.62 0.01 0.78 0.21 0.29 Norway (1981)... 0.75 1.28 0.49 0.70 0.07 0.67 0.24 0.37 Austria (1981)... 0.56 1.16 0.59 0.51 . . 0.65 0.07 0.38 Denmark (1981)... 0.57 1.07 0.47 0.50 . . 0.54 0.21 0.25 (Group median)... 0.60 0.89 0.26 0.50 . . 0.27 0.28 0.19 New Zealand (1979)... 0.62 0.88 0.14 0.73 0.01 0.18 0.53 0.15 Ireland (1982)... 0.42 0.79 0.27 0.38 . . 0.34 0.30 0.13 Iceland (1981)... 0.69 0.75 0.04 0.57 . . 0.07 0.46 0.20 Portugal (1980)... 0.18 0.33 0.08 0.22 . . 0.09 0.15 0.07 * In OECD data the Business Enterprise sector includes both private and public business enterprises. The General Government sector includes federal and provincial or State governments and their agencies excluding public business enterprises. ``Government'' as a source of funds includes the ``Own funds'' of public universities. Note that there are sectors other than those shown, so that the totals are less than the % GERD/GDP. SOURCE: Compiled from OECD source documents. Dept. of Science. Mr STAPLES —The table clearly points out that in terms of overall performance in research and development, Australia is at the lower end of the medium research and development performers of OECD countries. However, that aggregate performance disguises the fact that in terms of public investment in research and development as a proportion of gross domestic product Australia is actually at the median of the large research and development performers. In terms of business enterprise on the basis of source of funds and performance, Australia is actually below the median of the small research and development performers which include countries such as New Zealand, Ireland, Iceland and Portugal. That is a very sad state of affairs and one which this Government has sought to address. I believe it is something which the country as a whole is much more aware of than it was three of four years ago. This Government has introduced the 150 per cent tax deduction, management investment companies MICs, the national industry extension service and a new offsets program. But more importantly, it has developed an awareness in the community and business that such directions need to be taken and taken very smartly. This Government, through its employment of the Australian Science and Technology Council review into public investment in Australia and under the direction of the Minister for Science has given CSIRO a new direction and a new strategy for dealing with Australia's needs. I would like to commend CSIRO for confronting the vast criticism that was heaped upon it by many people who, because of, in some cases, a vested interest, would have liked to have got their hands on some of CSIRO's research funds and yet others who perhaps did not understand the operation of the system very well. I believe that CSIRO has responded very well to the criticisms and the directions that were given to it by the Government. It deserves commendation for that. CSIRO has been seen as a great big old aircraft carrier or ocean liner that took ages to turn. However, today it is on course and is proceeding very well. The legislation before us will assist CSIRO to further that direction. The legislation gives a new role and policy for the CSIRO executive. It separates policy and management in the executive. The legislation provides for a board with a part-time non-executive chairperson and six to eight part-time board members who will be selected for their personal abilities and their ability to contribute to CSIRO. Of course, there will be a full time chief executive officer. I was a bit disappointed with the comments of the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) when he described the Board-I will paraphrase what he said-as basically being not able to respond to need. I do not think that will be the case. With other changes in CSIRO, particularly if it gets advisory mechanisms into gear, we will see a very responsive public sector engaged in research and development in Australia. Another area which I believe will be useful in changing CSIRO's direction and making it more flexible is the early retirement scheme. This is something that needs to be looked at not only by CSIRO but also perhaps in the board rooms of Elders IXL Ltd, Carlton and United Breweries Pty Ltd and Broken Hill Proprietary Co Ltd. The big problem in research and development in Australia is in the low performance of business enterprise in research and development, and not in CSIRO. We have to recognise why CSIRO has not been more flexible in the past. First, it has not been given the proper direction from government, and secondly, it has not been able to have the flexibility that this Bill will now give it, and this Government needs to be commended for that. In the few moments left I would like to deal with a couple of other issues relating to CSIRO that people perhaps would not be familiar with. One is the Consultative Council. There is quite an element of staff dissatisfaction regarding the operation of the Council. I hope that the new board will deal with the problems of dissatisfaction felt by the staff in getting their grievances and views heard at a senior management level in CSIRO. Perhaps one way of dealing with this would be to ensure that there is an elected staff member on the board, not only to provide an in depth view to the policy makers of the Organisation but also to give an input into its direction. Perhaps the Minister would like to address some remarks to this aspect in his reply. I ask him also to address the question of advisory mechanisms in CSIRO. This Bill in effect leads to the abolition of the CSIRO Advisory Council, of which I am still a member, as a government representative. Mr Barry Jones —A valued one. Mr STAPLES —Thank you, Mr Minister. It seems that there has been a lot of discussion within the Advisory Council, which has performed I believe as best it can considering the limitations of time and place. It has given very significant advice to CSIRO but is not always publicly recognised because of its informal nature. The legislation basically states that the board may set up advisory mechanisms. I recognise that the Minister has the power to direct the board, but I ask him to address particular comments to the advisory mechanisms. Clearly we have to recognise the needs and aspirations of the States in this, but also importantly those of the sectors. One of the first functions of the board, I believe, will be to ensure the advisory mechanisms are very flexible and cognisant of the needs of industry and so on. One of the criticisms that has been addressed to CSIRO is that it has not been responsive to the needs of industry. I put to the House and to industry that communication is a two-way street and perhaps CSIRO is not supposed to know exactly what industry wants. Perhaps industry should be more forthcoming, particularly the manufacturing industry, and should seek CSIRO out and communicate with it. I believe the 150 per cent tax deduction should encourage that. Unfortunately many sectors of industry are not very aware of the value that research and development will play in the future. CSIRO, through its many years of dedicated effort, both in basic and applied research, has shown that there are many valuable developments that Australian industry can make money out of and develop jobs and economic growth. CSIRO has always been at the forefront of this development. In my closing remarks I would urge industry, from the biggest companies in Australia such as BHP, the breweries and all the rest, through to the very small local businesses, to start looking at CSIRO, to look towards research and development, science and the role that public and private investment play in economic development and growth. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(9.25) —The Science and Industry Research Legislation Amendment Bill is very important from the point of view of Australia's long term development. It is directed towards making the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation a more significant driving force in research and development, and in the growth of technology based industry in Australia which is so important for our national economic future. All the more, therefore, are the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) and the Government to be criticised for the unconscionable delay in bringing the Bill forward. It is a Bill to implement the Government's response to the recommendations contained in the report of the Australian Science and Technology Council, ASTEC, `Future Directions for the CSIRO'. That report was presented in November last year, some 12 months ago. Since then the Government has dithered about making the necessary decisions about the future direction and the organisational structure of the CSIRO. In the meantime uncertainty has reigned; vital decisions in respect of this great organisation have inevitably been postponed, and so on. Now in this last burst of the Budget session we have the Bill at last with the Government's response. The Opposition supports the main thrust of the Bill. Unfortunately, the Government stops short of addressing effectively a number of key issues and recommendations in the ASTEC report, which going beyond formal organisational change, are important in achieving the more dynamic CSIRO, sensitive and responsive to industry and national needs, that we are seeking. The Bill, first and foremost, addresses what should be the role of the CSIRO, this great and revered Australian institution, Australia's largest research organisation. In accordance with the recommendations in the ASTEC report and starting in effect from the proposition that scientific and technological progress is vital for economic growth, it provides that the CSIRO's primary function is to be applications oriented research to foster the technological development of major Australian industry sectors with a commitment to the effective transfer of the results to users. The CSIRO industry oriented research, particularly the short term kind, would be substantially industry financed and the CSIRO should participate in and share in the returns from the commercialisation of its research and development. What is proposed in a word, is a significant beefing up of the applied, the technology side of CSIRO activities. At the same time CSIRO will maintain a substantial continuing commitment to strategic basic research-let us not overlook that-at a level close to that now prevailing. This would largely be publicly funded through the annual appropriation. The more applied technological activity would increasingly be financed by the beneficiaries in, one might say, a privatising sort of way. The ASTEC report rightly notes that to effect such a change in role represents a major challenge to the leadership of the CSIRO requiring `a shift in the overall ethos of the CSIRO from one which has been largely science oriented to one which is largely applications oriented'. That is a major challenge. What is proposed, in a word, is almost a quantum change from a scientific research role predominantly-though even now by no means exclusively-to a scientific research-cum-technology development-cum-entrepreneurial role in the Australian science and technology spectrum. The thrust for thus mobilising the great expertise and resources of the CSIRO towards bolstering the development in the technology effort in this country stems from Australia's almost unique position among advanced countries in respect of science and technology, which was elaborated on by my colleague the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), that in science and also in inventiveness we rank very high in comparative international terms, but our performance in the technology and development area-that is, the translation of scientific research and innovative ideas into actual technologies leading to profitable job generating business-is very poor. It is hoped that the measure before the chamber will give a significant impetus to the CSIRO in that effort. The change is welcomed by the Opposition as a move which should help significantly in this unique situation Australia is in, although it is by no means the only thing or even the major thing which needs to be done in that context. To facilitate this change, reorientation, of the CSIRO, and ASTEC having in any event identified problems that has arisen in the top structure of the CSIRO, the Bill provides, as proposed by ASTEC, that there be a clear separation between the roles of the top policy organ and the top line of management. The current executive is to be replaced by a board along the lines of the private sector. The management structure will be headed by the chief executive and, inter alia, there should be a more important role for the institute directors. One might harbour some fears that to suggest that a part time chairman and board can take over and produce a more dynamic technologically relevant, accountable CSIRO might be a bit unrealistic. But, be that as it may, to set up the structure is one thing; how effectively it will work out in practice depends very much on who is appointed to the vital position of chairman of the board. Presumably, we are looking for a person of stature, acceptable to the world of science and also to the world of business, who can bridge those two spheres. I could speculate on some of the persons of stature who one feels could well carry out that role, but no doubt the Minister is engaged in delicate negotiations in that respect, so I will forbear. As previously stated, it is disappointing that the Government, having gone this far, unfortunately has stopped short of addressing adequately other key issues and recommendations in the ASTEC report going beyond formal organisational change. This neglect will inhibit the new board and management in seeking to meet the great challenge that is put before the Organisation. One of the most important recommendations is that the present statutory relationship between the CSIRO and the Public Service Board should end. That has not been implemented at this point, but that has been elaborated on by the honourable member for Deakin. I now refer, as the honourable member for Jagajaga (Mr Staples) did before me, to the important issue of the Advisory Council and the associated State advisory committees. The Advisory Council of the CSIRO is an independent body with membership drawn from Commonwealth departments, industry, higher education, community interest groups and the CSIRO's State and Territory committee chairmen. It has always been intended as a major source of advice to the executive on priorities and policies of the CSIRO. The composition of the Council was devised to allow inputs on relevant industrial and economic policies of the Commonwealth and State governments and perceptions of a range of matters from the wider community. The ASTEC report found that the Council had `failed to serve the role expected of it' and recommended that it be discontinued and that the new CSIRO board of management obtain external advice, input, in a variety of alternative ways. From the perspective of one who was privileged to serve on the Advisory Council for some years-I admit to that bias-I am inclined to the view that the ASTEC judgment is somewhat harsh in respect of the Advisory Council. I certainly take this opportunity to place on record my appreciation of the capacity, zeal and dedication of the present Chairman of the council, Sir Peter Derham. As a first point I am not certain to what extent the Council's general style of operation has been appreciated or understood. The Advisory Council has always taken the line that its role was to provide independent, considered comment to the CSIRO executive in a way whereby its views would be taken into account. It was far more interested in being effective than in taking any sort of steamroller approach. It preferred to work informally rather than through formal advice procedures. Perhaps for this reason there is rather limited public knowledge of just how much impact the Advisory Council has had on the CSIRO's activities. The work the Council has done has been extensive. The advice tendered has canvassed a very broad range of important issues-broad policy issues, sector-oriented issues and subject-discipline-based issues. I have sought information on those matters but I will not detain the House by detailing that information at the moment. As one example of a major concern during the time I was associated with the Council I cite the Council's pushing the issue of a considered long term strategy for the CSIRO. The Council's major submission on this in March 1984 included a proposal for a five-year rolling corporate plan. I quote an eminent person who said that the strategic corporate plan idea `was not adopted seriously until pushed by the Advisory Council'. Of a different character was the Advisory Council's examination of and support for the Victorian State committee's proposals for more CSIRO interaction with manufacturing industry-an increasingly fashionable line of thinking now, as witness this very Bill. In 1984 the Council gave formal advice on the definition of research objectives in this area, the need for concentration on a few projects chosen in collaboration with industry and for co-operative ventures with innovative companies. That recommendation was accepted and implemented in the CSIRO manufacturing research policy and priorities statement published in the 1983-84 annual report. One could go on. I am convinced that in the new order, with a part time Board chairman and members, the need for continuing, systematic, structured and independent advice-when I say `independent' I mean not primarily from internal CSIRO sources which inevitably would be subject to editing and filtering within the CSIRO on its way to the Board-is more important than ever. It is necessary to appreciate that there is a fundamental difference between the Board which will now have the responsibility for running the CSIRO and the boards of private sector profit-oriented companies. If we accept the thrust of this legislation we must accept that this Board will need something to replace the very clear market signals, as I like to call them, which are available to and, in fact, are the lifeblood of private sector company boards. If the CSIRO Board is to ensure that CSIRO's work is relevant to the community, industry and the whole nation, there must be a mechanism to bring something akin to these outside market signals to the attention of the CSIRO Board. Without these signals the Board can too easily become captive to the strong science based views within the Organisation. While it is central, as I have already said, that the CSIRO must maintain its strong capacity for fundamental science what this legislation is all about is that more of its research and development must be carried out in direct response to market needs and Australia's industrial capacity-in the jargon, in response to `market pull' as against too much domination of `science push'. The Advisory Council as a vehicle for systematic, structured and independent advice on priority strategies, resource use and balance is a mechanism to take the place for the CSIRO Board of the market signals which are the basis for the decisions of private sector boards. As did the honourable member for Jagajaga and the honourable member for Deakin, I point out that proposed new section 24 states in part: The Board may establish advisory committees . . . to give advice to the Board . . . That is, it will empower the board to establish non-statutory channels of advice. In the light of what I have said, there has been justifiable concern that the legislation provides only that the Board `may' do so. If the new Board is to succeed in guiding this great Organisation in the direction sought by this legislation, it must do so. I join with the honourable member for Jagajaga and make a plea from this side of the House that the Minister for Science give the matter his closest attention, when the new Board is in place. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(9.40) —In developing large agricultural and mining industries in a relatively inhospitable continent, Australians have shown great inventiveness and adaptability. Australia's history proves that, given the challenge and the vision, Australians have invented highly unique harvesters and ploughs, mining processes and the like which have competed successfully with the world's best. When faced with complete isolation and the supreme challenge of World War II, Australians likewise showed a remarkable ability to develop new technologies and adapt existing technology in order to build up an entirely new industrial infrastructure which was essentially competitive by world standards. Regionally, Australia has been an obvious technological leader in agriculture with a number of effective aid programs, both financial and technological, and in other areas such as aircraft maintenance, civil engineering, nuclear science and so on. Internationally, Australia has a reputation for producing very good scientists in fields of pure and applied research such as medicine, radio and optical astronomy and biotechnology. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation is Australia's principal scientific research organisation. Basic, strategic and applied research is conducted in areas relevant to rural industries, mineral, energy and water resources, manufacturing industries, information and service industries and the natural environment. The Organisation has a total staff or more than 7,500 employees in more than 100 locations throughout Australia. As the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) said in his second reading speech: This Bill concerns the future directions of one of Australia's most important resources-and I am not now talking of iron ore, coal, bauxite or uranium, but one of the intellectual resources within the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, CSIRO. CSIRO's primary function is the application of strategic research in support of major industry sectors and selected areas of community interest, with a commitment to the effective transfer of its results to users. Major features of the Science and Industry Research Legislation Amendment Bill 1986 provides for the role and structure of the Organisation. This Bill also provides for CSIRO to be maintained as a single entity. Much of the nation's strategic research is carried out by CSIRO. It is Australia's largest scientific research organisation and is responsible for about 20 per cent of total research and development. It devotes about 60 per cent of its effort to strategic research, while tactical or short term research makes up a further 30 per cent and fundamental research about 10 per cent of its effort. The Minister for Science has always advocated a more effective performance for CSIRO through greater interaction with industry, particularly manufacturing, more attention to dissemination of research results and a higher level of contract research. CSIRO is responding to the challenge the Minister has made in offering the manufacturing industry the same kind of contributions it has made to the mining and agriculture industries over the past few years. The Organisation has taken a number of important initiatives. These include the establishment of CSIRO's technology transfer and commercial assessment company called Sirotech Limited and the CSIRO Office of Space Science and Applications-COSSA. CSIRO has introduced a corporate planning system to decentralise research planning and to ensure that potential users are consulted in defining research objectives. The Organisation has also set up a manufacturing industry collaborative research scheme to promote research carried out with manufacturing companies. CSIRO has been traditionally regarded as most effective in agricultural and mining industries where it has had identifiable and grateful users. Many problems in these sectors are specific to the Australian environment. This is in sharp contrast to the general areas in manufacturing and services where producers and users rely heavily on the international pool of technology and knowledge. The linkages between research and industry have been very fragile in Australia. All this must change and it will. Australian science has very strong links with international science as a major contributor, just as Australian industry is strongly linked to international industry in a dependent subordinate role. However, the links between Australian science and Australian industry are very tenuous. All this must change, and it will. I support the Minister's view that CSIRO's research mix has to be balanced but flexible. Tactical work enables CSIRO to learn the language of industry and get close to its users. This helps to define the problem areas needing a strategic effort. To achieve this aim, CSIRO is undergoing a significant shift in the balance of its activities from one which has focused primarily on the research process to one more equally focused on the application research. The important concept here is the balance between longer term strategic work and the shorter term research that is highly specific and oriented to solving some of the industry's immediate problems. The amount of tactical research CSIRO will carry out will depend largely on industry's willingness to pay for it and this will certainly be given a boost by the Hawke Government's 150 per cent tax incentive for research and development. The additional work done by CSIRO will be of the kind usually conducted by industry itself in more technologically developed countries. The bulk of appropriation funds should quite rightly continue to be allocated to strategic research of broad and long term benefit to industry and the community. Research by CSIRO in north Queensland has achieved international renown. The Davies Laboratory at Townsville was open in 1965. It was named after Dr J. Griffiths Davies, the first chief of the CSIRO Division of Tropical Pastures. Its present officer in charge is the distinguished Australian scientist Dr R. J. Jones, FAIAS. The laboratory houses 30 scientists and 50 support staff from the CSIRO divisions of tropical crops and pastures, soils, tropical animal science and mathematics and statistics and the computing group Csironet. The presence of soil, animal and plant scientists in the one centre facilitates a productive multidisciplinary approach to research. Considerable emphasis is placed on interaction with individuals and organisations with complementary interests. Staff at the Davies Laboratory are involved in collaborative programs with colleagues from other CSIRO establishments, State government departments, universities and a number of overseas organisations. The Davies Laboratory is fully committed to research. Although functions of the laboratory do not include teaching, staff supervise post-graduate research programs and facilities are regularly made available for research by university students. Achievements of the Division of Tropical Crops and Pastures at Davies Laboratory include the development of productive, persistent legumes for the seasonally dry tropics capable of growing on low fertility soils under the extensive grazing management practised in northern Australia. From the world's largest collection of legume genus stylosanthes the two most widely grown tropical legumes, verano and seca, were developed. It is estimated that improved pastures in Queensland as a whole contribute some $240m annually, The Davies Laboratory contributes substantially towards this achievement. For the semi-arid tropics, the development of productive legumes is a world's first. Very little was known of the soils of northern Australia prior to July 1963 when the Division of Soils established a laboratory in Townsville. A small group of brilliant scientists led by Mr R. F. Isbell, FAIAS, and Dr R. J. Coventry have firmly established the international renown of Davies Laboratory for excellence in research. The first job was to determine what soils occur in northern and western Queensland. Almost five years were spent in broad reconnaissance surveys gathering the data for a substantial part of the Atlas of Australian Soils published by CSIRO in 1967-68. More detailed soils and vegetation maps and descriptions for the Townsville-Burdekin, Fitzroy and northern Cape York Peninsula regions have also been prepared. Some of the information collected from a number of studies of soils in north Queensland have been put to unexpected but important uses. For example, the detailed soil survey of the Townsville coastal plain, originally designed to assess the agricultural and pastoral potential of the area, has also had considerable application to urban development planning considerations for the Townsville regional growth centre. The Townsville group of the Division of Tropical Animal Science is led by Dr J. Hogan who is recognised by his peers as one of the best scientists in his discipline in Australia. It has the primary responsibility of conducting nutrition research important to the cattle and sheep industries in the tropical regions of Australia. The Townsville group has received about $500,000 from government sources to provide research facilities. It is also benefiting from additional funds from the Australian Meat and Livestock Research and Development Corporation derived from the initiative of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) in increasing the Government's contribution to industry research funds. This research in Townsville aims to improve reproduction and growth in northern cattle by nutritional means, partly by enhancing the efficiency of utilisation of existing natural pastures and partly by working with the Division of Tropical Crops and Pastures to develop improved pasture legumes of highest nutritive value. Most northern cattle are currently sold as five-year-old bullocks or aged cows as hamburger beef to the United States of America. Improved nutrition permits the grazier to sell his cattle at three years of age, with the option of supplying other and more lucrative markets. There is now much greater community and media interest in science and technology. There should be much more debate in parliament about science and technology policy issues. The media are giving much greater coverage, not only to research findings, but also to science and technology as economic and, to some extent, political issues. More importantly, science and technology are now seen in the broader political-economic context. Government and industry analysts, newspaper editorialists and economics commentators now invariably include technological innovation and research and development in their recipes for improving Australia's industrial competitiveness-something that rarely happened two years ago, but never five years ago. To the redoubtable and brilliant Minister for Science I convey the thanks of Australia for his outstanding leadership of the campaign to instil in each of us the pursuit of excellence, and to achieve a technologically developed and mature Australia. I say thank you to the Minister for Science. Australian government support for research and development is broadly comparable with that of other medium sized developed countries. But business support for research and development is amongst the lowest of industrial countries. Clearly, some deeply entrenched community attitudes must change. Business should realise that research and development is needed for new products as well as processes and that research should not be turned off in hard times. To the contrary, that is the time when funding for research should be increased. Ordinary Australians need to rise to the challenge also, with new confidence that Australia can and must compete in world markets. Such a new direction would lead to a more alert, intellectually stimulated Australia. It would also lead to a more sophisticated role and image for Australia in the international sphere and, not least, the economic welfare of and outlook for Australians would be placed on a much firmer footing than is apparent at the close of 1986. Mr IAN ROBINSON(Page)(9.52) —This is an historic debate. It is one that certainly deserves the attention of a wide spectrum of Australian industry and Australian interest in science and research. I compliment the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) on initiating the debate and on the moves he has made since taking responsibility for the portfolio. Certainly, science and technology cannot stand still. But it must be recognised because of the facts and not because of the personality of some leaders in this field. I believe that the Australian Science and Technology Council report raised very significant questions. Earlier in this debate on the Science and Industry Research Legislation Amendment Bill 1986 the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), and the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards) made very important contributions and observations. I want to supplement those very briefly. One thinks, whenever one speaks of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, of an organisation that perhaps has had the highest profile of any organisation administered, established and continued by successive governments over a very long period. One cannot think of the work of the CSIRO without recalling the leadership of Sir Ian Clunies-Ross and one very great Australian who, as a Minister in this House for so long, gave dominant leadership. I refer to Lord Casey, the Minister who established and nurtured the CSIRO and made possible the enormous work that it undertook in the post-war era. Minister White, another Minister who gave great support, should also be linked with the recognition of the history of the CSIRO. Mr Barry Jones —Chairman White or Minister White? Mr IAN ROBINSON —Minister White. Perhaps one should check the record. There are others, of course, such as Sir Earle Page, and many others who gave tremendous support at Cabinet level, despite the efforts of some of the sceptics of the day, to see that this great organisation was able to develop, grow and give the leadership which it has. Reference has been made by honourable members who have spoken earlier, such as the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay), to the great work that was done in the field of agriculture, animal husbandry and many other avenues, and the revolution which occurred in this country and which gave world leadership in the field of agriculture and the application of science that was so necessary in the post-war era. I believe it can be rightfully claimed that the Green Revolution which turned around the whole spectrum of the supply of food in the Third World very largely flowed from the work of the CSIRO in Australia. If we look seriously today at that accomplishment and relate it to some aspects of our own trading difficulties, it is somewhat ironic to recall that our science perhaps made possible the great expansion of agriculture in other countries, particularly in the growing of rice and in the animal husbandry field, which has minimised our continuing capacity to export to countries, particularly those in the Third World category. Be that as it may, as I said earlier, science does not stand still. Research is an ongoing and important field. I say very briefly that what is being proposed by the Minister in this initiative is very greatly needed, it is overdue and it has the full support of members on this side of the House. The honourable member for Berowra, who has given a lot of service in this field over the years, both inside and outside the parliament, I believe, spoke very succinctly about the challenge which we face today. I compliment him on his contribution to the debate. For my part, and on behalf of the National Party of Australia, I say that there is a great need for industry to give further recognition and accommodation to the work that must be undertaken. We cannot assert ourselves in world markets and we cannot achieve what is required for this country unless very great priority-in fact, the highest priority possible-is given by industry to this field. I question some aspects of industry and big business and their attitudes. I say that simply on the grounds that there seems always to be a desire for the Government to pay, despite what might be seen as the relationship between the dividends of the large corporate bodies and what the taxpayer ought to contribute. If one looks at the record over many years of the grants for research provided by successive governments, what do we find? The largest grant is always under the heading `Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd', our greatest corporate body. Yet it gets the greatest grant towards research. I believe there is a need for a little blending of the aspirations in this matter. If we are to give a 150 per cent tax rebate, and at the same time enormous grants, the taxpayer should be getting some real benefit. We want to see our export potential advantaged. We want to see our technology levels raised, to the advantage of Australia's economy. This is what the real issue is in this debate, and in what will flow from it. I hope the Minister will assert himself in this field. I conclude on this note: It is not a matter of personalities; it is a matter of facts and a matter of the needs of the day that must be recognised. Without any rancour or criticism, I recall very briefly one professor who came on the scene a few years ago. I refer to Professor Messel. He was going to revolutionise at State level in New South Wales just about every aspect of science. These days we do not hear of him. Yet a lot of funds went down the drain in that effort, which was based on a personality approach rather than a factual approach. We do not want to see a recurrence of that, certainly in this new role that is being woven for the activities of the CSIRO. I compliment the Minister. I urge him to be cautious in this regard and I hope that the success that will flow from it will be to the benefit of every Australian. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! It being 10 a.m., the time allotted for the second reading stage of this Bill has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science)(10.00) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 10, page 7, line 13, omit ``a person'', insert ``an eligible person''. (2) Clause 10, page 7, line 13, insert ``eligible'' before ``persons''. (3) Clause 10, page 7, after proposed sub-section 10j (1) insert the following sub-section: `` `(1a) The Chief Executive shall not delegate a power under sub-section (1) except with the approval of the Board.''. (4) Clause 10, page 7, at the end of proposed section 10j add the following sub-section: `` `(6) In this section, ``eligible person'' means- (a) an officer; or (b) a director or employee of a company where- (i) the company and the Organisation are partners in a partnership; or (ii) the Organisation holds a controlling interest in the company.'.''. The amendments respond to concerns raised in another place by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills about the unrestricted power of delegation conferred by new section 10j on the Chief Executive of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. The proposed new section would give the Chief Executive power to delegate to a person. That was regarded as too broad, as if the Chief Executive were likely to nominate his mother-in-law to take his role which I do not think is totally realistic. However, the point is taken and the amendments will require the Chief Executive not to delegate a power except with the approval of the Board; limit the class of persons to whom delegations can be made to officers of the organisation or a director or employee of a company where the company and the organisation are partners or the organisation holds a controlling interest in the company-for example, Sirotech. The amendment has no financial implications. The eagle eye of the Clerk has picked up a further amendment in addition to the amendments printed. Clause 10, page 7 of the Science and Industry Research Legislation Amendment Bill 1986, line 22 the word `eligible' should be inserted a second time before the word `persons'. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(10.02) —I start my remarks by addressing the advisory committees. I believe that there has been a certain underestimation of the major contribution by these committees which took place under the previous legislation. The fact is that a wide community interest is engaged by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and the CSIRO is not the exclusive preserve of government. It is important that intellectual and industrial support be engaged because it is vital for shaping in Australia the development of science and technology. It is absolutely vital that there be an integration of philosophy which comprehends the relationship between basic research and applied research and technology. I believe that the Government has tended to downgrade the significance of this relationship in the emphasis that seems to be emerging in the argument supporting the new authority of the Board and the advisory committees. As I have said, it is vitally important that these limitations in government philosophy are recognised right now because they proceed more from financial strategies than from the intrinsic merits of the issue. We must have a continuing resolve by the Minister to engage those interests external to CSIRO which have a vital perspective to offer in the development of philosophies and programs so essential to the success of the CSIRO. I welcome what has come forward in the Science and Industry Research Legislation Amendment Bill 1986 because I believe that it is significant and that it represents a sincere effort to establish a more dynamic relationship between government sponsored research and manufacturing industry. We know that the current economic conditions have thrown down a challenge to the manufacturing sector and the Government to create an export orientated manufacturing industry developing new technology. We all know that there has been a great deal of criticism of the manufacturing sector by this Government. There has been all too ready an attitude of criticism in the Ministry generated by a long standing glibness in the Public Service which consists of people all trained not in economics of industry microeconomics but in macroeconomics. For years we have seen public officials glibly making statements about the inefficiency of the manufacturing sector. What is meant by this much abused jargon? Australia is a small market base and Australian industry, which seeks to serve only the Australian market, will not be competitive in the long term as production costs over such a comparatively small revenue base are bound to place severe limits on growth and profitability. It is not that Australian management is technically inefficient; rather that the production strategy, oriented around a domestic market, is inefficient. Secondly, and most relevant in connection with this legislation, is the fact that Australian technology relies mainly on foreign licences and not principally on Australian innovation. The problem with industry using imported technology is that licences limit adaptive technological growth. A licensee is easily constrained to limit his markets so as not to disturb the overseas licenser and to restrain development and innovation. The challenge is to raise manufacturing activity in Australian designed products. We have to shift from an imported technological base for manufacturing to an Australian-based technology. It is a tremendous challenge and it is one which is being taken up by this legislation. Yet I know that, as obvious as the issue is to many in this House, it is an issue which has still to fight for its proper life in the centre of this nation's affairs. What can be more economically urgent than for us all to be insistent in our concern to make central the national aim to create an export oriented manufacturing system using Australian technology. In 1985 the Foreign Investment Review Board described the problem in the following terms. The Review Board noted that it approved in that year some 1,252 proposals for investment of which only 93 were proposals to establish new businesses. Some 258 of the 1,286 proposals submitted to the Board related to manufacturing. Of the 246 approved only two involved the establishment of new manufacturers. Only two new manufacturers were established by direct foreign investment. Of course there have been complaints through the years by State governments that Canberra paid insufficient attention to the requirement to import new technology by direct investment. It is true that the Department of Trade did not have in its directive to trade commissioners the need to act positively in this regard. It is also true that the Treasury was positively opposed to a policy encouraging this kind of investment. The Treasury was concerned only with financial flows and it used its policy powers to inhibit any positive action to attract direct manufacturing investment in Australia. At the same time as successive governments tolerated this inertia the wisdom of officials was let loose on Australian manufacturers to restrict and to discourage enterprise. We know that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), when he was leader of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, concerned himself only with inflating wages and that his colleague in government at the time, Senator McClelland, retains bitter memories of his failure to induce a more responsible attitude to the problems of manufacturing. So the problem is a long standing one and, in a sense, we are all to blame. I say these things to bring before the House the national significance of legislation which has as its direct purpose the creation of a mechanism through which Australian technology can flow direct into the manufacturing sector. This legislation is prompted in part by debates in this House about CSIRO. I congratulate the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) on taking on the issues as they unfolded in previous debates and acting to implement the recommendations of the Australian Science and Technology Council review. I think the action is all the more to be commended because it shows that the Government has turned away from the temptation to see CSIRO as simply a target for cost cutting. We all know that scientists are notoriously bad in raising their voices in public and political platforms. They prefer to immerse themselves in their researches. We know too how easy it is to feel disillusioned when we put money and confidence into research projects which turn out to be failures. But scientific successes which have changed the course of human history were compounded from disappointments and failures. It is not failure to succeed in scientific and technological effort we should be concerned about; rather our concern should be about the failure to venture, to set out on ambitious journeys into the future. I believe that we are notoriously cautious and live in fear of failure. That is something we have to face. We have to be large minded in our approach and generous in our treatment of our scientists and scientific aspirants. We need also to appreciate that if there is to be an effective transfer of Australian technology into Australian manufacturing, public policy cannot rest on the provisions in this Bill which rely only on the contributions through CSIRO. There has to be a more efficient understanding in government of the microeconomics of industrial enterprise. For example, what extension services need to be put in place by State governments to settle manufacturers into a new path of initiative and enterprise. We face a sector hard pressed by wage demands and restrictive work practices. There is a developing awareness of the need for change. However, that is not the sole problem. The big money is not in manufacturing but in financial manipulation and equity speculation. If the top quality brains were put to work on the problems of manufacturing we would all feel more optimistic. But, unfortunately, institutional capital is not interested in manufacturing ventures. Banks, similarly, are reluctant to find money and, on the whole, their boardroom strategies do not see the manufacturing sector as a priority for supporting new ventures. So governments have to get behind ideas which have promise. There is simply no avoiding the issue-ideas are not necessarily to be found in traditional manufacturers. They may be outside that arena and may be the property of people of no established achievement whatsoever. It is for the governments, State and Federal, to be talent scouting ideas which will ensure a flow of new Australian technology into manufacturing. When we read the remarks of trade unions in the manufacturing sector, we are struck by the very genuine concern they express about special action to create a new manufacturing momentum. This legislation is a high watermark in the new emphasis in Australian attitudes. We welcome the work already done by CSIRO. It is a marvellous truth that this great institution, which found its reputation in agriculture, can have been so progressively developed as to encompass this new challenge presented by current economic circumstances. I am glad, as I have said, to see the turnaround from the Government's initial attitude of hostility to CSIRO. In this, of course, I except the Minister and I also acknowledge that the disastrous attitudes in the 1984-85 Budget did provoke a vital debate. It is understandable that the Labor Government should underestimate the significance of an organisation which achieved great things in primary industry. It was understandable that it should carry a negligent view to the Cabinet room. So it remains a matter of satisfaction that the Organisation has been able to respond so quickly to demonstrate its capabilities in the industrial technology that it is building up and is so ready for practical development. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(10.12) —My colleague the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) began his remarks by referring to the Advisory Council. I stressed in my speech the importance of an advisory council such as the existing body as a vehicle for systematic, structured, independent advice on priorities, strategies, resource use and balance in this set-up and as a mechanism, in effect, to take the place for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation board of the market signals which are the basis for the decisions of private sector boards. I only rise to add that one additional major benefit that certainly the present advisory council set up provides is in the interaction between the CSIRO and the States. The present system provides a very effective mechanism for two-way interaction, with the Advisory Council co-ordinating inputs from all the States and putting forward a consolidated view to CSIRO top management. I fear, particularly in the case of the smaller States, that all of that could be lost under the proposed new legislation. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science)(10.13) —I would like to take this opportunity to respond to a number of points made in the debate. I thank the honourable members for Deakin (Mr Beale), Jagajaga (Mr Staples), Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards), Herbert (Mr Lindsay), Page (Mr Ian Robinson) and Warringah (Mr MacKellar) for their supporting comments. I thought the honourable member for Deakin led off with a bipartisan approach. Indeed, there was a strange familiarity about some of the material that he quoted, but I refrained from asking him to table it. The honourable member urged the need for a dynamic Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and the need for it to become closer to industry. Of course, collaboration has to be a two-way street. We cannot have a situation where CSIRO is criticised as being remote from industry as if the corollary was not true that industry was remote from CSIRO. I agree entirely with the honourable member for Warringah. I have always resisted the idea that we should turn CSIRO into a superior kind of panel beating shop, concerned with short term problems. The honourable member for Deakin noted that the legislation does not explicitly exclude CSIRO personnel other than the chief executive from the board. I confess surprise because this had not really occurred to me. I think the rubric used is the same for appointments to the Qantas Airways Ltd board and numerous other boards. Proposed section 14 (2), I think, covers this: `Members of the board, other than the chief executive, hold office on a part time basis'. I would certainly regard board membership as being inconsistent with being a CSIRO employee, particularly when we read the legislation in which the role of the chief executive is explicitly set out as being separate. A number of matters in the Government's response to the report of the Australian Science and Technology Council entitled `Future Directions for CSIRO' Cabinet decided should be the subject of future examination by the Minister in consultation with the incoming board or be referred to the board for further examination and report to the Minister. Government could either make a whole lot of tremendous decisions and then say to the new board, which I am confident will be a very dynamic one: `Look, we have determined all the options for you. All you have to do is administer'. Conscious of my ministerial prerogatives, in a way that is fairly attractive! But if we are to have a board that wants to take initiatives, wants to take the running and wants to be powerful-and I think that would probably be the view of the Opposition as well as people on our side-we have to say: `All right, you have to take responsibility. There are a number of open areas'. I will refer to those areas. First, recommendation 4 proposes that consideration be given by the board to transferring pure basic research outside the Organisation `where such research is not linked to its major objectives'. I freely admit that I am not very keen on that recommendation and I doubt that such areas can be identified. But, again, I would discuss it with the new board, and I would expect the new board to make decisions. Recommendations 9 to 13 suggest mechanisms for promoting research industry interaction. That will depend to a very large extent on the personnel and the capacity and drive of people on the board. I do not think any one in this Parliament will be disappointed by the members of the new board. Recommendation 16 proposes a reorganisation of institute structures within the Organisation. Again this is absolutely critical. However, it would be absurd if we made a determination here and said to the board: `Righto, that's the decision-now you wear it'. The board has to be involved in decision making. Recommendation 18 proposes that the present statutory relationship between CSIRO and the Public Service Board should end. I will return to this recommendation in a minute. Recommendations 19, 20, 22, and 25 concern staff mobility, including short term appointments, and interchange with educational institutions and industry. Recommendation 21 is about new measures for evaluation and promotion of research staff. Recommendation 23 relates to intellectual property rights for inventions, broadly defined, produced within CSIRO. Again, I will come back to this. The early separation scheme in recommendation 21 (iii) which was referred to by the honourable member for Deakin has already been provided for in the Budget and the details of precisely how it will work have now been agreed on by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) and me. A number of honourable members referred to the Advisory Council. I may have to say a little more on this matter after the Committee stage is finished. After the Birch report, the Independent Inquiry into the CSIRO (1977), we had what was described as `the twin pillars' approach-the executive was essentially the CSIRO management with some part time outside members, sometimes a bit unfairly called CSIRO `nodders'. At one stage they were a 4:3 minority, then a 5:3 majority. But there is no doubt that three full time CSIRO executive members were strategically placed to dominate. With this structure, outside community independent input was essential as a counterbalance to what one might not unfairly describe as a `head office' position. With the proposed board there will be either a 7:1 ratio or a 9:1 ratio, depending on how many community representatives, including an outside chairman, are appointed. The role of an advisory council-that is, to reflect a community view-is then not critical. Indeed, it could be seen as a bit like the role of an upper House-either superfluous if it agrees with the board, or obnoxious if it constantly disagrees. Nevertheless, the new board would be unwise to close off opportunities for community inputs, whether from industry, the States, academia and users generally. Mr MacKellar —Particularly the minor States. Mr BARRY JONES —Absolutely. But the responsibility must be the board's. The board will certainly be encouraged to seek external advice and set up appropriate non-statutory advisory mechanisms. I repeat what I said in the second reading debate on 17 September. I said that the Government will: . . . empower the incoming board to set up non-statutory channels of advice from industry and the community. Representations from the outlying States of Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania have all expressed concern at this provision, but the special needs of these areas outside the Sydney-Melbourne access are recognised and I am confident that the proposed non-statutory channels of advice will give appropriate and effective State representation. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —Order! The time allotted for the Committee stage of the Bill has expired. The question is that the amendments be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce) —(10.21)-by leave-I move: That the Bill be now read a third time. The honourable member for Jagajaga (Mr Staples) referred to the role of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Consultative Council. I think that this Council can play a far more creative role in the future and I will certainly be recommending to the new Board that it promote the concept of industrial democracy. But I want to take up two of the other matters requiring further examination. The first is recommendation 18-the relationship between CSIRO and the Public Service Board. The Australian Science and Technology Council recommended that CSIRO sever its link. I think the question is absolutely open. It was once Australian Labor Party policy that CSIRO leave the Public Service Board, but at the conference in 1986 we actually deleted the reference. I find myself completely ambidextrous on this. There are really strong arguments to be put either way because there is a view that if someone has industrial problems and has to go to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission it may be more cumbersome and a less precise understanding of the problems involved may be the result. But I think the matter should be given urgent consideration by the Board and I will be recommending that it conduct a brisk and preferably arm's length inquiry to canvass the issues and report back. Any changes could be adopted quickly in one of our regular statute law revision Bills. I do not want a Kathleen Mavourneen on this; I really want it to be dealt with briskly. The second is recommendation 23-the ownership of intellectual property rights. This again is a very complex issue and something that is a matter of profound concern not just to CSIRO but to universities and research based companies, both locally and internationally. It is particularly complex in international companies such as IBM and AT and T, which have an enormous concentration on research capability. We need to get it right because, remember, whatever happens at CSIRO will undoubtedly be adopted as a model throughout the Australian community. Australian Democrat senators have suggested proposing an amendment to try to provide for what they thought ought to be the changes here and now and to put it in the legislation. I think that is slightly premature and I ask them to help give the Science and Industry Research Legislation Amendment Bill a speedy passage so that the new Board can be appointed. I would hope that it will be operating perhaps even before the end of this month. It is very important that we get things moving before the long hiatus of the Christmas break. I asked them to hold back such an amendment on my giving an undertaking to ensure that the spirit of recommendation 23 will be implemented by the Board, again preferably after seeking expert advice in this tricky area. I now give that undertaking. This is an historic Bill. I believe the new Board will make CSIRO of central importance in new directions for the Australian economy and the society. In a sense part of the problem that we have in Australia's export performance is due to the excellent contribution of CSIRO in the past. It is a genuine paradox. The fact is that 80 per cent of our export earnings are largely due to the fact that the great areas of expertise in CSIRO have been in agriculture and mining and related areas. When the terms of trade are moving so significantly against us, it is essential that we recognise that the enormous intellectual capacity that we have in Australia generally, and specifically in CSIRO, can be used to harness and to generate a lot more activity in manufacturing and, indeed, in services. That has to be the great goal. There may be some cries of pain from sectors of the rural economy if the Board says that the total proportion of effort of CSIRO in agricultural matters may be reduced. That is the ultimate reality. It just has to be done. We hope that the actual quantum of activity would not be reduced, but we are concerned that there has to be a change in the overall direction we are going. There has to be far more done to get that interaction with urban development of various kinds, and I mean manufacturing and services. I think we can do it. I think honourable members will be as excited as I am by the prospect of the new Board. In my closing moments I should pay tribute to the present members of the executive who have had a difficult time in this period of transition. I want to pay tribute to past and present members of the Advisory Council and all the other advisory mechanisms. It is absolutely essential that, if we are to go in a new direction, there be real changes, not just cosmetic ones. We cannot say: `Guess what, things are just the same as they were before'. I think there is a general recognition, certainly within the Organisation, that change has to come. I am grateful for the support of the House and for the kind things that were said in a bipartisan way by honourable members. I am delighted we have reached this stage. There have been a few bumpy moments along the way, and certainly the legislation has been delayed for a bit longer than I would have hoped, but that is the reality of politics, as we all recognise. I look forward to the Bill being speedily passed in another place. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 22 October, on motion by Dr Blewett: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr PORTER(Barker)(10.27) —The stated purpose of the Australia Card Bill is to create a national system of identification. Before I go into the detailed reasons for the coalition's consistent and principled opposition to this proposal I want briefly to outline how the Bill, if it ever becomes law, would operate. Each Australian would have to make a written application for an identity card. Then each person would have to go to one of the up-graded Medicare offices or one of the 42 new Medicare offices to see one of the 2,150 newly employed public servants. The purpose of that visit would be to endeavour to establish that person's identity to the satisfaction of the public servant, to have his photograph taken and to provide a specimen signature. That person, of course, hopes to hell that the other 16 million Australians are not all trying to do the same thing on the same day. If people do not like the thought of that, they should just bear in mind that everyone will have to repeat that exercise every five years. A person will be required to provide a mass of information which will all be stored on a central register. The information includes the person's name, date of birth, sex, current residential and postal address, his status as an Australian citizen, eligibility for Medicare benefits, a record of his right to obtain employment, any previous name, and previous residential addresses. Information from other departments which the public servants have sought, such as from the Taxation Office, the Department of Social Security, Medicare and others, will also be recorded on the register. An Australian citizen will have to provide a birth certificate or his mother's and father's name and place of birth. Other details will be required from immigrants and permanent residents. The card will have on it a name, expiry date, number and number of times that the card has been issued or renewed, as well as eligibility to receive Medicare benefits, a photograph and a specimen signature. The question then is: When will the card have to be produced? A person will not be able to initiate new business with a bank or other financial institution, invest with a prescribed borrower, deposit money with a legal practitioner, transact business with a cash management property or unit trust or with a marketing authority, a stock agent or a real estate agent, without first presenting himself and his card at the institution or agent's office. If a person fails to do so the business or the partnership will be subject to a fine of up to $20,000, and if it is a corporation it will be subject to a fine of up to $100,000. It will no longer be possible to initiate new business over the telephone. I spoke to one financial investment agent-he would be one of the largest in his field in the particular State-who advised me that about 50 per cent of his clients never go to the office of that particular agent. They initiate their business over the telephone and complete the transaction via the mail. When the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) was asked about this yesterday on a talk back radio program he said that he would not know about that. That is precisely the point. It is a totally bureaucratic resolution to a problem which will significantly curtail business efficiency. No longer will it be possible under this legislation to initiate such business over the telephone. That will, of course, seriously disadvantage country people, the sick, and the aged who will now have to front up to all financial institutions and other agents with whom they wish to do business before they can initiate a business transaction. In addition one will not be able to remit funds overseas, gain access to a safe deposit box, invest in shares in public companies, or deal in future contracts without first presenting one's ID card. Employers will be required to record an employee's ID card number on group certificates, tax stamp sheets and statements of earning for taxation purposes. In order to obtain cash benefits from Medicare one will have to produce an ID card. Hospitals will require the production of an ID card on admission. The Commissioner of Taxation can demand the production of an ID card. Social security benefits will not be payable until the card is produced. The Government is setting up an authority to administer the ID card. It is setting up a register on which all this information will be recorded. It is also setting up a Data Protection Agency. The job of that agency is to keep a check on the authority administering the ID card. This agency will consist of a president, two commissioners, and associate commissioners may also be appointed. Its job is to check that the Health Insurance Commission is doing its job. It will also investigate contraventions of the Act by the Authority and will endeavour to resolve the matter by consultation and will report to the Minister. It also has been given the authority to undertake education programs. Just imagine what sort of education programs we will be seeing; about how good it will be to be a number in the Government's big brother computer system. The Government is also setting up a Data Protection Advisory Committee. This committee will consist of a convenor and between six and 12 other members. Its job will be to advise the Data Protection Agency whose function, the House will recall, is to check on the authority which is maintaining the Australia Card Register. Australia will be the first common law country to introduce such a national ID card system. This Bill is consistent with the proposal considered by the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card which was established by the Government earlier this year to review the proposal. It is the same proposal that was firmly and unequivocally rejected by the all-party majority report of that joint select committee. I refer briefly to the conclusions and recommendations of that Committee. The Committee consisted of myself, Senator Haines, from the Australian Democrats, Senator Puplick, from the Liberal Party, the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) from the National Party and the honourable member for Aston (Mr Saunderson) from the Labor Party. The conclusion was: Having considered the Government's proposal for a national identification system as well as alternatives such as the use of photographic cards and the extension of the use of the current tax file system, the majority of the Committee rejects all proposals for the issuing of identity cards, with or without a photograph. Why did the Committee take that decision? The report states: The majority of the Committee takes this view because such proposals fail to address the major problems which were to be overcome by the introduction of the national ID system, namely: To combat tax evasion; to reduce welfare fraud; and to identify illegal immigrants. In other words the proposal considered by the Joint Select Committee was found not to meet the objectives of the Government. The Committee report went on: The majority believes the creation of a new bureaucracy of 2000 public servants within the HIC, with the sole task of identifying every man, woman and child in Australia, is a wasteful exercise which will not address the problems of tax evasion and social security fraud but will provide the mechanism by which the very fabric of our society will be irreversibly altered, opening the way for the greatest attack on the privacy of individuals as the `Identity Bureau' identifies, monitors and updates information on every person in Australia. That is not the coalition talking; that is the majority of the Joint Select Committee consisting of representatives of every party in this Parliament. Members of every political party have condemned the Government's proposal. The recommendations in the report at paragraph 4.57 state: The majority of the Committee unequivocally rejects the Government proposal for an ID system. The Joint Select Committee rejected the Government's proposal on the simple basis that it will not work. It will not achieve the objective that the Government has set. The Coalition agrees with that report. This ID card will not stop tax evasion, social security fraud, or identify illegal immigrants. Let us look at those areas. The greatest area of tax evasion is in the cash economy-some $8 billion of avoided tax. The ID card only impacts on transactions which are reduced to writing. Transactions in the cash economy are not reduced to writing. The ID card will not impact on those transactions. One of the areas of avoidance in the cash economy is in employment for cash, where there is collusion between the employer and the employee-because both are better off paying cash as the employer gets the job done cheaper and the employee gets more take home pay. That evasion will continue and this card will not solve it. Even those most concerned to protect the revenue and best placed to comment on this proposal such as Dr Ian Spry, QC, Editor of the Australian Tax Review said: On a full analysis it appears that the alleged necessity for an Australia Card does not exist. Accordingly, the various dangers that would accompany its introduction appears to render it markedly undesirable. So it is clear that the Government proposal will not achieve the goal of stopping tax evasion. Will it stop welfare fraud? The answer again is no because the majority of social security fraud is not through the use of false identities, but rather through the failure of people to advise the Department of Social Security that they have other income which would reduce their benefit entitlement. Just as the ID card will not stop tax evasion in the cash economy, so it will not stop the major area of fraud in social security. The Government actually acknowledges this with its revenue estimates. It accepts that the cost of implementing the card in the area of social security will be the same as the likely savings. In other words, there is no net revenue gain from the Government's ID card proposal in the area of social security fraud. In addition, it is interesting to note that the Department of Social Security, in evidence to the Joint Select Committee, said that it would not accept the ID card as proof of identity as it believed it would be of such low integrity that it would want other proof of identity. Will the card assist in the identification of illegal immigrants? First, the legislation prohibits Immigration and Ethnic Affairs officers from requesting production of the card. So, in that respect it gives no joy to that Department. Secondly, will it raise the predicted revenue? Again I refer to the report of the Joint Select Committee which reviewed this proposal in depth. The Joint Select Committee said on page 38: . . . it became clear that the estimates for illegal immigrants were based on guesswork, the percentage of illegal immigrants who worked was based on guesswork, the percentage of visitors who worked illegally came from a departmental study based on guesswork. The discount factor could not be defended and the overall benefits from 1987-88 to 1991-92 was the result of `crystal ball gazing'. In the light of these statements, the Committee is unable to place any confidence in the proposed revenue gains under this use. . . . the Committee has little difficulty in rejecting DIEA estimates as being grossly exaggerated. On the basis of the available data and methodology, no reliance can be placed on the Department's estimates and consequently the Committee rejects its evidence. So, the card will clearly not achieve the objectives set by the Government. Given that the ID card will raise some revenue, is it the most effective way to go about it? The coalition is firmly of the view that there are more cost effective ways of cracking down on evasion and fraud which do not raise the fundamental concerns which this national ID card raises. The ID card involves a fundamental change in the relationship between the individual in this country and the government. No longer is the onus on the government to prove its legitimacy to the people; rather, the people will have to prove their entitlement or licence to operate in this country to the government. From now on Australians will require a licence before they can work or employ their capital. What were heretofore regarded as basic rights inherent in being a free person will now be a privilege to be exercised by permission of government. The Australia Card is effectively a licence to live, a government pass whose production must be demanded by employers and financial institutions on threat of large monetary penalties-$100,000. The Minister for Health says that there is no difference between the ID card and a driving licence. `We all have driving licences', he says. If that is the case, it highlights the danger to which I refer because driving licences can be invalidated or withdrawn by courts and the government. One's right to drive can be withdrawn. The ID card, therefore on the admission of the Minister, is the first step to the same end. If a government decided to act against an individual or a particular group, it could merely withdraw the ID card, withdraw someone's eligibility or entitlement to operate in this community. This is a very dangerous element of the ID card proposal. The Bill establishes a centralised government computer linking system and gives the central authority power to seek out personal confidential information held by departments such as the department in charge of Medicare, the Department of Social Security, the Australian Taxation Office, the Department of Veterans' Affairs, the Department of Education and so on. Some people may well say: `I have lots of other cards and I have nothing to hide, so why should that worry me?'. The point is that this system provides unparalleled opportunities for government abuse of personal confidential information. Honourable members should not say but that will not happen. Last year, despite undertakings that the information was held secure, confidential Medicare information was allowed to be leaked by this Government when the Government was in dispute with doctors in New South Wales. The point is that it has happened once. This Bill greatly increases the opportunities for it to happen more frequently. These are significant issues which are of enormous concern, not only to the Opposition but also to many Government members who obviously oppose the ID card. The honourable member for Aston made his views very clear in the Joint Select Committee report. But let me refer to some other honourable members. The honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent) said: . . . I also reject the necessity for the introduction of the card. That it is called an Australia card is an exercise in cynicism in itself. Nothing can be more un-Australian than the need to prove one's identity on the call of an official, be it a policeman or a bureaucrat. Honourable members should remember that the Commissioner of Taxation, hospitals and others have that right. The honourable member continued: It would be much more appropriate for the proposed card to be called a Hitlercard or Stalincard, as the whole exercise smacks of authoritarianism. But he is not the only one. There are plenty more. I mention one more, Senator Bolkus, in another place. Senator Bolkus, in a Press report last year in the Australian Financial Review, is reported as follows: Senator Bolkus has expressed opposition to the proposal, describing it as `a simplistic response to a range of difficult problems', a response that `won't work and which has grave implications with respect to the future direction of our society'. He was also critical of the proposal being presented as an easy solution to tax avoidance by the bureaucracy which he said had been `inept, incompetent and irresponsible in its approach to tax avoidance'. One would almost have thought that he had some premonition of the Expenditure Committee report that was tabled yesterday. So, instead of worrying about the Opposition holding its fervent line of opposition to this proposal, the Minister ought to be concerned as to how many of his people are going to vote with us. It is quite clear that, Senator Georges having set the precedent in the Senate, people such as Senator Bolkus, if they are as good as their word, will vote with the Opposition against this proposal. What is the cost of the proposal? There are three basic areas of cost. First, there is the cost to the individual by way of the cost of attendance for the issue of the card and there is the cost of compliance, such as going to offices to prove one's identity before one can initiate a financial transaction. Second there is the cost to the taxpayer. We have the cost of the authority, the Data Protection Agency, the Data Protection Advisory Committee and the new Bureau of Births, Deaths and Marriages. We have the cost to other departments. We have the cost of 2,150 new public servants. In total, there will be up to about $1,000m in costs over the next 10 years. No costs have been included by the Government for Federal government, State government and local government compliance with the card. No costs have been included for the compliance of other statutory authorities. No costs have been included for the replacement of capital equipment. So, the Government's costs grossly underestimate government expenditure as a result of the introduction of the card. Thirdly there are the costs of private sector compliance. The only comment from the Government on private sector compliance costs has been in the Minister's second reading speech, when he said: It has been difficult to estimate precisely the costs to that- being the private sector. Costs to business will be massive. All payroll records will have to changed to accommodate an ID card number. All accounts with financial institutions included in the legislation will have to be changed to include an ID card number. For small businesses and others not on computer, this will be a massive job. For those on computer, it will depend on the capacity of the computer to cope with the extra information. But not only are there massive compliance costs for business; also there will be substantial costs involved in meeting new taxation reporting requirements. The Government is keeping silent on these new and extensive reporting requirements. But it is quite clear that, if the ID card is to be of any use to the Commissioner of Taxation, business will be faced with new and extensive reporting requirements. The Government's Business Regulation Review Unit has estimated the cost of this card to business. I quote a report which appeared in the Australian Financial Review: Dr Alan Moran said last night that he could not disclose the unit's estimate of the cost to business of the Australia Card, but the rule of thumb it had used for all new regulations was that the costs to the private sector were twice those incurred by the Government. So, we have a cost of $1,000m to the Government, that is, to the taxpayer, and now the Business Regulation Review Unit indicates that the cost to the business sector will be $2,000m. The total costs so far are $3,000m. It is no wonder that so many organisations in the business sector have opposed the legislation-the Confederation of Australian Industry, the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia, the Real Estate Institute of Australia, the New South Wales Council of Australian Small Business Association, the stock exchanges, the Victorian and South Australian chambers of commerce, and so the list goes on. Given the massive additional cost which this proposal will impose on the community, given the fact that the card will not work, given the unparalleled interference with individual liberty and privacy and given the fact that there are more cost effective ways of attacking social security fraud and tax evasion, the coalition stands implacably opposed to this legislation. Ever since the Joint Select Committee report we have maintained consistent and principled opposition to the Government's Big Brother ID card proposal. We will not treat Australians as cheats and criminals. We will target our anti-fraud and anti-evasion efforts on the flaws in the Government's administration which have allowed these problems to arise. We are committed to an effective attack on social security fraud and tax evasion. We have outlined our eight-point plan. We agree with the Government that we need a national register of births, deaths and marriages. In the tax area, the Government says the greatest amount of income to be obtained from the implementation of the card will be in the area of undeclared interest. It is quite clear that the ID card is not the most cost-effective answer. The Australian Taxation Office says that despite legislation requiring all financial institutions to provide to them payment of interest information only 20 per cent is being provided. Why is the Commissioner of Taxation not enforcing existing legislation? We will ensure that he does so. When he gets the information he says that he has trouble linking it with income tax returns. It is no wonder that he has that difficulty. Report after report has criticised the inefficiency and maladministration in the Tax Office. A report tabled only this week says that some `$2,000m in tax revenue is lost as a result of deliberate or inadvertent understatement and non-reporting of taxpayers' incomes'. It is said that this is `because of the inadequacy of the ATO's current information and checking system, the probability of detention is low and as such this form of tax evasion continues virtually unfettered'. These inadequacies can be `attributed to the aggregation of a number of factors' in the ATO. `The lack of computerisation intertwined with the continuation of labour intensive work practices has certainly retarded ATO's efficient operation', according to the Standing Committee on Expenditure. It says that `it is as though the ATO has been caught in a time warp'. It is quite clear from that Committee's report that the Tax Office is not operating efficiently. If its efficiency were upgraded and if it were dragged into the 1980s and adopted modern computer and automatic data processing technology it would be better able to match this information. The ATO has been criticised by the Expenditure Committee and the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General says that there is a massive amount of information flowing to the Tax Office which it is not using. We will ensure that it does use it. In that way we will crack down on tax evasion. The Auditor-General and the Expenditure Committee have clearly indicated that it is possible to crack down on about $2,000m a year in tax evasion. But it is not possible with the current administration because it has let a lax and ineffective Tax Office continue in its ways; that is, it has not been implementing effectively the tax law. In the area of social security it is quite clear that the Government's lax administration has allowed an open door policy for people to gain access to benefits. We will not allow that to continue. We will enforce stringent identification procedures for claimants for social security benefits. We will tie unemployment benefits to community service which will discourage fraudulent or multiple claims. We will tighten the work test to ensure that those who collect benefits are genuinely unable to find employment. In the area of immigration the Australia Card will provide little assistance. The Joint Select Committee proved that. We will review the existing administrative arrangements to ensure that there is maximum co-operation between State and Commonwealth authorities to assist the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to identify illegal persons in Australia-which this proposal will not do. It is quite clear to the House and the public that this is an extraordinarily complicated piece of legislation. Nevertheless, some people have gone to the heart of this proposal. His Honour Mr Justice Michael Kirby is one who has done so. He says: What is at stake is not just catching a few tax avoiders. It is not even the efficiency of policing. It is not the defence of innocent and law abiding citizens from law breakers. What is at stake is nothing less than the nature of our society and the power and authority of the state in relation to the individual. This proposal gives a whole new meaning to Big Brother government in Australia. The proposal is fatally flawed. Financially, it is not cost effective. It will not do what the Government says it will. It will not attack the $8 billion tax evasion in the cash economy. It will not go to the heart of the welfare fraud problem. The coalition is determined to attack tax evasion and welfare fraud. We have the cost-effective policies which I have outlined which will do just that. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(10.56) —At the outset I congratulate the Government through the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) for the introduction of the Australia Card Bill 1986. The ground swell of public support for the Australia Card concept is an en masse cry by Australians who, like the news reader in the movie Network, say that they have had enough and they will not take it any more. It is interesting to hear the comments of the previous speaker, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter). In view of the public support for the Australia Card it is interesting to look at the assessment that commentators have made of comments by the honourable member for Barker. I will begin my comments by quoting from a concluding set of remarks from an interview with John Laws on 2GB yesterday. John Laws made the following comments about the honourable member for Barker and his opposition to the Australia Card: You know really, I would be very interested to further the discussion with you and, hopefully we will have the opportunity of doing it, but I think you've got to come up with something a bit better than you've dealt us up this morning and I think that Mr Howard needs to come up with something that's a bit better too. After all, he did at the onset of the ID Card suggestion say that, in principle it wasn't a bad idea. Obviously he sees it as some political advantage to think it's not a good idea any more, but I don't think the reasons for it are too good. Further on he continued: But answer me this question. Why are the majority of Australians in favour of it? The honourable member for Barker said: Because they don't know the detail of it . . . This is the first time I've had an opportunity to debate the card and bring out the detail of the legislation. In conclusion John Laws made these very interesting comments: Well, let me say this to you. They never will learn the detail of it if there are going to be arguments thrust forward by the Opposition as the ones that have been thrust forward by you today and John Howard yesterday. That is the sort of credibility that the Opposition has with people right throughout Australia. That support will be shown increasingly over the next few weeks. I touch on a couple of the other points made by the honourable member for Barker during his remarks this morning. He made some comments about the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card. He questioned whether the card would be effective in an attack on tax avoidance and evasion. Is the honourable member for Barker dismissing the very clear and unequivocal comments by the Commissioner for Taxation, Mr Boucher, who supports the high level of integrity we will have with the unique numbering system such as proposed in the Australia Card Bill? What has the honourable member for Barker said when responding to comments about social security? He said that it was just a problem with overpayments or people earning income which they did not disclose to the Department of Social Security. Was he protecting the welfare cheats out there? Was he protecting the person who earlier this year or late last year claimed 37 different weekly unemployment benefits? Was he protecting the same sort of person who claimed benefits under 57 different identities and therefore ripped off the taxation system to a considerable extent? On the question of illegal immigration, we are saying that the card will be a deterrent to illegal immigrants. In other words, people will not be able to claim benefits from the Department of Social Security, they will not be able to gain legal employment and they certainly will not be able to claim on Medicare if they do not possess an Australia Card. The sorts of arguments that the honourable member for Barker has put forward can be knocked down for what they are-shallow and totally rejected by the majority of Australian people. This Government has always sought to bring about equity to the Australian economic and social systems. In order to bring about greater fairness, the Government is going to ensure that all people pay their fair share of tax and take from the system only those benefits to which they are truly entitled. During my 3 1/2 years as a member of this Parliament, and certainly well before, like most members here I have heard of countless cases of blatant abuse of the social security and taxation systems. As a result of these revelations people are becoming increasingly angry at the apparent inability of different government departments to recognise and combat these cheaters and their crimes. Increasingly I became aware that the abuses were not solely the fault of the departments; the departments were simply unable to attack abuses because of the complex lack of any reliable form of identification. This prompted my decision in April 1985 to put to the Federal Labor Parliamentary Party the national identification card concept. It met with approval from my colleagues in the parliamentary party, from the public more importantly, and from many members of the Opposition. It seemed at the time that the public mood was just right for that proposition to be put forward. But what has happened to the Opposition in the meantime? It seems to have undergone some sort of change of heart. What does the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) now say, because in 1982 he said that he supported identity cards and he suggested that all cards should have a picture and a fingerprint? He said: Some of that information may not be necessary now, but my opinion has not changed. Concern for civil liberties has to be balanced against the level of social security fraud and overpayments. The Deputy Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), on 5 June 1985 said: The proposed national identification system offered dual benefits to the Australian people . . . I will be making representations to the Government strongly supporting this . . . proposal. The very outspoken member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), in his views on the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, said on 8 June 1985: The introduction of a national identification system, using ID cards, offered benefits to the Australian people, which outweighed any civil liberties considerations. He went on: With the Government's White Paper on tax reform recommending the introduction of ID cards, there is now broad bipartisan support for this measure. It should therefore be implemented. What happened to the views of the honourable member for Richmond between 8 June 1985 and now? I would like to hear from him later in this debate as to why he now thinks that there is not any case for bipartisan support for the Australia Card. There is strong support within the entire community because opinion poll after opinion poll supports the Government on this. Interestingly, this support has crossed political boundaries and many Liberal Party and certainly National Party voters support the concept of the ID card. I can just imagine the squirming that is going on in some National Party electorates now as supporters come up to members and say: `What is wrong with you people? Why are you protecting the tax cheats? Why are you protecting the people who are in Australia illegally? Why are you protecting the people who want to abuse the taxation and welfare systems?' I just hope that those members keep on squirming and that the people in those electorates put considerable pressure not only on the National Party members but also, indeed, on its senators as well. Nearly 18 months on from the time I made the suggestion to my Party, and certainly after hundreds of words have been written for and against the Card, it is overwhelmingly a case of very strong support for it. Some time ago the Government was considering a card without a photograph, and it is interesting that support for the Government dropped then. That support dropped because people said that if the Government was going to have a national identification system, they wanted a system that included a photograph as they recognised the need for a high level of integrity if the Government was to attack taxation evasion, welfare abuse and the problems of illegal immigrants in Australia. At the time of the announcement of the Government's position on the report of the Joint Select Committee, the Health Minister said that the Government had opted for the card with a photograph: . . . because it will be the most effective system for helping to restore fairness and equity to the tax and welfare systems while at the same time supporting the protection of individual civil liberties . . . The Committee majority failed to come up with a system which would offer comparable revenue gains to the Australia Card program and as a result has failed to present an option which would deal as effectively with current concerns about the level of abuse against Commonwealth revenues. I believe that the statistics speak for themselves. After being in operation for 10 years, the Australia Card proposal has the capacity to save this nation about $4.7 billion which would otherwise be lost in tax evasion and avoidance and social security fraud. The alternative-the tax file identification system proposed by the majority Committee report and now abandoned, it seems, like most things that the Opposition comes up with from time to time-would provide an estimated net annual saving of about $280m when fully operational and by 1995-96 would save only about $1.6 billion; in other words, about one-third of the total savings that are available through the Australia Card concept. As most honest people and people who approach this with coolness and in rational debate concede, the Australia Card with a photograph will produce far greater benefits to the community than any other alternative that has been put forward. But now, it seems, we have to put up with a crescendo of attacks from the Opposition based on a fear campaign. It has got no policies, so when it has not got any policies it resorts to the scaremongering we have heard from the honourable member for Barker during his contribution this morning and from other members of the Opposition who previously were very gung ho in their support for the Australia Card. It is interesting to recall some comments made in about June last year about the nature of Australian society when the debate on the concept of a national identification system was under way. In the Melbourne Age of 21 June last year Tim Colebatch made these points: The real essentials of a police state are not identity cards. They are a feared anonymous network of secret police and informers, together with the absence of any means of fighting back: a free political opposition, fair and open elections, a free press and an independent judiciary. In other words, he outlined what is quite the opposite of the nature of Australian society at present. Yet we hear emotional trigger words being used all the time in this debate and no doubt over the coming weeks we will hear that same approach used time and time again by the Opposition. For example, there have been claims of Big Brother, of intrusion into people's lives. I refer to the comments by the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) in an interview on 2BS Bathurst last Thursday, 6 November when he made these comments: You're going to have a total record through computers as to where you've been, what you've been paid, where you've spent your money, what you've drawn money for, if you want to give a bit of money to the children, that goes on the computer- He went on: If you . . . decided that you want to buy a new motor car-it's a bit flasher than the last one-you will get that knock on the door saying `Hey there . . . why the devil are you buying a bigger car instead of a little one? Where did you get the money from . . . This is the sort of nonsense and outrageous attack that is being made upon this Government because of its endeavours to do something constructive about tax and welfare fraud in Australia. It seems that the Opposition once more, in place of any realistic assessment of policy, must, as has been its form in recent months, reach for that sort of tactic. I think it is regrettable. I am absolutely confident that there is strong and continuing support for this measure in the community. In fact I propose to test that support. Today I indicate that I am distributing a petition nationally calling on the Senate to approve the legislation. I will ask my parliamentary colleagues to distribute this petition as widely as possible so we will be able to prove to certain sections of the Senate which are now in opposition to the Australia Card concept what the people of Australia really want. I fully accept that senators must make their own decisions based on their own judgment on what is right for Australia and its citizens. I am convinced that in the face of what I hope will be strong public support for this move they will respond. I am very keen to hear from anyone in Australia who may be listening to this important debate this morning. Such people should contact me and members of my Party, who support the concept of the Australia Card, to try also to add pressure to the senators who obviously are going against the will of the people. I do not support in any way the proposition that is being put forward by the Opposition that there is a change of heart in Australia. I certainly have not detected it within my electorate and I am sure that most people here who have bothered to keep touch with their electorate would have come up with the same point of view. I encourage people to participate in this national process of lobbying and lodging a petition for positive support. Far too often petitions are lodged in the Parliament from people who are objecting to a particular measure. I want to reverse that process. So I make an appeal to people. If they feel strongly, as I and many of my colleagues do, about the introduction of the Australia Card, I urge them to join with me in petitioning the Senate to support the case for lifting the taxation burden on honest Australians. I urge them to support the necessary cracking down on welfare fraud in this community because if we do not take action it will mean that the majority of Australian taxpayers who are honest citizens will be exploited. At the heart of the final decision on the introduction of the Australia Card is whether the perceived threats which may occur with the introduction of such a system are so real and threatening that the concept of a national system of identification should be eliminated from further consideration. In conflict with this line of thought is the view that the benefits for the whole community that would occur through savings in public money and the raising of extra revenue through the netting of previously avoided taxation far outweigh any hypothetical threats to privacy and civil liberties. I believe that in the Australia Card we have the best possible solution-to dissuade the dishonest from temptation, to protect the rights of ordinary people and to lead to the maintenance of our health, welfare and taxation systems for the benefit of the entire Australian community. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(11.15) —The Australia Card Bill proposes a fundamental shift in relations between the citizen and the Government. Implicit in this Bill is the principle that the citizen is accountable to the Government rather than the Government being accountable to the people. Privacy is a basic premise in a liberal democracy. It is entrenched in the whole fabric of our democratic rights. It is a vulnerable, fragile and essential freedom. It is the defence against the tyranny of the temporary majority. An overwhelming case-one which has not been presented-would be required to justify the kind of gross intrusions into privacy and personal liberty that this Bill proposes. Privacy is the social presumption of innocence. It is illustrated in the criminal law by the right to be silent, by the rule that the accused is presumed innocent, that the state must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused need prove nothing and need say nothing. In our civil liberties these rights are bedrock. They are not efficient. Criminal trials are not designed to be efficient; they are designed to be just. They are designed to reflect the values that we believe in, the values that have evolved over the centuries. These rights, together with the right of trial by jury, are constantly under challenge. So is the general, the broad-based, right of privacy under challenge by those who would enchain us for our own good. It is always for our own good. They are under threat by the planners, the zealots and the social engineers for whom efficiency-not liberty, not justice-is the goal. It is an irony of human affairs that some of the best intentioned of people can do the worst things. A great American judge said this: Experience should teach us to be most on our guard when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their civil liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. What a superb description of this Government and of the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett). They are men of zeal, well-intentioned-I will give them the benefit of that doubt-but without understanding. Privacy is the first, the main, the predominant and the overwhelming issue; not efficiency, not revenue-important though revenue is. It would be an easy matter to stamp out all tax evasion in this country if we passed the laws needed to achieve that purpose but Australia would not be a country in which any of us would want to live. We have here in this House the most far reaching, anti-democratic and intrusive proposal by the state into the lives of ordinary citizens. We have not had an identity card in this country since the Second World War. We needed one then for obvious reasons. It is now proposed that we need an identity card again. On the ground of liberty alone, on the ground of privacy, this deep breach of our freedoms-the identity card-should be rejected. We on this side of the House have no brief for tax evaders. We stand on principle, not opportunism. Mr Scholes —You are just not going to do anything about it. Mr SPENDER —The Minister for Territories interjected in that unthinking way in which he usually interjects because his mind is constantly in neutral. Had he listened to the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) he would have heard what we are going to do about it. If the Minister had considered what the opportunistic course is he would know that it is for the Opposition to agree to allow the proposal to slide by. Everybody knows that that is the opportunistic course but we have a brief for liberty from the many men, women and organisations that oppose the card. That is a brief that is not shared by the Government or the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), who requires to be told by the polls what he should do before he takes action. Does anyone suggest that the Law Council of Australia, the International Commission of Jurists, the Australian Catholic Welfare Commission, the Federated Clerks Union or the Victorian Teachers Union are friends and supporters of tax evaders? They are not friends or supporters of this card; they oppose it. Does anybody suggest that the concerns expressed by witnesses before the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card such as Mr Frank Costigan of Queens Counsel, His Grace the Right Reverend Michael Challen, Bishop of the Anglican Diocese of Perth or His Honour Mr Justice Kirby, President of the New South Wales Court of Appeal and former Chairman of the Australian Law Reform Commission, a person well known in this House, were not concerns which they deeply, sincerely and forcefully held, and held for very good reasons? Are they tax evaders? Are they tax cheats? Are they friends of the rorters the Treasurer (Mr Keating) is so fond of talking about when he is not himself rorting the system as he travels from his illusory principal place of residence to Canberra? So much for the big lie. Mr Robert Brown —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member for North Sydney made a claim that the Treasurer had been rorting the system in connection with travelling allowance. Mr Porter —Do you deny it? Mr Robert Brown —The honourable member for Barker asks me whether it is denied. It is denied emphatically, Mr Deputy Speaker, as he well knows. Mr Spender —That is not a point of order. Sit him down, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! The honourable member will continue with his point of order. Mr Scholes —On the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: Under the Standing Orders of this Parliament any member who imputes improper-- Mr Robert Brown —Exactly. If he wants to do that he has to do it by way of a substantive motion. Mr Scholes —This gentleman says that that is all right for himself. Mr Robert Brown —The honourable member for North Sydney will do himself and this institution more credit if he not only withdraws that statement, but apologises for the imputation. I appeal to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to require him to withdraw the imputation and to apologise to the Treasurer in the Treasurer's absence. Mr Spender —I have no intention of ever apologising to the Treasurer for anything I say about him. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Charlton will resume his seat. He has made his point of order. The Chair will rule on it. The honourable member for North Sydney has strayed from the debate and has made certain remarks about the Treasurer. In that instance I ask him to withdraw. Mr SPENDER —Very well, I do so. So much for the big lie. But let us remember that the Labor Government has been peddling, and will peddle in the months to come, the big lie about us. It will be to the effect that we support the tax evaders. If it peddles that it had better face the logical consequences of the proposition, that is, that those organisations and those people that I have mentioned must also be said to be the friends and supporters of the tax evaders. Having disposed of the big lie, let me refer to some of the things that this Bill does. It institutionalises the authority of the state over the lives of citizens, because the state will license its citizens. It is nonsense to say that this card will be voluntary, for without it everyday life and everyday transactions are to be denied to Australian citizens. In future, a person will need the licence of the state to conduct those everyday transactions. He must produce this card when he first opens an account with a bank, a building society, a credit union, a co-operative society, a share broker, a futures broker, or a unit, property or cash management trust. He must produce it when he first deposits money with a solicitor or a company-any company at all. He must produce it when he purchases land, gets a job, seeks to establish a right to claim Medicare and social security benefits, when first he seeks to send money overseas or even, once this regime comes into existence, when he seeks to withdraw money from his own bank account, or to get interest from it. Effectively, this card will become an internal passport, so essential will it be to every day transactions. In the words of Mr Justice Kirby: In due course of time carrying the card will be obligatory. And producing it will become a commonplace and, ultimately, in response to some outrage, obligatory. In the space of a few years, an important principle that marks off the intrusion of officialdom into our lives could be demolished. And the intrusion might not just be physical. It might go on behind the scenes-intrusion into the data profile where more and more decisions affecting the subject may be made without the knowledge of the data subject. The other side of this gross loss of freedom is the extraordinary databank of information that will be built up in the Government's computers about its citizens. Under the Act the Government computer databank will hold this information on each cardholder: Surname and given name; any other recognised name; date of birth; sex; current residential and postal address; any title by which the cardholder is known; citizenship; eligibility to receive Medicare benefits; in the case of non-residents, the right to obtain employment; name given at birth, if born in Australia; name on arrival in Australia, if born overseas; any other name used by the cardholder; previous residential and postal address; the nature of documents produced to establish identity; for all card holding Australian citizens, parents' name, place of birth and reference to entry in the register of births. Let us look at the implications of this card for the computer age and for our freedom. Each cardholder will have a unique number. That unique number is to be entered on to a central register. Let me give the House two examples of how it can be used. It can be, and is intended to be, used by various government agencies for identity verification. User agencies, by data matching, by running computer checks of information on the register, could discover in some cases who lives with whom, all in the interests of efficiency. Another example is that, with the establishment of the computerised national births, deaths and marriages registry, information such as family composition, legitimation, adoption, marital status and, in many cases, religious affiliation could be retrieved. Let us not imagine that those details will not be retrieved. The only protection offered is the Data Protection Agency. Severely restricted in its powers, it has no control over the database, the register itself, on a day to day basis. How can it possibly be supposed that an agency with three members, even with hundreds or thousands of staff, could possibly protect the rights of all the millions who would have to be registered, of the hundreds of thousands who would register each year, and the hundreds of thousands who each year would lose their cards? The United Kingdom and the United States have considered and rejected this kind of an identity system. But Sweden has tried it. We know how entranced this Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions are with the Swedish model. Let me remind the House that only a few months ago the head of the Swedish Data Protection Agency resigned after 12 years of service. In resigning, he said: `The Swedes have been more or less stripped to their souls'. Let me conclude with these words from Mr Justice Kirby: Our people (have) become indifferent spectators to or even conspirators in the erosion of their own freedoms. Should we care? Should we who are aware of the long battles for freedom also surrender-acknowledging that some erosion of privacy is inevitable as a product of the new information technology? The fourth commandment teaches us that we should care. And that it is the responsibility of politicians, and those who advise them, to work even in the face of popular indifference or opposition for the preservation of hard-won freedoms. For once they are lost they are rarely regained. We on this side of the House stand with those who uphold freedom. We will wear the calumny of the Government, and we will win this debate with the Australian people, who, when they understand what this card means for their daily lives, will reject it, just as they will reject this Government at the next election. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(11.28) —I strongly support the Australia Card Bill 1986. I have supported the concept of an Australia Card for many months. Of course, I was a member of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia card, which exhaustively examined the options for an Australia Card. I was one of the members of that Committee who produced a minority report which strongly recommended that the Government proceed with its plans to introduce an Australia Card because the Australia Card was, in simple terms, the best and most cost effective way of tackling tax evasion and welfare fraud in Australia. As a member of that Committee, in travelling around Australia it became very apparent to me and to other members of the Committee that the general public was sick and tired of people who continually flaunt and cheat the tax system in Australia. The general public is sick and tired of people who flaunt and cheat the welfare system. It said very strongly and in no uncertain terms to the Government: `Please tackle this issue; please continue your program of ridding this community of tax cheats. Please ensure that the welfare system operates as it is meant to, and that is to assist people who are genuinely needy and not those who, in a criminal way, are able to cheat that system and to cheat the tax system and honest people in Australia'. I want to cover a range of issues today in my contribution to this debate and to speak later particularly about one of the proposed alternatives to the Australia Card-it was originally proposed by the Opposition-which is the so-called tax file number which would see an extension of the tax file system currently operated by the Australian Taxation Office. I will say more about that later. I have to say at the outset that in what I consider to be one of the most important debates that has come before this Parliament, certainly this year and probably in this Thirty-fourth Parliament, I am struck, when looking at the speakers list, at the motley lot of Opposition speakers who are here today to represent the Opposition's point of view. I would have thought that the Opposition would have put up its best team of speakers on this fundamental issue if it had genuine convictions about this issue. However, it has not done that as I see from looking at the speakers list. The Opposition has put up a second eleven team, and the reason for that is very apparent. It is that the Opposition parties are very deeply and seriously divided over this issue. It has tick-tacked and wavered on this issue; it has been all over the place for the last 12 months and now it does not know where it is and it cannot get a reasonable team to speak in the Parliament. I wonder why the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), the shadow Minister for Trade and previously shadow Minister for Social Security is not on the speakers list. The reason he is not on the speakers list is that he has been quite adamant publicly, on the record, as far back as 1982 that he strongly supports the need for an identity card in Australia. So he is not on the Opposition speakers list; he has been shunted off into the backrooms because if he were speaking he would be supporting this eminently sensible proposal which has been put up by the Government. I also wonder where the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), is. He is not speaking in this debate because he has been shunted out to the backroom. He knows that he is on the public record as far back as 1984 and 1985 strongly supporting the need for a national identity card in Australia. I wonder where the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) is in this debate. He said in 1985 that a proposal which tackles tax evasion and welfare fraud has a great deal of merit. I wonder where the shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) is. I would have thought that as shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs he would have an interest in this proposal because of the deep implications that the Australia Card proposal has for illegal immigration. That area touches on both immigration and foreign affairs. I look forward to the contribution by the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), the shadow Minister for Social Security, because he also is on the record as far back as 1985 supporting an Australia Card. Mr Blunt —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member would be well aware, either from hearing it in the House or from reading Hansard, that I made a personal explanation which corrected that position. I request that he show some credibility. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr BRUMBY —A media release issued by the shadow Minister for Social Security, the honourable member for Richmond, on 8 June 1985-all I can do is read it-stated: The introduction of a national identification system using ID cards offered benefits to the Australian people which outweighed any civil liberties considerations. I look forward to his confessional in his contribution in this debate later today about what he really thinks now. We have seen in the last 18 months a real pantomime develop concerning Opposition policies on this important issue. I have said that if we go back 18 months or two years many members on the Opposition benches were not afraid to say publicly that they supported an Australia Card. We then had the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card and at the last moment the Opposition got cold feet on an Australia Card I think for purely political and partisan reasons. It came up with the Mickey Mouse option that it would support the tax file number proposal, and it ran with that policy for a little while. We were able to show this Parliament and publicly-the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) was able to show-that that was just a Mickey Mouse option and that it would not work. Yesterday we had a new policy which was developed by the Opposition. It now seems that the Opposition opposes the Australia Card and apparently it opposes the tax file number proposal. We are left with just a mishmash of policies which it tacked and cobbled together. They do no more than confirm the Opposition's protection which it offers tax cheats and welfare fraud in our community. They confirm that the Opposition on this issue has been self seeking, partisan and motivated purely by the opportunity to try to get to the ballot box and get re-elected in a few years. It is not prepared to take the tough options that Australia really needs. I was astounded yesterday at just how desperate the Opposition has become on this issue. The attack which was made yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition on the senior taxation officer of the Commonwealth, the Commissioner of Taxation, Mr Trevor Boucher, is one of the most astounding that I have ever seen an elected parliamentarian make about a public servant in Australia. All Mr Boucher said, as the senior tax officer of the Commonwealth, was that to improve the effectiveness of the Tax Office, to reduce tax cheating and tax fraud, all we need in Australia in some form was a high identification system. One would have thought that he had said something political or that he had said `vote for the Labor Party' because the venom with which the Leader of the Opposition attacked him was quite astounding. The amazing point is that all Mr Boucher said was no different at all from what many members of the Taxation Office and many deputy commissioners said to the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card only a matter of months ago. They were all unanimous in their view. They made it quite public at the Joint Select Committee hearings that there was no other single measure which any government could contemplate which would so effectively tackle tax evasion and tax fraud as an Australia Card. That is on the record. What astounds me about this venomous and bitter attack on Mr Boucher by the Opposition is that on page 27 of the report of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card-all members of the Committee are speaking, including Opposition members-paragraph 1.38 of the report states: The ATO was of the view that no other single action could be taken that would produce revenue gains of the magnitude estimated as a result of the proposed Australia Card Program. That is what the whole Joint Committee said in its summary. Later in the report the Committee stated: The Committee is unanimous in its view that tax evasion must be tackled as vigorously as possible. It went on to say that the Australia Card proposal has merit and that the Committee believes that every effort must be made to reduce tax evasion. It continued: Overall, the Committee accepts the estimates made by the Australian Taxation Office and notes that they may be a substantial underestimation of final benefits obtainable under the proposal. Government and Opposition members are saying that under the Australia Card proposal revenue gains to the Australian public may well be in excess of $750m per annum. That is what every member, including four Opposition members of that Committee said. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition made an outrageous attack on the senior tax officer of the land. I wonder what people in the media thought about the Opposition's actions yesterday. I wish to read from two editorials. It is rare in the Federal Parliament that we see editorials which are written so powerfully and so strongly. The first paragraph in the editorial in the Australian, under the headline `Opposition flounders around aimlessly', stated: The Federal Opposition is looking like an opportunistic rabble. It is looking less and less like an alternative government. It goes on: The decision to oppose the introduction of the Australia Card straight after having been so forthright on the fact that a Coalition government would abolish the fringe benefits tax makes the Opposition look like the tax avoiders' party. Might I say, in all deference to the Australian, that I do not think it makes the Opposition look like a tax avoiders party-it confirms in the mind of the Australian public that it is the tax avoiders party. The Sydney Morning Herald editorial-and it is not often that we get editorials like this-contained another wonderful headline which read `Howard: too clever by half?' Towards the end of that editorial, the Sydney Morning Herald says: The Taxation Office believes the savings-- for the Australia Card- easily could be 75 per cent above the official estimate. Similarly, it should be pretty easy to demonstrate that the Opposition's alternative to the Australia Card would be relatively ineffective. Why, the Government will ask, is the Opposition now so determined to block a measure that would crack down on tax and welfare cheats? The final sentence is: Mr Howard might find that people don't believe his answer. Dare I suggest that that is a pretty perceptive editorial by the Sydney Morning Herald. I want to make a few points about one of the alternative proposals to the Australia Card-the tax file number. The tax file number used to be Opposition policy but I think at the moment it is on about policy No. 4. It has dumped this one. However, I want to make a few points about problems with this alternative. As I have said, I was a member of the Joint Select Committee which looked at this matter exhaustively. The first problem we found with the tax file number proposal was that the Australian Taxation Office itself readily admits that within the tax file number system there are many, many thousands of false identities. I think people need to understand, particularly Opposition members, that the tax file number was never intended to be a unique identification number. It is simply a processing number. So the tax file numbers at the Tax Office are full of false identities. The second problem with the tax file number approach is that the lack of documentation, whether secure or otherwise, effectively removes from users the ability to ensure that the number presented is the rightful number of the bearer. Indeed, one can come up with some laughable situations under the tax file number approach. For instance, somebody wanting to open a bank account might walk up to the counter, pull a little piece of paper out of his pocket that says: `My name is John Smith and I have a tax file number of so and so'. In such a case the bank teller would have to ring the Tax Office on a computer hotline and say: `I have a John Smith here who says his tax file number is so and so. Can you confirm that that number relates to that individual?' It may be that even then that number is not even right because one would not know whether the person carrying the card is actually John Smith. So the tax file number system would not work. I think the third point about the tax file number proposal is that people could continue, of course, to evade tax by working in second jobs and using false names. We have no objection to people taking second or third jobs. However, we ask that they pay their tax when they do so. Of course, the problem with the system at the moment is that there is no way of ensuring that rightful tax is paid. The fourth problem with the tax file number is that it would be necessary to issue numbers by letter and there are, of course, some problems with that. Those problems are not insurmountable but when we take into account that it was proposed that the tax file number would also operate through social security offices, one can see that there are serious problems with that proposal. I think the most important point about the flaws in the tax file number proposal is that to verify a person's tax file number-that is, if we are talking about a tax file number with any authenticity-it would be necessary to undertake the same identity verification procedures as are proposed for the Australia Card. If we are going to do that, the cost of establishing such a system would be identical. That being so, why not make sure we have the system right in the first place-that is, introduce an Australia Card which we all know will work? I think I need to stress one final point about the tax file number proposal. Any identity system designed to combat tax evasion and welfare and social security fraud needs a rigorous identification and verification procedure if it is to be effective. That, of course, takes considerable time, money and effort. We need to have a system that links the document to the procedure and, most importantly, to the person as well to ensure that that time and effort are not wasted. In this respect the tax file number proposal falls down on both counts. I think it is also important to point out that the tax file number falls down on the issue of civil liberties. So the tax file number is not really an alternative to the issue of an Australia Card. We on this side of the House believe very strongly, and I know that many members of the Opposition privately agree, that the Government could take no other single measure which would maximise the benefits to the taxpayer, which would maximise benefits to ordinary honest people operating in the social security system and which is the most unintrusive of any system of civil liberties and privacy. This Government would not be proceeding with any identification system or procedure unless it was totally and absolutely satisfied that the question of civil liberties and privacy had been resolved and adequately catered for. I am firmly of the belief that, with the privacy and the data protection agency provisions of this legislation, we will end up after the introduction of the Australia Card with a community and a society which in fact offers far greater protection to civil liberties and privacy than we have at the moment. It is very conservatively estimated that the taxation and social security benefits of the Australia Card will yield net savings of almost $900m a year-$877m a year. If one takes account of the editorial in the Australian this morning and the advice from the Australian Taxation Office, it is likely that that figure is extremely conservative. It takes no account of back collections or money owed by people who have cheated the system. It takes no account of the inroads that might be made into the cash economy. So we are looking at nearly $900m a year in net benefits to ordinary honest Australians who have been slugged for years because people cheat the system. We will be able to produce those benefits at no cost to civil liberties and with no diminution of personal privacy by using a system that offers maximum benefit for minimal cost. I just want to say to honourable members and to those listening to the broadcast that $900m a year is not a modest amount of money. It is a lot of money-nearly $1 billion-which translates into tax cuts of around $5 a fortnight for every wage and salary earner in Australia. When one thinks of what previous governments have been able to deliver in terms of tax cuts, a tax cut of $5 a fortnight is nothing to be laughed at. It is a significant tax cut. I strongly support this legislation which I know is supported by all members on this side of the House and by many members on the Opposition side of the House who have not got the guts to vote the way their consciences tell them. It is strongly supported by the Australian community. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(11.49) —It is a great pleasure finally to get the call and the opportunity to speak on what is perhaps the most significant, far reaching and serious piece of legislation ever brought before this Parliament by an Australian government. Perhaps it is also worth considering the circumstances of this debate before I address myself to the very fundamental questions. It is important to note that this debate is subject to the gag, the guillotine. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby), says that this is the most important legislation that we have considered for some time. If that is so, why has his Government chosen to gag it? I also suggest that perhaps there is some significance in the fact that the Government has scheduled this debate on the day on which the trade balance figures are to be released. For the information of the members of this House, the deficit for this month is $1,735 billion and the Government says that the economy is turning around! During the remarks made by the honourable member for Bendigo he deliberately misrepresented my position, saying that at some stage I supported the ID card. It is in fact true that I did last year say that ID cards had some potential. After spending some considerable time learning about the implications of the ID card proposal, I then said that I had changed my mind. Unlike members of the Australian Labor Party, members of this side of the House are able to change their minds. We do not take an oath. We are not locked into a party position and we have the ability to speak our minds. This honourable member would have people believe that every honourable member on that side of the House supports this Government's proposal, but nothing could be further from the truth. In fact their position is one of great compromise. We have a situation where not only do not all the members of the back bench of the Government support this proposal, but some of its most senior Ministers do not support it. We have a situation where Ministers such as the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) and the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen), have all spoken against the ID card proposal that was brought into this place by the Minister at the table, the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett). That has been reported in the Australian Financial Review and in other media throughout Australia. If those Ministers have changed their position I invite them to come in and take part in this debate. The honourable member for Bendigo talked about the names of honourable members on the list of speakers from the Opposition who were partaking in this debate. I ask him to look at his own speaker's list. It contains just the party hacks, just the people under the thumb of the right wing of the Labor Party, the people who put him and his colleagues under their thumbs and made them vote in favour of the ID card. The members of the Labor Party who had studied the facts were prepared to vote against it. I remind the honourable member for Bendigo that a majority of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card voted against the ID card proposal and that the three people who formed the minority report were three members of the Australian Labor Party who are under the thumb of the right wing machine. We all know that the only people on that side of the Parliament who are in favour of it are part of the right wing machine, and they have a preference for a totalitarianism and authoritarian proposals. The Government has gagged this debate and guillotined the time available to it, and for that reason I will restrict my remarks to the area of social security. The Minister for Health has, in his attempt to sell this proposal, been running around Australia talking about the social security benefits of the ID card proposal. I am very pleased that the Minister is at the table because I tell him categorically what the Department of Social Security thinks of the ID card proposal. Then, if he goes anywhere in Australia and talks about the social security benefits of this proposal, we will know him for what he really is. Let me quote part of the evidence given to the Joint Select Committee on the ID card by senior officers of the Department of Social Security. They said: The fact is that in our experience the main problems within the departmental portfolio are not with identity as such, but a failure to notify change of circumstances. Mainly these are what lead to overpayments . . . The overpayments file for the Department shows that-- I draw honourable members' attention to this- 0.6% is attributable to identity and 61% is due to income variations. The Minister has spent some considerable time talking about how the ID card is going to stop social security fraud and overpayment. Well, only 0.6 per cent is related to false identity and 61 per cent is related to income variations. I ask the Minister to remember that next time he is speaking in a public forum about the benefits of the ID card to the social security system. The Government has not stepped away from the submission by the Department of Social Security on the costs and benefits of the ID card proposal to that Department. The costs and benefits to the Department of that proposal are neutral. The costs of implementing the proposal will be matched by the benefits flowing from it. There is no net gain, there is no profit and there is no incentive to introduce the ID card proposal for social security. There is one overwhelming and compelling piece of evidence that this Government seems to be walking away from. If it is really concerned with identity in terms of social security fraud, would it not be a lot simpler positively to identify 2.8 million clients of the Department of Social Security rather than 16 million Australians? Has the Minister considered that? No, he has not, because quite frankly this Government wants the ID card for other purposes. It has not considered the alternative tax administration arrangements that could be entered into. Yet it is prepared to go down the ID card course without a serious debate about the alternative options available to it. The real problem we have had with social security in this country, and the real reason why the Australian people are fed up with fraud is, that this Government has literally opened the floodgates. Since coming to office it has invited just about everybody in Australia and from overseas to apply for benefits. We have seen reports in overseas newspapers about the generosity of, and the holes in, the Australian social security system which enable people to apply for benefits, which will be made available. This Government has dumped the work test and reduced the number of field officers in the Department. It has not enforced the Commonwealth Employment Service registration and it did not require personal lodgments of the 19B unemployment benefit continuation forms and its recent actions are too little and too late. What we have here is a proposal for an ID card which is, in terms of social security, a quick fix. It has no real signifi-cance to the Department. The officers of the Department know that it is not going to work. In fact, in evidence to the Joint Select Committee the Director of the Benefits Control Branch of the Department said that it is unlikely that the Department of Social Security will use the ID card as a sole proof of identity. That is how much confidence the Department has in the ID card proposal. It is unlikely that it will use it as a sole means of proof of identity. Yet every time the Minister is in public debate he reaches for the social security argument as a justification for the ID card. Having considered and I hope heard what I have said, about the evidence given by officers of the Department of Social Security to the inquiry, I hope that next time the Minister speaks about the ID card in public he will be absolutely honest about the benefits that will flow to the Department of Social Security from the ID card proposal, and of course those benefits are nil. That is what the submission says: The benefits will be matched by the costs of introducing it. It is about time that the Government and for that matter, the media in Australia recognise the sheer facts of that argument. There are no net benefits to the Department of Social Security from the ID card proposal. The real problems in the Department of Social Security are attributable to the slack management and the poor administration of this Government and the Minister responsible at this particular time. It is because of the philosophy of this Government to social security that we have problems and the ID card is not going to solve those problems at all. It is also important to consider some of the other implications of this card. Some people argue that it will be of benefit in terms of controlling organised crime. The Australian Federal Police, in its submission to the Joint Select Committee, stated: The AFP add, however, that there are no realistic grounds for anticipating any impact on the level of organised crime generally. That is from the ID card proposal. It is also important to consider the views of Frank Costigan, QC. I am sure that most people remember who Frank Costigan, QC, is. He has perhaps done more than any other person in Australia to come to grips with organised crime. Mr Costigan said: There is no doubt that the introduction of an Australia Card of the kind contemplated by the submissions that I have read is a significant intrusion into individual privacy. I have no doubt at all about that . . . I have formed a judgment about it, and I am very strongly opposed to the introduction of an Australia Card. I think the benefits that might flow from it are to some extent illusory, certainly speculative, and can be achieved by other means. That raises the point about the accuracy of the Government's estimates for tax savings and the costs of introducing the card. When the original submission was made by the Government to the Joint Select Committee the proposed estimated cost for introducing the ID card was in the order of $1 billion. Some questions were asked about that estimate of cost. The Government went away, got out its pencils and calculators again and redid the calculations. It came back fairly quickly, maybe a week later, with a revised estimate which was 30 per cent less-it had suddenly dropped to $733m, I think from memory. It was a variation of 30 per cent in a week or so. That raises to my mind questions of the accuracy of the whole exercise. If the Government's costing can vary by 30 per cent simply on the basis of a few fairly superficial questions made by members of the Committee early in the examination, I wonder how much serious thought and work went into the estimate of the cost overall. In the course of questioning officers of various government departments giving evidence to the Joint Select Committee, it was revealed by nearly all officers that the figures they presented in their submissions were at best guesstimates. Some officers were sufficiently honest to say that it was really crystal ball gazing. On the basis of crystal ball gazing and of guesstimates we are about to spend the best part of a billion dollars. We are about to employ 2,100 public servants and about to irrevocably change the nature of the Australian society. I wonder how serious this Government expects itself to be taken if that is the quality of the paperwork it does before bringing this sort of proposal into the Parliament. This idea is half-baked. It came up as part of the National Taxation Summit. I think the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) at one stage said: `I am very impressed with the work my departmental officers have done in getting the brochure ready in a hurry'. In other words, it was put together overnight on immense amounts of overtime. One cannot get one of those brochures any more. The proposal went to a joint select committee and the majority of that Committee rejected the proposal. The report of that Committee came into the Parliament late one night and we had about 40 minutes worth of discussion. Now that the Bill is before the Parliament it is subject to a guillotine and a gag. The honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) told us that it is one of the most significant pieces of legislation and that we will have a major debate. Yet it is gagged. The Minister in debate with me yesterday on radio station 6PR in Perth said: `We have had massive public debate about this'. It had not even been into the Parliament at that stage. He knew full well that the Leader of the House (Mr Young) intended to apply a guillotine to the debate. I wonder how sincere this Government really is in having a debate. Why does it not have a conscience vote on this matter to see how many of its people will end up over here. That would be the real test. Dr Blewett —We know you have no conscience. Mr BLUNT —I wonder whether the Minister himself has a conscience; I happen to know some of his views on this card. I wonder whether the Ministers who spoke out against the photograph on this card, who spoke out against the proposal, are prepared to come over here to vote with us. I wonder what their consciences say. Other honourable members have come into the chamber and I am well aware of their views. I respect their principles for speaking out on a matter of great significance. His Honour Mr Justice Kirby has said on this proposal: What is at stake is nothing less than the nature of our society and the power and the authority of the State in relation to the individual. Anybody who has read the Australia Card Bill, anybody who has read the implications that that has for the Australian people, will understand exactly what Mr Justice Kirby is talking about. The Government has been very clever in drafting this legislation and in putting at the very front of it the words: `There is no compulsion to carry the card'. But if people read what the card is needed for they will not leave home without it. People will need to carry it in their top pocket because they will need it every time they have to go into a bank, buy something, open an account or conduct a transaction with a broker. It is not good enough to post it as one has to appear in person to ensure that the photograph matches. If the Government really understood what it was asking the Australian people to do, I doubt whether many members on the Government benches would go ahead with this proposal. The trouble is that in Caucus the heavies of the right wing of the Labor Party say: `We will have it, we will go ahead with it, we need the ID card, and that is it'. The rest of them have knuckled under, sold their principles and will somehow have to live with their consciences. The Government will go ahead with this proposal. Australians will not wear it. It is just like the fringe benefits tax and the Australian Bill of Rights Bill rolled into one. There are immense unintended consequences. The Bill is silent on most of the significant aspects of the administration of it. The Minister will find it increasingly difficult to answer some of the questions that will be put to him from time to time about how this Act will actually run. Yesterday, in answering questions, the Minister said: `I don't know. I will have to work that out'. We will be hearing that answer from the Minister a number of times because the Government has not thought the proposal through and it does not know how it will make it work. When Australians realise exactly what it will mean to the way they live, to the way they conduct their business and to the way their families operate they will reject the proposal and reject the Government that introduced it. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(12.05) —I have wondered on occasions whether members of the Opposition were actually dealing with the same legislation with which we believe we are dealing at present. Some quite outlandish and outrageous claims have been made in connection with this question. The honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), who just finished speaking, suggested that the Government was pushing the legislation through. I remind everyone in this Parliament that no less than 24 members of the Opposition are scheduled to speak in this debate. The honourable member for Richmond is on record as having said on 8 June this year in a media release: The introduction of a national identification system, using ID cards, offered benefits to the Australian people, which outweighed any civil liberties considerations. Mr Blunt —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member for Charlton is misrepresenting me. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —There is no point of order. Mr ROBERT BROWN —If Opposition members attempt to take my time I request that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, call them to order. In the Opposition's Press release on the Australia Card of 11 November, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) claimed that the Australia Card program would cost the business community $2 billion over the next 10 years. The honourable member for Barker repeated this assertion in his speech on the second reading of the Australia Card Bill today. He purported to rely on an Australian Financial Review report that the Director of the Business Regulation Review Unit had said that the cost to business would be twice that incurred by the Government. The honourable member for Barker claimed quite erroneously that the cost to Government is $1 billion and therefore the cost to business would be $2 billion. This figure is completely fanciful. First, the cost to Government in any case is only $759m over 10 years. The revenue expected is $4.7 billion in that same period. Secondly, and more importantly, the Director of the Business Regulation Review Unit denied in a letter to the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, that he had made the remarks as reported in the Australian Financial Review. In fact, he had said that there is no evidence that the Australia Card cost to business would be twice that to Government. Thirdly, the Australian Bankers' Association, which will be the major industry involved in the private sector implementation of the program, has advised the Government that its establishment cost will be up to $60m. After that they estimate that it will cost $4.6m a year to comply with the Australia Card. How can we possibly get a figure of $2 billion from that sort of evidence? I will emphasise the purpose of this whole exercise. The Australia Card program seeks to establish a mechanism for the reliable identification of people within Australia and to use that identification to combat tax evasion, reduce welfare fraud and detect illegal immigrants and visitors who are working without authority. The Australia Card Bill provides for the detailed operation of the program in respect of the Australia Card and the Australia Card Register. Part of this detailed operation of the program involves the creation of a completely new body to be known as the Data Protection Agency. This initiative, together with the enactment of the privacy protection legislation, which is to be debated later this week, means that the civil liberties and the right to uninvaded privacy will be more secure as a result of the adoption of this total package of provisions than they have ever been. The rights, civil liberties and privacy of all Australians, far from being threatened by the proposals, will be positively enhanced by them. The Data Protection Agency will be responsible for ensuring the accuracy and the confidentiality of personal information held in the Australia Card Register. It will investigate any complaints, supervise the operation of the program, publish a record of all Commonwealth data bases which contain personal information and generally monitor and promote the protection of individual privacy. With Australia's population at 16 million, there are more than 8 1/2 million plastic cards which the community has chosen to use because of the credit facilities they provide. Every Australian is covered by a Medicare number and a Medicare Card. Every age pensioner is required to hold at least one card in order to prove identity and to obtain access to benefits and services. What is so special about the rest of us that some people maintain that an identity card for others is in some way inappropriate? Is there a special, undefined and unstated second class citizen status for age pensioners and other groups of people who already hold cards for specific purposes? The concept of the Australia Card is based on one fundamental proposition, that is, that society as a whole, in providing privileges and benefits for its members and in imposing responsibilities, has the absolute right to sufficient information to make possible an objective and reliable identification of those members. The Australia Card is not seeking to do anything which is not already done. It is simply seeking to do it more effectively, more efficiently and more certainly. For taxation purposes, social security purposes and Medicare purposes, people already have to be identified. The Australia Card will simply provide a high integrity, secure and reliable form of identification-something which has never previously existed. There are some quite genuine people in our community who are concerned about the possible invasion of their privacy by the Australia Card Register. Most of these people have been misled by the inane and politically motivated claims of the Opposition. Let me remind those genuine people in the community who hold some reservations that the information on the card will be restricted absolutely to name, photograph, signature, identifying number and expiry date. That information is already on a Visa credit card held by thousands of people in Australia. The information on an American Express card or on a Bankcard is exactly the same, except for the photograph. Let me also remind those genuine people in the community that the Australia Card Register will contain only sufficient information to provide for the positive identification of a person, to prove that a person is who he or she claims to be. That information will simply be name, residential and postal address, date of birth, sex, digitised photo and signature, and verifying information used in establishing an identity. Contrary to the extraordinary claims which have been made, the Register will not contain information about marital status, family composition, religion, employment, medical history, banking or taxation records or anything else other than that basic or fundamental information which is necessary to prove the identity of a person. Let me ask those genuine people in the community how they would feel if a government agency or a public sector authority were to be established to collect and hold the following information about them as Australian residents: Their name and address and a personal identifying number, their age, a full history of addresses where they have lived, the people with whom they have lived, the various occupations they have followed, the names of all who have employed them, how much they paid them, whether they have changed their name, the name of their spouse, whether they are married or divorced or widowed, whether they are living away from their spouse, the names and ages of their children, whether their children live with them, whether their children go to State or private schools, the details of any previous pre-nuptial or ex-nuptial children, whether they are unmarried parents, any periods of unemployment or sickness, what social welfare payments they have received, the names of trusts and partnerships of which they are members, the names of any companies of which they are directors and any remuneration they receive, the details of all institutions in which they hold funds, the identity of companies in which they hold shares, any life assurance policies, a description of all property owned by them, when it was acquired and when it was sold, its purchase price, its sale price, any profit made on its sale, any interest held in any property or business outside Australia, the location of the property, a description of it, the names and addresses of any companies, trusts or partnerships outside Australia in which they have an interest, the names of any trade unions, businesses or professional associations of which they are members, the annual membership fees, the names of any organisations and institutions which they have supported financially and, if they have had high medical expenses, the details of all illnesses and treatments, including psychiatric treatment. Most people will have realised that I have just given a list of all the information which the Australian Taxation Office already holds. So, let us not have any nonsense about questions of privacy invasion. The Taxation Office already holds that information. To that information we can add all of the details held by other government departments, agencies, banks, finance companies, credit rating firms and hundreds of other types of institutions, authorities, agencies and businesses. When the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card was taking evidence from senior officers of the Australian Taxation Office in Canberra on 24 February this year, I asked Mr J. P. McDermott, Second Commissioner of the Australian Taxation Office, whether details of the kind I have just listed were already held by the Tax Office in personal tax records. He confirmed, of course, that they were. I then asked: `Has there ever been any suggestion that the secrecy provisions which exist within the tax legislation have proved to be inadequate to protect the privacy of taxpayers as far as information of that kind is concerned?'. Mr McDermott replied: `Not to my knowledge'. I have also made inquiries as to whether there has ever been any suggestion of a breach of the privacy provisions covering the detailed and personal information which is collected about every one of us in every national census. The answer is no. Why then should anyone believe or claim that the secrecy, privacy and confidentiality provisions of this legislation will prove to be less adequate? Let us be perfectly clear about the safeguards of civil liberties and privacy contained in this legislation. The uses of the card will be strictly defined in the law. It will be an offence for the card to be requested by private sector bodies, State governments, law enforcement agencies or other bodies for which no specific provision is made in the legislation. The collection and use of the information held in the Australia Card Register, minimal as that information will be, will be carefully monitored by the new Data Protection Agency. That information will be accessed only by the Australian Taxation Office, the Department of Social Security and the Health Insurance Commission, and only for the purpose of proving an identification. If any individual is ever concerned about what information is contained in the Register, he or she will have the absolute right of access, free of charge, to his or her own information at least once a year. Not even State or Federal police will have access to the information, minimal as it is, on the Australia Card Register. When the Select Committee on an Australia Card took evidence in Brisbane from a Ms J. Byrne, Director of the Queensland Council of Social Service, I raised with that lady the issue of the contrast between the rather esoteric concern of some materially comfortable members of the middle class about any minimal invasion of their privacy and any minimal infringement of their civil liberties and the civil liberties of the more deprived members of the community. Because of the major revenue benefit of the Australia Card proposal and the increased financial capacity it will give to government to assist our more disadvantaged citizens, Ms Byrne's answer deserves repeating. It helps to place some of these issues in perspective. Ms Byrne said: I meant to make the point when I started that civil liberties are very much the province of the middle class. When you have to start thinking about where the food is coming from for the next week you really do not have that liberty to think about those sorts of esoteric things. In theory we all ought to have the same civil liberties, but I think one of the major civil liberties is the right to be able to feed your kids, to see that your kids have the same education as the people down the road and to see that they have access to the same health and welfare services as everybody else. I think there are a couple of million Australians who are having their civil liberties grossly invaded because they do not have the same standard of living as the rest of the population. We are talking about some 2.75 million people in this country living below the poverty line; 750,000 of them being children. That is a gross invasion of civil liberties as well. We might compare Australia with other Western democracies in their approaches to personal identification. National identification systems involving an identification card have been adopted by France, Denmark, West Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Belgium and Israel. Sweden has a national identification system which involves a personal identifying number. It is interesting that in both the United States and Canada, although no national ID system has been adopted, the need for some reliable form of personal identification has resulted in their social security number system becoming a de facto system. Such a development is fraught with danger. Any de facto system necessarily is of low integrity. It establishes a positive threat to the civil liberties of citizens because of the potential for impersonation. The advantage of our approach is that we have designed a coherent, safe and reliable total package which has all the necessary safeguards built into the system right from the start. We need to be perfectly clear that, unless we establish a national ID system of our design and with deliberate and adequate protections for privacy and civil liberties, the need for personal identification will see the adoption of some de facto, second rate system which contains no such safeguards. Not only senior officers of the Taxation Office but practically every tax consultant, academic, financial adviser and professional organisation which gave evidence to the inquiry confirmed that there is no other single initiative which the Government could take which would be so effective and efficient in overcoming tax evasion and social security fraud as would be this package which is proposed by the Government. The added benefit is that no other approach will be more responsive to and protective of civil liberties and the right to privacy. The reputation of the Opposition and its credibility on tax matters have been shot to pieces. The Liberal Party and the National Party have vigorously opposed every effort by the Hawke Government to lift out of the taxation system all of the rorts, ramps and abuses that have become entrenched and institutionalised in the system as a result of their incapacity and unwillingness to act. The Australian people have now said: `Enough is enough'. They expect their national government to put in place a system to ensure that everyone in the community will make a contribution to the national resources in accordance with his or her capacity and that no member of the community will draw from those resources any more than he or she is entitled to. Without a system which provides a safe and secure means of identification the achievement of those great national objectives will be flawed seriously. Never before in the history of this Commonwealth has any government held out such a promise of hope to the Australian people that at last a major assault will be launched against those twin abuses of tax evasion and social security fraud. Never before has any Opposition held out such a threat of betrayal of the people and at the same time held out a promise of hope to the greedy, the avaricious, the tax evaders and the defrauders of the social security system. This system will be supported by the people. They have indicated that support. They know the intentions of the Government. They applaud the Government's initiative in trying to restore to this system the sort of equity they expect their nation and their community to have. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(12.25) —The Opposition opposes this costly, bureaucratic and ineffective proposal for an identity card because it will not work. We are prepared to oppose even misguided public opinion to defeat this wasteful and intrusive proposal. Anybody who says that that is political grandstanding is a fool. When as a political party one takes on the Australian people it cannot be said that that is using one's political wits for political benefit. I am not a tax dodger. I have pursued tax dodgers, as the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) knows. I have pursued tax dodgers in this Parliament such as the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins). Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will withdraw that remark. Mr TUCKEY —I withdraw. But I have pursued tax dodgers; so it is no good telling me that I am a supporter of tax dodgers. The Australia Card Bill is a tax Bill. It was interesting to see the Treasurer (Mr Keating) yesterday defending the Commissioner of Taxation. One might wonder what will happen shortly in the Government's ranks. Is the assistant to the Treasurer to be removed? Will we have a new tax man? This legislation is a tax Bill to ensure that all holders of small savings accounts are taxed on the interest that accrues. I guess that that is the law. But honourable members should not think that it will catch the many people who have big savings accounts, particularly if they are in the corporate area, because they are covered by other laws. It will catch the little bankers, the little people, the pay as you earn people who tend to put in their group certificates. I am not saying that that is wrong but I am just telling honourable members and those who are listening who will be caught by this legislation. This is a tax Bill to ensure that low income families just referred to by the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown), the people who worry about where the next feed will come from for their kids, of whom one family member seeks casual household employment, pay tax. We know that today many such people do not pay tax on that employment. We know that a number of them get social security benefits as well. Perhaps they need it to make up the difference and feed their children, as the honour- able member for Charlton who is now leaving demands-we would all worry about that. We know that that is not right under the law-they are not the tax dodgers. The reality is that those people will be caught by this legislation-the Government's tax legislation. Contrary to popular opinion, this is not a Bill to catch dole cheats or people who defraud the welfare system, as object number two of the legislation claims. When we look at all the reporting procedures, all those clauses from 40 through to 49, which impose huge financial penalties of $20,000 on various people in business and various employers who record and report details from the identity card, we see that none of those reports go to the Department of Social Security. The Minister knows that. They go to the Tax Commissioner because the Government wants more money. That is okay. There is nothing wrong with it wanting to raise taxes. That is an argument that those opposite must have with the electorate. But they should not say in here and to the people who are deeply and intensely concerned about welfare fraud that this measure will deal with it. It will not. I give a simple example. Clause 49 says: Where, on or after the first relevant day, a person is to become an employee of an employer, the employer shall- (a) require, in respect of that employment, the production of a current Card of the person; and (b) if the requirement is complied with-record, in respect of that employment, the first-mentioned person's Australia Card number. But what is the employer told to do with it? He has to attach a message to the group certificate and send it off to the Commissioner of Taxation. If he employs a person in July, when does he send off the group certificate? He sends it off the following July. If he employs a person who does not pay tax-a person who has part time or casual employment-that person is gone by the time the group certificate is sent in, so how does the Department of Social Security discover that that person is also receiving an unemployment benefit? The Minister might tell us that, because the Department of Social Security could ring up the Taxation Office but it would not have that information as it would not have the group certificate. When the Minister discovers that unintended consequence, will he then force employers to send off the details to the Department of Social Security the day after a person commences employment? Because if that does not happen, the card will not work in that area of his objects, which I think is clause 3 (a) (i), and it will not address social security fraud. How in the heck does the Minister expect to obtain information from the card that a supporting mother who gives her name as Brown, and it is Brown, is actually living with someone who is able to support her and her children instead of the taxpayers supporting her? Perhaps the Minister can tell us how the card is going to tell us that? The card will not address social security fraud or other great concerns in our community in that area. It would not be as effective as, for instance, the requirement for all persons in receipt of social security and unemployment benefits to present themselves for community work. A person can forge a card but it is pretty difficult for a person to forge himself. Now that there are a few members of the Minister's Party in the chamber-those who claim to represent low income earners-let me remind them that it is the PAYE salary earners who frequently do not declare their savings bank interest. It is the people who have small accounts who do not declare their interest and it is people on low incomes who, for instance, go out and do household work who frequently do not declare income and do not pay tax. This card will certainly catch up with them. I am sure those people will be grateful to the Government if it succeeds! They will be very unhappy about the additional financial burdens placed upon them. I am not suggesting that they should not be taxed. I have demonstrated time and again that I will pursue tax avoiders even in this Parliament, but the reality is that it is those people, the constituents of honourable members opposite, this card will get. This card will also get another disadvantaged group of people who are basically innocent of any offence. I go back to clauses 40 to 49 of this proposed Act. Section 138 of the social security legislation simply says that if a person gives fraudulent information to gain a social security benefit-if a person tells lies to get a social security benefit-that person can be fined a maximum of $2,000. But under clause 49 a person who takes on an employee in some rural area may be told: `Look, I need the job. You want someone to work for you but my card is back in the city. I will get my mum to post it up, but can I start now?'. If the employer agrees and fails to record that detail, the fine for that is a maximum of $20,000. In other words, a person can fraudulently get the dole and be fined a maximum of $2,000, but an employer-I include as an employer the householder who for years has given a day's work to some woman from a disadvantaged family-under this legislation can be confronted with a fine of $20,000 for failing to sight the card. Real estate agents who transact rental business will also be fined $20,000 if they fail to sight the card. It is too bad if their client lives in another State or lives out in the country. Under this legislation they are obliged to refuse point blank to accept that business until the client can come down to the city and present the card and say: `Here I am'. Dr Blewett —You need to read the legislation. Mr TUCKEY —They only have to do it once. I have read the legislation. You can deny that, Minister, and you can deny that the Treasurer got $70,000 fraudulently. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr TUCKEY —Nobody is taking a point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member to resume his seat. I do not want any cross talk. The honourable member will address the Chair in his future remarks. Mr TUCKEY —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I ask that the Minister not interject. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister will refrain from making comments. Mr TUCKEY —Thank you for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker. The reality is that, in terms of the rules of this Parliament, the Minister is acting very much like his legislation-the second person in the event gets the biggest fine. That is what this legislation is about. Let us hear some of the other problems. A farmer will be obliged to go to his produce merchant and on his first visit hold up his card and say: `Here I am; this is me and I want to open an account so that I can sell you a truckload of oats'. That may consequently delay his getting paid. There is plenty of evidence around Australia at the moment that there are a lot of disadvantaged people out there who cannot pay their grocery bills. I heard a commentator on the radio the other day say that he observed a farmer's wife who tried to pay for her trolley of groceries in a farming area with a cheque, which was not accepted, and because she only had $10 with her she had to go through the process of packing the groceries back on the shelves. These people need that money when they sell their oats. They can pay tax on the proceeds but they now have this added problem of having to present a card. If that is the way the Government wants to run this country it can do so. In a political sense, it is a pity that we do not let the Government do that and suffer the consequences. The Government is pretty smart about that too because the consequences are going to arrive after the next election. It is our job to tell Australians about these matters. We know that large numbers of Caucus members have similar concerns and that honourable members opposite are not united on this issue. The Government should not accuse us of not being united, as we are. We have taken the tough political decision because it is our job to tell the community that this proposal is very costly and will not work. The cards can be forged. If an employer accepts a forged card not knowing that it is forged-he may not have one of those fancy electronic machines in his small milk bar or other business-and later on when the employee disappears and the employer is confronted by an officer and is told that he recorded the wrong number, who is at fault? Is he at fault and is he to be fined the $20,000 that this legislation demands? Even if the Government catches up with the person who has disappeared, he will probably deny having ever presented a forged card. If honourable members opposite say that cards cannot be forged, I can inform them that my mother used a Visa card-which has a fairly high degree of integrity-in a transaction in Asia and somebody managed to forge her card from the carbon copies and transact $6,000 worth of purchases in Italy. That happened a year ago. Mr Hollis —Did you pay for it? Mr TUCKEY —No, we did not pay because my mother still had the original card. But this shows how easy it is to forge these cards and who might be the loser. I am not talking about whether my mother lost any money, I am saying that the cards can be forged. The card has no integrity and plenty of evidence was given to the Committee to prove that point. In closing, so that other speakers get the time that they are entitled to-a matter which was ignored entirely by the previous Government speaker-let me say that we oppose the card because it is a bureaucratic nightmare. It will impose huge burdens on small business people who have to keep these records and who are the people who will have to pay the $20,000 fines, not the people who fraudulently gain benefits. It will not address welfare fraud and it is not designed to address welfare fraud. It is a joke to suggest that, because there is no reporting procedure to prevent welfare fraud. The Department of Social Security can go to the Taxation Office and obtain the information months later and perhaps catch some people. But what does the Department then do if it catches a supporting mother who has been defrauding the system? Does it gaol her? She will not have any money. The Government cannot get the money back off her. Reducing her benefit will mean that her kids go a little more hungry. What recourse does the Government have with those sort of people? We need prevention. Some of those people will be frightened by the fines and the possibility of being caught. Many think that they will not be caught. We all know that. That is the basic principle of crime: Everybody who commits a crime believes that he will not be caught. Everybody who drives while drunk believes that he will not have an accident. Such people say: `It will never happen to me'. The Government cannot stop people from committing the offence because it will not have the information on welfare fraud in time; it can only punish them. If that is the Government's intention I will be grateful if Government members stand up to say that that is the Government's intention, but they should not try to tell Australians that they have the answer to welfare fraud; they have not. It is another little tax trick. The Government is entitled to raise taxes. That is what this Bill is about. It was admitted by the Treasurer yesterday. It will tax a lot of little people. The big guys generally do not have savings accounts on which they do not declare the interest; it is more the little people. The big guys are not often in the business of not declaring their wages; it is the little people. Good luck to the Government. Such people are its constituents in most cases. It tells them it represents them. It is going to hurt them and we want the Government to know that. We want to protect them. We would like to have other methods so that they do not have to commit a crime. There are other ways of addressing the problems. Mr Griffiths —What are they? Mr TUCKEY —I have run out of time but they are there and I will take other time-- Mr Griffiths —Well, keep talking. Mr TUCKEY —I have given one. People can be asked to do community work for the dole. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) thinks it is a good idea; the union bosses tell the Government it cannot do it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! It being close to 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 106a. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. Mr PORTER(Barker)(12.42) —I move: That this House- (1) recalls the Government's promise to provide a fair, equitable and efficient health care system; (2) expresses its concern that the introduction of Medicare has led to a shift from private to public health care with public hospitals unable to meet the rapidly growing demand, resulting in growing queues, a fall in public hospital standards, and an erosion of private health care, and (3) condemns the Government for its breach of election undertakings and for its failure to provide reasonable access to public hospitals for the elderly, the poor and the chronically ill. Notice of this motion was given a long time ago, on 22 February this year. Nevertheless it is as more relevant today as than it was then, if not more so. Recently a representative of one of Australia's pensioners associations came to me complaining about the high cost of health under Labor. She was concerned about the growing public hospital crisis and she knew she could no longer be guaranteed a hospital bed when she needed it. Therefore, at great personal cost, she is paying for private health insurance out of her pension. She was worried that the increase in the cost of private health cover as a result Labor's withdrawal of the private hospital subsidy of $140m would mean that she would no longer be able to afford her private health cover. She was worried about what would happen to her if she needed a hospital bed. Her health security is being threatened. I give her case as one example of the hundreds of thousands of elderly who are worried about the declining state of our health services under Medicare. Medicare was introduced with great fanfare. We were promised a better health system but clearly it is now much worse. Labor promised a cheaper health system but we are now paying more for health than ever before. Labor promised a fair and equitable health system and instead it has imposed a two-class system in which only those who can afford private health cover have access to a hospital bed when they need it, and never more so than today. The Hawke Labor Government has broken more promises to the Australian electorate in the health portfolio than in almost any other area. It promised not to increase the Medicare levy but it increased it by 25 per cent. It promised to make private health insurance more affordable but it has pushed up the cost to such an extent that many Australians can no longer afford private cover. It promised to maintain the private hospital bed subsidy. It has scrapped it. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in his policy speech in 1983 promised that under Labor: . . . nine out of 10 Australians will pay less for the health needs of themselves and their families. That must rate as the most expedient and deceitful promise of them all. When the Prime Minister gave that undertaking the average wage earner, after receiving the tax rebate, was paying $9.66 a week for basic private medical and hospital family cover. The same wage earner, having maintained the same cover, is now paying $14.30 a week. In other words, after three years of Medicare the average wage earner is now paying almost 50 per cent more for the same health cover as he had before Medicare was introduced. One would think that, under the Government's Medicare monopoly, personal expenditures for health would be largely protected. Not so-the most recent consumer price index figures shows that under Medicare not only insurance costs but also now personal out of pocket costs are rocketing upwards. Personal expenditure on health services increased over the 12-month period to October by 16.2 per cent, almost double the rate of inflation. Because of the changes made to Medicare in this year's Budget this rapid rate of growth in personal health costs will continue. Changes such as the elimination of the $140m subsidy for private hospitals will, of course, force up the cost of private cover. Increases in the gap payment for doctors will force up personal costs. The removal of some 50 drugs from the pharmaceutical benefits scheme and the increase from $5 to $10 in the maximum patient contribution also will force up personal health costs. In addition the Government, faced with the uncontrollable blow-out in Medicare expenditure, has upped the levy by 25 per cent. All of this will add about another $4 per week to the average family's health costs. That, of course, will nearly wipe out the tax cuts that supposedly that family is going to get after 1 December. These moves have been taken by the Government, not to contain total health costs but simply to shift the burden from the Government to the taxpayer. Under Medicare people are paying more for health and getting less than ever before. The Government's health policy is costing a fortune and is failing to provide the service required. In light of the near shut-down of our public health system the Federal Government must now, immediately, reassess its Medicare policy, for it is Medicare which has forced people out of private hospitals into the grossly overburdened public hospital system. Since the introduction of Medicare the number of people on queues for public hospital treatment has trebled. There are now over 100,000 Australians waiting for a public hospital bed, the longest queues and waiting times being in Sydney and Melbourne. At the same time, in most States there are empty private hospital beds. Public hospital staff is demoralised. Industrial disruption in the public hospital system is at the highest level in living memory. The standard of service has deteriorated and some of the best doctors have been driven out of the public hospital system by this Government. Under the Hawke Government's health policy the nation's public hospital system is an unmitigated disaster. All States are battling the same or similar problems. Our health services are now worse then they ever were before Medicare was introduced. Under Medicare the Federal Government has forced up the price of private health insurance to such an extent that more than 20 per cent of the privately insured have been forced to give up such insurance. Those people now rely on the public hospital system. The result has been public hospital queues. As the Medicare-induced queues have grown, the criteria for admission to hospital have become stricter and now only the very sick gain admission. With fewer elective patients and more patients requiring intensive care, the work load of hospital staff has increased to breaking point. Many nurses have not been prepared to tolerate this additional pressure and have resigned. In the first year of Medicare 10 per cent of public hospital nurses resigned. So much for their vote of confidence in Medicare. There has been a massive increase in the level of industrial action amongst those who have remained. The Government which brought you the first doctors' walk-out has now fomented nurses' bans in three States of this country. Whilst increasing the demand for public hospital beds, the Federal Labor Government and the State Labor governments have reduced funding for public hospitals. This year's Federal Medicare payments for hospital services have been reduced by 5 per cent in real terms. The State Labor governments have also reduced the funding of their public hospital system. On the other hand, the rate of growth in spending on health administration in this year's Hawke Budget is nearly double the rate of growth in funding for the provision of actual services. Even with the growth in the number of health bureaucrats the chaos remains. Today I have been advised that doctors have been informed that the Department's requirements relating to the use of referral forms have been changed. Whilst doctors have adopted the new practice it appears that their patient's claims are being rejected because the Canberra office has not advised the New South Wales Department of Health and the New South Wales Medicare office of the changed arrangements. What chaos! Another example of the chaotic administration which exists is the Government's decision to transfer the School of Tropical Medicine from Sydney to Queensland. The School is supposed to commence operations in Queensland early next year, yet contracts for the reappointment of staff have not been finalised. As a result of the Government's incompetence we now run the risk of losing from Australia some of our top experts, people who are considered world authorities, in tropical medicine. They are just fed up with bureaucratic bungling and are looking at overseas posts. Whilst the bureaucratic Medicare monster is thriving, and the number of bureaucrats and the cost of administration are growing, the level of service delivered has declined. It has declined to such an extent that people are dying while waiting for hospital beds to be provided. Even before the latest rash of hospital ward closures occurred, due to the increase in Medicare related industrial disputes, newspapers were screaming headlines of gloom across the nation. Let us just look at some. In the Sydney Sun, `Shame! No Beds for New Mums'; in the Adelaide Advertiser, ``120 cases a month `turned away' ''-from the Flinders Medical Centre; in the Sydney Morning Herald, `Interstate trip for sick baby'. The accompanying article states: A premature baby with breathing difficulties had to be transferred from Sydney to Melbourne late last week because of a State-wide shortage of staffed neonatal intensive care beds. Again in the Sydney Press, we read, `30,000 wait surgery'. The same situation exists in Melbourne. What is the result for the poor patient? Here is a classic example. The Sydney Morning Herald reports that a Mrs Jervis, an invalid pensioner, has been classified as a priority patient for a Sydney hospital for a total hip replacement but has been on the list since Anzac Day 1985. She is a diabetic. She has spent the past 18 months living on promises that one day soon she would be able to walk. The doctor in charge said that his patient's osteo-arthritis had exacerbated her diabetes, which had led to increased insulin injections being needed. That had prompted an increase in weight which had in turn, affected her osteo-arthritis. The latter had exacerbated her diabetes and so on. She used to be what is described in the report as a really good machinist. That lady was in work. She is now out of work and has been waiting 18 months for a hospital bed which this Government cannot and will not provide. But she may be considered lucky by some. A Sydney Morning Herald report is headed `Boy may die while waiting for operation, surgeon says'. We do not know whether he did die, but we know that some have. A headline in the Canberra Times reads, `Man dies after hospital refuses bed'. This occurred in Canberra, in the Australian Capital Territory, where this Government has total responsibility for the public hospitals. Another headline in the same newspaper reads `ACT shortages killing people'. The accompanying report states: A Canberra doctor says the city's chronic shortage of health services is killing people. The stories behind these headlines make news because we know we deserve better. We remember better times. Individual Australians are spending more on their health services than ever before. The Commonwealth Government is spending more on health than ever before, yet people are more dissatisfied than ever with the care that they are receiving. Queues are longer, people are suffering more, people are dying in the Medicare-generated queues. This Government and this Minister have blood on their hands. The coalition is determined to provide a better health system. Our health policies have been targeted to deal with the high cost of providing health care and to remove those elements of Medicare which have made it such a costly and inflationary program, one that fails to deliver the services promised under it. Personal choice is essential to the successful reform of the Australian health care system. One of the coalition's goals is to encourage individuals to take more responsibility for decisions affecting their own health, with respect not only to their health insurance but especially choices regarding the promotion of better health through nutrition, safety, fitness and healthy lifestyles. As an initial step, we will allow people to opt out of the Medicare program and levy. Those who opt out of Medicare will be required to make provision for their own medical and hospital cover. To enhance the opportunities available to people who opt out of Medicare, regulation of the private health funds will be reduced. The funds, operating in a competitive insurance market, will be encouraged to offer a variety of cover-over and above, of course, basic cover. Individuals and families will be able to choose the level of cover that suits their own needs. We will, therefore, create more genuine competition within the health insurance industry. One of our reasons for providing opportunities for alternative health insurance arrangements is that this will encourage the development of new health care packages which would provide high quality care while keeping costs down. Under Medicare, doctors are paid for treating people when they are sick. Generally, benefits are not payable for preventative medicine or health education undertaken by doctors. Similarly, under Medicare, the longer a patient stays the more a hospital is paid. There is little financial incentive to reduce the length of hospital stays. Such financial incentives obviously push up health costs. We must turn them round. Nearly all Australians currently have more spent on them by the Government for health than they pay by way of the Medicare levy. The Government's Medicare policy of promoting bulk billing, thereby encouraging people to believe that medical services are free, promotes overutilisation rather than rational utilisation. There are significant cost savings to be gained from a healthier population, and the development of insurance arrangements which both encourage doctors to keep people well, rather than just treat them when they are sick, and minimise rather than maximise hospitalisation. The achievement of alternative health insurance arrangements which promote these goals through, perhaps, health maintenance organisation schemes, will result in savings which can be passed on to the individual through lower health insurance premiums. Better health promotion and the related cost containment measures, unless accompanied by appropriate financial incentives for the individual, are doomed to remain in a relative backwater. Under Medicare, where costs are hidden in a bureaucratic mire, there is no hope of achieving such objectives. An ever growing number of people are beginning to assume greater responsibility for their own health care. I do not mean for the financing of that health care-under Medicare they cannot do that-but rather for the quality of their health. The number of joggers and participants in aerobics classes alone is proof of that. Prevention and self-care are playing an ever increasing role in the overall picture of health care. These goals will not be achieved under Medicare. They will be achieved in the innovative private sector. That is why we, the coalition, will allow people to opt out of Medicare. We will allow people to return to private insurance in a competitive, innovative environment. Insurance companies will be able to offer new packages which will have as an objective the goals that I have set out. In this way we will be able to provide higher quality health services when needed. In addition, there will be the prospect of real cost containment. Our objective will not be that which this Government adopts when it runs into financial strife-merely trying to shift some of its burden on to the public. What we want is a better health system, one that provides service when needed and incentives for keeping costs down. All of these objectives are absolutely contrary to the Medicare policy. That is why we will allow people to opt out of Medicare. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Is the motion seconded? Mr McArthur —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Mr CROSS(Brisbane)(1.02) —Mr Deputy Speaker, it is interesting to follow the honour- able member for Barker (Mr Porter) in this debate, because he has outlined some of the problems of the Australian health care system, as he sees them. I would have been much more interested if he had explained how he was going to address some of those problems in the future, given the statement by his Leader, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), in replying to the Budget Speech, that the policy of a coalition Government would be to freeze Budget expenditure for three years. The Leader of the Opposition has also said, of course, that expenditure on social welfare would be cut by three and a half billion dollars. Public health, public hospitals and health insurance are matters in which not only the Commonwealth is involved. Health and public hospitals are basically State matters. The laws under which doctors are registered and hospitals are registered are passed by the States, not the Commonwealth. No one would deny that there are problems in the public hospitals of this country. It is also true that at the moment there is a high level of industrial disputation in those institutions. But for anybody on the opposition side of this chamber to blame those problems on this Government or people on this side of the chamber is an absolute hide. I would like to talk about public hospitals in general and go back first to the Queensland situation. Queensland was the first State to centralise control over its public hospitals. That has meant that Queensland for a long period has had a very cost effective system, without a lot of the duplication in the provision of facilities, including specialist facilities, that occurs in some of the southern States. But these are State matters. In fact, in the early days, the public hospitals were run as charities. The Commonwealth became involved in 1946, when the Chifley Government offered a five shillings per bed day subsidy for free public ward treatment. Five shillings a day was the cost of a public ward bed, at that time. In 1949, I think, that amount went up to seven shillings and sixpence. We had free hospitals throughout Australia. The Menzies Government came to office and after a period brought down the Page health plan, which involved the provision of private health insurance. At that time all assistance for free public ward treatment was withdrawn. In fact, all assistance to public hospitals was withdrawn. The Gair Labor Government of Queensland stood out for a free hospital system and was able, by paying the bills, to retain free hospitals in Queensland, alone amongst the Australian States. Because it was a political issue of some importance in that State, the then Commonwealth Attorney-General, the late Senator Neil O'Sullivan, prevailed on the Menzies Government to restore a payment, which became $2 a day further down the track, to the public hospitals in Queensland. That was the only assistance that those free ward public hospitals received until 1969 or 1970, over a period of 16 years. So the coalition in those days did nothing about the public hospitals in the States. They were, as they are today, almost totally indifferent to the people who are obliged to obtain treatment in the public hospitals. The Whitlam Government, after a fair measure of inquiry, introduced a program called Medibank. Under Medibank, for the first time, a cost-sharing system was put in place. Under it the Commonwealth commenced paying significant amounts of money to the States for the treatment of people in public hospitals. I would like to give some of the figures concerning that increase in expenditure over the years. Under the Fraser Government it peaked at well over $1,000m a year. We recall that Mr Fraser, the former member for Wannon, promised in his 1975 election speech to maintain Medibank. We are all familiar with the fact that he destroyed Medibank in four stages over a period of years. In the final days, as the Fraser Government moved forward and the Medibank cost-sharing arrangements came to an end, the relevant expenditure totalled more than one billion dollars annually. In 1979-80 expenditure totalled $1,119m. In 1980-81 it amounted to $1,273m. Then came the big coalition change to public hospital funding. In 1981-82 expenditure totalled $171m-a most dramatic cut in Commonwealth funding of public hospitals. That low level of funding continued for a period until this Government came to office. Under the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, who is in the chamber today, the level of funding for Medicare has increased from $272m in 1983-84-there was an overlap of $127m from the previous program-to $1,013m, as provided in the Budget for the current year. I think that I have explained the position fairly clearly. If the honourable member for Barker wants to talk about the extent to which there are problems in the public hospital system of this country, he ought to look at the record of coalition governments. It has been one of starving the public hospitals of this nation of any significant level of Commonwealth assistance. It is very clear from what he said that that would be the intention of a future coalition government if, unhappily, one should be elected. I would like briefly to say a couple of things about Medicare. When the honourable member talks about destroying Medicare in the same way as his predecessors destroyed Medibank, when he talks about people given freedom of choice in these matters, he ought to explain what he is going to do with those two million Australians who prior to Medicare either could not afford or for some other reason were not taking part in the private health insurance system. Mr Porter —They will remain covered exactly as they are now. Mr CROSS —Fine; I am interested in that. I well remember that in 1975 his coalition predecessors made similar statements in this Parliament. I lived to see the day when the coalition reneged on those arrangements, removed the taxation concessions and destroyed the system. Mr Donald Cameron —Who is the Labor Party to talk? It promised in 1983 that it would leave tax deductibility and all those things in place. Mr CROSS —We all know that we are living in difficult economic times. The significant thing is that even in the Budget for this difficult year, the Labor Government maintained, and actually increased, its contribution to health. Seven per cent of Budget outlays in the last full Budget year of the coalition Government was spent on health. At present 9.8 per cent is being spent on health. Mr Deputy Speaker, I have undertaken to restrict what I have to say. I hope that I have explained the position. My colleague the honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer) is going to deal with private hospitals, but I would like to rebut totally and completely the suggestion that this Government is responsible for the neglect of public hospitals in this nation over the last generation. The record clearly shows that the neglect has been on the side of the coalition. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(1.12) —I have much pleasure in seconding the motion of the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) and wholeheartedly supporting the sentiments set out therein. In February 1984 the present Hawke Government, with a fanfare of publicity, introducing Medicare, suggesting that it would be fair, that it would be equitable and that it would be efficient. By way of Medicare the Government transferred the private health funds to the public sector. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) has gone to great pains to claim that it made no difference in the method of payment, it made no difference to the bureaucracy, it made no difference to attitudes. All we know is that in 1972, prior to the introduction of Medibank, Australia enjoyed the best health system in the western world. Eighty-five per cent of the population was covered by some form of private insurance. Fifteen per cent of the population had public cover and could get free hospital treatment if they did not have the means to pay a doctor or pay for a hospital bed. Pensioners and other people who wanted that form of treatment were able to get it. The socialist government of 1972 wanted to change the whole system so that the so-called 15 per cent who were disadvantaged would receive a socialised type of medicine and the 85 per cent who had taken out private insurance to cover themselves would equally be brought under such a system of medicine. Of course we know the long saga of Medibank in 1972, 1973, 1974 and 1975. The Fraser Government, during its terms in office, tried to make some changes to this entrenched socialist position. The key issue was that an attitude of mind had been developed; that a nationalised system of medicine had been developed-the very thing that had been a failure in England and in Canada. Many British doctors had moved to Australia to get away from nationalised medicine. In February 1984 we had, of course, a reversion to socialised medicine in its present form. The fundamentals are that Medicare collects the money through another tax-it used to be at the level of one per cent, it is now 1.25 per cent-with the State hospitals providing the services and the Federal Government collecting the money. The other myth that the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) and the Government have been perpetrating is that we have a free medical and hospital system. That is a complete myth. Let us just look at the figures. The Medicare levy in this current Budget year will collect about $1.6 billion. The total cost of health care in Australia, taking in both the State and Federal contributions, is $8.9 billion, or near enough to $9 billion. So we see that the contribution made by individual Australians, through another tax measure by way of Medicare, is $1.6 billion-a very small percentage of the approximately $9 billion figure. Who is making up the rest? It is the Australian taxpayer. Let us make it very clear to the public that the taxpayer of Australia is carrying the major burden of health care. Medicare costs have risen 40 per cent in the last three years. The Minister and the Government cannot deny that. We have seen implemented the socialist view that the system is provided free; that bulk billing is to be the order of the day. The background to bulk billing, of course, is that the Government wants to make all doctors public servants, wants to control their fees, wants to make sure that they conform to government regulations and do not remain private entrepreneurs. It is the hope of this Government and this Minister that in the longer term all doctors will be controlled by the Federal bureaucracy by way of bulk billing. This in turn, of course, leads to the overutilisation of hospitals. Why should the hospitals care? Why should they be worried about the costs? The Federal or State Government will provide the money. There is no incentive to save. The medical profession is encouraged, by way of bulk billing, to seek over-utilisation of services. All of the computer technology that can be provided will not overcome this human problem. The patients themselves have no understanding of the full costs involved in Medicare. They go to hospital and make a number of visits to doctors but have no conception of the final cost to the taxpayer or Medicare of providing these services. Of course the Medicare levy-yet another tax in its true form-has been increased by 25 per cent. Let us look at the procedures under which this whole nationalised health system really works. The Federal Government claims that it has the responsibility for health delivery in Australia. The fact is that the hospitals are run by the States and are now facing budgets that are squeezed at every level. In Victoria, hospital budgets have been cut since 1982. In that State, before the advent of the Cain Labor Government, the hospitals were very efficiently run. Even the Minister, Mr Roper, paid tribute to the presence of a very good hospital system in Victoria. What a big difference we have today with the nurses strike, to which I will refer in a minute. The 38-hour week, which was so readily agreed to by that government, cost Victoria $50m. Hospital administrations were asked to cut back their budgets because the government had agreed to a 38-hour week but they were given no additional money to compensate. When the Health Commission asked hospitals to cut back, all the hospitals could do was reduce the patient's stay by one or two days and reduce the level of care given. I have had a strong personal experience in this regard. I served for 20 years on a hospital committee. Inevitably what hospital committees had to do as a result was reduce their budgets and their allocations. The other fundamental problem that has now arisen in hospital administrations, in Victoria particularly, is that all committees must make application to the State Government for finance. That is their only source of funds. The State Government then makes application to the Federal Government. Thus the people who are the providers of health care find that they are in a bureaucratic, demanding situation, asking for more money with which to run their hospitals. Historically, hospital committees emerged from charitable institutions where people with public-spirited attitudes joined forces to look after the sick and elderly and those who needed treatment. There was also the development of the private health insurance funds, which made contributions to the hospital on behalf of privately insured patients. So hospitals had sources of income and were able to have some control of their budgets. This is no longer the case. Hospital committees that I talk to in Victoria have to make approaches to the Treasurer of that State, who in turn makes approaches to the Federal Government. We know of the problems that exist in the present budgetary context, let alone the problems that have been created by the government in Victoria. In that State the government has allocated extra funds to the head office for administration. The Health Commission itself has expanded its bureaucracy, increasing overhead costs for what is termed running the health system. All that has done has been to reduce patient care. It has not helped the efficiency of the whole operation. Of course, it is very well known that now committees in Victoria are subject to political influence, that the appointment of those hard-working members of local committees is vetted very carefully-for political affiliations. Ms Mayer —What rubbish. Mr McARTHUR —What I say is quite true. I wish now to refer to the nurses' strike in Victoria. This is the fourteenth day of the strike, which is a manifestation of the ills of Medicare given the Victorian health system. The Victorian Health Commission has overspent its budgets on bureaucracies, thus diverting important funds from patient care and nurses' salaries. From discussions that I have had today, it would appear that the nurses have a case in arguing for a revised career structure. However, the Cain Labor Government, in attempting to move too quickly to rearrange the supposed agreed position, has met resistance from most sections of the nursing profession. Historically, the nurses have enjoyed a high professional reputation and have been reluctant to take strike action. At the moment they are trying to act in a responsible manner, keeping essential and critical cases cared for in the hospitals but rejecting all others. I understand that the Royal Australian Nurses Federation negotiated a reasonable agreement some months ago. However, the Government failed to understand its full implications and moved too quickly to implement some of the recommendations. The nurses have a legitimate point of view but have been encouraged, and on some occasions coerced, into an extreme position by their newly elected left wing leader, Mrs Bolger. It is quite clear from her public statements that she has a strong left wing affiliation and takes it- Ms Mayer —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to the terms of the motion, and ask whether the remarks of the honourable member for Corangamite are not diverging from those terms. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The remarks of the honourable member are maintaining relevance, albeit somewhat tenuously. Mr McARTHUR —I would have thought that a strike in Victoria which was in its fourteenth day would be very relevant to the delivery of Medicare, which this Government undertook upon being elected to make more fair, more equitable and cheaper. Yet we have people in Victoria who cannot get into hospitals and cannot receive treatment. Mrs Bolger has strong left wing affiliations and takes advice from such Labor Party notorieties as Bill Hartley and Tom Ryan of the Food Preservers' Union. They have a great reputation for moderation! It is a sad day for nursing in Australia that this band of dedicated and respected workers should now be led by a militant left winger who is using an industrial issue for political ends. The Socialist Left faction has made its position in relation to the Government's handling of the matter in Victoria quite clear. In the Age of 11 November a headline reads `Socialist left slams Government on nurses' dispute'. This makes it very difficult for the Labor Government of Victoria to have a unified approach on this particular issue. A major teaching hospital in the metropolitan area, with whose representatives I spoke today, has been able to maintain about two-third of its beds for emergency cases. It indicates that the staff has been co-operative where possible and that in the longer term the major problem between nurses and hospital administrations will be one of hostility and lack of goodwill. Apart from the buildup in the already long waiting lists, this human management factor may take years to overcome. The Geelong Hospital, which has enjoyed a reputation for excellence and co-operation between patients, staff and administration, has been able to maintain emergency services, but on this very day the nurses have been conducting a secret ballot to determine their future in the work force. Because the Geelong Hospital has managed to develop its own identify and has a reputation for providing excellent care and good training facilities for student nurses, as well as for servicing the Geelong population in a very efficient manner, it has been reluctant to follow the metropolitan lead in closing down total hospital services. In other country areas that I have contacted today, including Colac, the story is much the same-there is a reluctance to go on strike, a preparedness to provide emergency services and a hope that the strike may end. The nursing dispute in Victoria clearly demonstrates the failings of the centralised wage fixing system. The dispute has been prolonged because the arbitration process has been jeopardised by the militancy of the leadership of the Royal Australian Nurses Federation. The coalition will put incentive back into health care for patients, for doctors and for administrators. We will reinstate private health insurance under which patients, doctors and hospitals become aware of the true costs involved. We will allow Australians to opt out of Medicare and to cover their own insurance. The alternative systems that we provide will make for quality care by doctors, by hospitals and by everyone involved. We will encourage the better health program. I commend the Minister for promoting, as was set out in a report released only recently, the view that Australians should be encouraged to look after their own health and not rely on governments. Finally, we will be encouraging State governments and hospitals to become more efficient and to provide incentive to save the health dollar in the hope that over the next decade Australia will enjoy a better standard of health care than they have enjoyed in the last three years. Ms MAYER(Chisholm)(1.26) —We have heard a certain amount of hyperbole, piled on exaggeration, from the two honourable members of the Opposition who had something to say about this matter, the mover and the seconder of the motion. I would just like to get the House back to some facts, which might be of use to honourable members. I think that the picture painted by the honourable members opposite is not a true reflection of the state of our health system; that we would all be very concerned if it were. I would like to pay particular attention to paragraph (2) of the motion and, in the short time that I have available to me, confine myself to it. I need only a short time in which to demonstrate to the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) that as indeed he should know, the premise upon which his motion is based is false and quite demonstrably so. I remind the House that the motion states that the introduction of Medicare has led to a shift from private to public health care which has led to `an erosion of private health care.' Based on this incorrect premise, the honourable member proceeds to condemn the Government. He has made in public similar comments to the effect that the Government's Medicare policy has forced people to give up their private insurance. The facts could not be more to the contrary. The private hospital industry, which I guess is a measure of the health system, is in a very healthy and viable state today. Four points that show this. Let me make them. Since the introduction of Medicare on 1 February 1984 there have been applications to construct and operate almost 6,000 new beds in private hospitals throughout Australia. These have included applications to build 50 completely new hospitals. The number of new beds that have actually been approved for operation has increased at an annual rate of 3.38 per cent since the introduction of Medicare. Bed use in private hospitals is on the increase. The number of bed days has increased from 4.265m in 1984-85 to 4.306m in 1985-86. Mr Porter —Of course it has. They cannot get into public hospitals. The poor pensioners are having to pay twice. Ms MAYER —I will get to the poor pensioners in just a moment, if the honourable member cares to listen. The private hospital industry is in the process of rationalisation, with large corporations and chains being formed to operate groups of hospitals. Along with a number of publicly funded new companies, these organisations are creating a very great interest in the investment potential of private hospitals-so much so that current market prices for a private hospital have been as high as $150,000 a bed. That is a fairly high price to pay for an investment. There are ways, of course, of making that investment pay if you happen to be a doctor who owns a private hospital or has shares in one. I give a simple instance of that: One of my constituents, an elderly lady, injured herself in a fall in the street. She, in fact, gashed a leg. She was treated in the casualty department of my local, exceptionally good, large public hospital. The doctor who treated her thought it might be a good idea for her to have a couple of days rest in hospital to get over the shock. There was not a bed available at that time but the doctor did not take the option of returning the lady to her home in the local, excellent, age care hostel, where the services of the district nursing people, whose charges are extremely low, are also available. Again, an excellent home help service is available in that city. All of that help was available and, as well, the assistance and care of neighbours, not to mention the infrastructure of social and welfare care that was available in the city. Instead, he admitted her to a private hospital in which he owns a large number of shares. That lady had 18 days bed rest in the hospital, at a cost of $4,000. She is a pensioner. That charge of $4,000 is, I think, a scandal. It demonstrates the totally unethical behaviour that some people get up to in making a profit out of a very flourishing private health system. I think that a further factor of interest is that the health insurance organisations, the health funds themselves, are purchasing private hospitals. Many of the major health funds in Australia now own a private hospital or hospitals. They see these arrangements as a way of reducing operating costs while reaping the benefit of the operating profits and investment potential of private hospitals. The terms of the motion indicate that the private health system is being eroded. That is a nonsense. If Medicare was responsible for increased waiting lists it must have resulted from people leaving the private hospital systems to take up their right to free treatment in public hospitals. I would point out that this has not occurred. Figures published in the Department of Health's 1982-83 annual report show the occupancy rate of private hospitals to be 59.9 per cent. For the year ended 30 June 1986 the average occupancy rate was 60.8 per cent. That is, since the introduction of Medicare the occupancy rate in private hospitals has gone up slightly, not down. Medicare has not had a detrimental effect on the financial viability of private hospitals. Nor has the removal of the Commonwealth bed day subsidy affected private hospitals. As the private health funds will increase benefits by the amount of the Commonwealth subsidy, private hospitals will continue to receive the same revenue for all of their insured patients. Special arrangements are being made for those private hospitals which historically have treated large numbers of privately uninsured patients, and whose viability is dependent on the Commonwealth bed day subsidy. As predicted, the removal of the Commonwealth subsidy and the requirement that health funds pay additional benefits has had only a very modest impact on health fund contribution rates. In light of the substantial reserves held by the health insurance industry, most funds have been able to hold the increases to a minimum and have shown a responsible attitude. They have imposed relatively minimal increases for family cover ranging from $2 a week in New South Wales to $2.10 a week in Victoria-in the case of one fund-and $2.60 a week in South Australia, which is rather more than they ought to be charging. There is no question, I think, that the Opposition genuinely hates Medicare. It has often expressed its loathing of a scheme which provides universal health insurance coverage for basic medical costs and offers private health insurance if one wishes to provide oneself with insurance company cover for extra services. I think that two things appal the Opposition. One is the equity of spreading across the community the increasing cost of health services by a percentage of income levy. That is, the greater your income, the more dollars you provide to keep vital community services going. But the percentage is the same, so the effect is the same for everyone-a principle that is abhorred by those who want the poor to be objects of charity for the rich, and perhaps go back to those halcyon days when we had to have a large number of expensive social occasions in order to raise enough money to run a local hospital. That is not a situation to which I think any Australian would wish to return. The second thing that upsets the Opposition is the fact that doctors can choose to discount their services to 85 per cent of the standard rate. That rather does let down the side for those doctors who are pocket rather than patient oriented. Would honourable members not agree? The record of the Opposition on health insurance and health provision is one of bumbling incompetence. Honourable members will remember that we had a new scheme with every Budget and one or two extra in between times, just in case people felt as if they might know what they were doing. The neglect of public hospitals in coalition party government States provides startling evidence of exactly how little these people really cared about major public assets in the health area. The understaffing and under-resourcing of the health benefits, and fraud and overservicing detection apparatus, provided an inefficient service, the inefficiencies of which were all blamed on public servants instead of on the incompetent political decisions of the administration of the time. I would just like to provide another few figures in case honourable members opposite have forgotten them. Under the 1982-83 Budget identified health grants to the States totalled just over $100m. In the 1986-87 Budget the combination of identified health grants and Medicare compensation payments totalled more than $200m. What I am saying is that that is twice as much as the Opposition was able to find. To give another example in my electorate there is a very, very large and excellent public hospital which was built in the 1950s and had nothing, not one single cent, spent on it until the Cain Government provided $6m for the badly needed refurbishing of its theatre suites and kitchens, the provision of proper, up to date accommodation for its patients, and the provision of efficient conditions for the use of nurses. I think that under the previous coalition Government that hospital would not have enjoyed that upgrading in accommodation any more than did our repatriation hospitals. Health care for the people was not something that the Opposition, when in government, was concerned about. Devising schemes and arrangements to make it possible for a minimum number of people to have a maximum amount of service at a maximum amount of profit to a minimum number of doctors was really what the Opposition was about, and that is exactly what happened. Today appropriate services are available. We again have community health centres-something that was very greatly needed. We have all sorts of availabilities. When I hear all these pathetic stories about people who may or may not have had done this or done that, I recall very clearly those I know who have become extremely ill through accident, or as a result of all sorts of sudden emergency and have had no difficulty at all in obtaining appropriate and very skilled treatment exactly on the spot and when needed. Honourable members opposite know as well as I do that the facilities are available and are used. We need to look at what Medicare has brought. It has brought to the population total insurance coverage and as well, for those people who can afford them, a number of optional extras. We have now an efficient system for dealing with payment claims. Most are paid, on an average, in five days instead of three to six months, as was the case under the previous system. We now have a fund of accurate information about patient use of services and doctor use of servicing practices. Most importantly, we have genuine security for the sick individual because now one can have the services that are available when one needs them-except in one respect. I would like to go back to the matter of the nurses for a moment. Anybody who had half an eye could have seen way back in the 1970s that we were going to have considerable problems with nursing services, but nobody wanted to pay attention then. Everybody thought that it was not a bad idea for skilled and highly trained nurses, for whose services great technological demands were being made, to go on being paid and treated little better, if better at all, than were unskilled domestics in some sort of a servile occupation. The fact that nurses have the fundamental skills without which hospitals or doctors' practices would not exist, has finally come home to roost and is being recognised. However, that recognition is very slow in coming. We do not have appropriate medical funding with which to pay the sorts of salaries that are needed. That is a sad commentary on what has gone before in the nursing profession when nurses, who were mostly women, were expected to be dedicated rather than paid, were expected to put up with all kinds of authoritarian treatment and structures within hospitals. In many cases they still are. I hope that the matter will be resolved and that the result will be that nurses will be both paid appropriately and given the respect that their qualifications and skills properly deserve. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(1.40) —Following the honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer) and the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross), one feels that some responses must be made. I refer initially to the comments of the honourable member for Brisbane that the Opposition parties are neglectful in relation to health care. Let me express the view that the Government, as it is today, is not purposefully neglectful of health care. I do not believe that this side of the House, when in Government, has ever been neglectful. It all boils down to a philosophical approach. The Labor Party, a socialist party, sets out to induce more than a passing touch of socialism into its policies. The Liberal-National coalition parties hold the belief that the private sector will best do the job with the assistance of some public sector involvement. What the Labor Party Government seeks to do is to remove almost entirely the private sector from health care, following that tried and failed system of the United Kingdom, in the belief that under a universal system whereby everybody has equal coverage, overall everybody is going to be better off. Recent history shows repeatedly, whether back in the Whitlam years or now in the Hawke Government years, that it just does not work. I must take issue with the honourable member for Chisholm and her comment about the growth of the private hospitals as being an indication of how well the Government-the socialist Government-subscribes to assisting the private sector. The answer to the growth in the private hospitals lies in Medicare itself. It lies in Medicare because people cannot get into the public hospitals. I refer to the southern States, because I come from Queensland where the foundations laid by a State Liberal-National coalition in the past ensure that Queensland manages to continue on its feet. What has happened is that people have given up in the southern States waiting for the public sector to become available and often at great personal cost to themselves are going into private hospitals. The honourable member for Chisholm cited the case of a pensioner being billed for $4,000 because her doctor put her in a private hospital. What she did not say was that there was probably no public bed available for the sick lady. If there is any example of where the Labor Party's health system has fallen down it is that. The realities are that some 20 per cent of people who were previously members of private health funds with coverage to enable them to go into private hospitals if they fell ill have, in fact, abandoned their membership. That greatly increases the number of people who are knocking on the doors of the public hospitals. It is little wonder that queues have reached up to 100,000 people. To conjure up the failure of Labour's Medicare scheme all you have to do is close your eyes and imagine a grand final crowd for the Australian rules football in Melbourne. They are the people who are out there waiting to go into hospital. Yet honourable members opposite have the audacity to come in here and say that their health program has been a roaring success. Let the facts speak for themselves. I am very pleased that the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, is in the House. He is the man who is engineering the Australia Card. I hope people who have an interest in that card and what is being said by him-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! It is now 1.45 p.m. In accordance with Standing Order 109, as amended by sessional order, the debate on the motion is interrupted. Motion (by Dr Blewett) agreed to: That the time for discussion of Notice No. 1, General Business, be extended till 2 p.m. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I am indebted to the Minister for extending to me the opportunity to fairly sail into him. I want to quote some of his statements of 6 September 1983 when he introduced Medicare into this Parliament, just over three years ago. I quote from his second reading speech: Medicare will be substantially self-funding through the one per cent levy. In reality the last Budget increased the levy to one and a quarter per cent in belated acknowledgment that the levy did not really begin to cover the full cost of Medicare. The shortfall between that tax take from the Medicare levy, even at 1.25 per cent, the increased figure, and actual total health outlays will be approximately 2.5, not million, but billion dollars. Even with the increase from one per cent to one and one quarter per cent, the actual cost of socialised medicine out of Consolidated Revenue is still to the tune of $2.5 billion. I quote another of the Minister's illuminating comments at the time: . . . moderating the impact of inflation Medicare will play its part in economic recovery. Medicare will play its part in economic recovery! What a forlorn hope that was, because we heard of the balance of trade today being the highest ever, at $1.7 billion. We have not even turned the corner of economic recovery, and I would suggest that Medicare has contributed to the downturn that this nation has gone through since the Australian Labor Party came to power. I turn to another quote of the Minister: I reject the arguments of those opposite who say providing cover to everyone will encourage overuse of health services. Again what the Minister said was proved to be simply not true. Overuse is prevalent because the Government's promotion of a free Medicare system encourages as much use as people want, if they are up for only the difference between the doctor's fee and the Medicare rebate, or nothing in the case of health card holders. It seems that if you are not having to put a little up out of your own pocket, you do not think twice about going to the doctor. If you have got a splinter in the finger, go to the doctor. Minister, do not sit there with your mouth wide open, because you keep citing the figures of bulk billing. You say: `Is it not marvellous'. Months ago you said that 40 per cent of doctors were bulk billing. The other day you pranced in here and said it is up to 50 per cent. You are smiling, you are happy because this is what you want. You want a complete bulk billing system so that everybody can just wander along without a thought. What the Minister does not understand in his socialistic mind is that the more you give people for nothing, the less people think about what they are taking. That is what is crippling this country, and the Liberal-National Party coalition has always subscribed to a system that the poor and the needy are covered, but those who are able to afford it are encouraged to take their own cover; they make their own contribution, they think about what they are doing, they do not overuse it, and as a result of that, the entire nation is the beneficiary. But the socialist scam is one of winding people up-the splinter in the finger, the splinter in the toe, do not reach for a needle, go and see doctor. That is what the Government has done, because even in the last year the number of services provided by doctors in this country increased by eight per cent. The Government's projection for the year that we are now into is an increase of about 7 per cent. Goody, goody goody, up, up, up; but, Minister, while you sit and clap and smile it is the taxpayers out there who are carrying the burden of the additional cost. You are crippling this nation in your socialistic approach, and this is exactly what happened in Great Britain in terms of the national health scheme introduced there. It is very interesting to see that over in that country the national health program became the sacred cow that nobody would even touch with a stick. Margaret Thatcher has introduced systems which have encouraged employer and employee groups to establish their own private health funds while leaving the national health program in the United Kingdom intact. Suddenly the blue collar worker is finding that he is getting a lot more for his money; he is getting better quality service than the umbrella of socialised health ever provided in that country. At the next election the people of Australia will be able to make their own comparisons, because the shadow Health Minister, the honourable member for Barker, Mr Porter, has it well and truly mapped out. The medical profession has no hesitation in saying that Dr Blewett is not a doctor of medicine; he is a doctor of philosophy, he is not a real doctor. That is what they all say. But here is another of Dr Blewett's quotes from 6 September 1983: One of the Government's major objectives through the Medicare program is having the maximum number of health dollars spent on delivering health services rather than administering them. Out of $100, the Minister wanted to spend $99 on actual health delivery and $1, for instance, on the cost of administering. But it has not turned out like that. This year the total health budget has risen by 4.7 per cent, but administrative and salary costs, for the bureaucrats-you are going to use another 2,200 of the same type of people to introduce the ID card-have increased by 8 per cent. So that gradually but surely, more of the people's money goes to bureaucrats at the expense of the quality of health. This is what it is all about, Dr Blewett. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Moreton will refer to the Minister as such. Mr DONALD CAMERON —Yes, I draw that to the attention of the Minister for Health. But that is exactly what is going on. These are not my figures, they are figures from the Government's own documents. I do not need to fiddle figures when it comes to slaughtering Labor's socialistic health program because it is itself its own slaughterer. I come to the final quote in the five available to me. The Minister for Health on 6 September 1983 said that the Government will be judged on the success or otherwise of Medicare. One has to look only at the waiting list that I referred to earlier-with that vast crowd at a grand final of the Australian rules in Melbourne, sitting out there, waiting to get into a hospital for care. The wait for elective surgery has blown out to as long as three years, to get something done. There is up to a three-year wait in some of the States in Australia, and undoubtedly the nurses' strike will even further compound the waiting time. With the major nursing strikes in three States, queues for elective surgery getting longer by the day, the first ever doctors' strike, fast rising costs, standards of service falling, users of private health insurance funds being squeezed out into the public system by rising insurance fees, is it reasonable for us on this side of the House now to make a judgment of the Minister who said that the Government will be judged on the success or otherwise of Medicare? Medicare has been a costly failure. When the coalition parties came back into office following the Whitlam Government debacle of its first excursion into a form of health care they put things back on the rails. I am quite sure that a restoration after the next election will ensure that it is done once again. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LEE(Dobell)(1.55) —Listening to the previous speaker, the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) and the shadow Minister for Health, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), one would get the impression that the golden age for Australia's health system ended in March 1983 when this Government was elected. The Opposition-the Liberal and National parties-seem to forget that up until 1983, when they controlled the treasury bench, when their health policies were being implemented, more than two million Australians had no health coverage at all. More than two million Australians, many who were disadvantaged and on very low incomes, were unable to obtain the health care which they needed to ensure that the quality of life to which they were entitled was protected. More than two million Australians were not entitled to basic rights which everyone on this side of the House believes they were entitled to. This Government was elected with a policy of introducing a universal health insurance system and I am proud that this Government has introduced the Medicare system, because it provides health care of excellent quality, especially to the disadvantaged and low income earners. It is interesting that the honourable member for Barker, who is in the chamber at the moment, although he is the shadow Minister for Health, as I understand it still has not brought down and revealed the Opposition's health policy. Mr Martin —What else is new? Mr LEE —What else is new, as the honourable member for Macarthur suggests. The Opposition has had four years in opposition and still has not got around to drafting its health policy. So let us hope that if honourable members opposite have another four years in opposition they will get around to drawing up their shadow policy. The Opposition has sought to make cheap political points from the waiting lists of various public hospitals around Australia. Honourable members opposite seem to forget that in my State of New South Wales the greatest increase in the waiting list occurred during the notorious doctors' dispute in 1985, when a large number of public hospital specialists refused to treat patients in public hospitals. I would remind the House that those doctors were supported totally by members of the Opposition, and I believe that therefore they are culpable for the explosion in the waiting lists through their support for that dispute. The honourable member for Barker cited an example of a pensioner coming to see him and expressing concern about the cost of health insurance. I would like to know whether the honourable member for Barker has come across any constituents who are in a similar position to people who have contacted me. I will relate to the House one outrageous example of a pensioner who goes to see a specialist. The specialist advises the pensioner that he or she has a serious illness, which should result in being admitted to a hospital as soon as possible. When the pensioner advises the specialist that he or she does not have private health insurance, the specialist says: `I am sorry; you should go away, get health insurance and come back and see me in a couple of months and we will look at trying to admit you into the local private hospital'. If ever a doctor sought to scare pensioners and make them feel like they have a lot to be concerned about, it is a specialist such as that. Some people say that there are a few doctors who are more concerned about the doctor-dollar relationship than the doctor-patient relationship and specialists who treat pensioners in that way are certainly proving that point. As the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, mentioned earlier this year, the Australian Medical Association made an outrageous decision earlier this year to abandon its long-standing policy of not charging pensioners and the disadvantaged; that is, those people who are issued with pensioner health benefits cards. I believe that if someone is on a low income, receives social security and is issued with a pensioner health benefit card, he should be entitled to free health treatment. In many cases, people on sickness benefits or receiving the invalid pension are in the category of the Australian population who are the sickest and in greatest need of health treatment. The honourable member for Barker also sought to score points out of the increasing personal cost of health to the ordinary Australian. He cited the figure for the 12 months to October that had increased by 16 per cent. It is often forgotten by the honourable member for Barker-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with standing order 104, as amended for this session, the time allotted for precedence to General Business has expired. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Prime Minister to the very subdued reaction of financial markets to today's record monthly current account deficit. Given that the market reaction was clearly based in part on anticipation of a very bad figure and, more importantly, the belief that there will be a dramatic and sustained turnaround in Australia's current account deficit position in the early part of 1987, can the Prime Minister point to any evidence in the current account deficit figures of the past six months or to other economic circumstance which realistically supports the prospect of such a dramatic and sustained turnaround early in 1987? Mr HAWKE —I preface my answer to the Leader of the Opposition by pointing out to the House that the record deficit, to which he has referred, in terms of the percentage of gross domestic product, was achieved under the treasurership of the Leader of the Opposition, when there was a record annual figure of 6 per cent as a proportion of GDP. So in regard to this aspect of economic policy, as is the case with every other aspect, he has no record of substance and no principle. Let me address the facts and the proper interpretation of the figures for October. The outcome for October, which was a deficit of $1.7 billion, is well within the range of the market expectations. Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAWKE —Indeed, the question as framed by the Leader of the Opposition acknowledged that fact. If honourable members opposite are hooting and jeering, they are, understandably, hooting and jeering their own Leader. Of course, as honourable members on this side of the House say, they are doing that all the time. Is it any wonder that a count is going on at this time to see whether the honourable member for Kooyong has the numbers or not. Indeed, I am given to understand that at the latest count taken some time this morning the honourable member for Kooyong is currently within three. Again, it is not surprising that this should be happening because, after all, the poor, unfortunate honourable member for Kooyong was attacked by the honourable member for Bennelong on what grounds? That he had no principle and he had no policies. When the honourable member for Bennelong came to the position of Leader of the Opposition, he put out a glossy pamphlet. `Meet Australia's Next Prime Minister', it said. Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. I know that the rules of relevance are stretched in this place, but you know, I know and everyone here knows that that is not relevant. The Prime Minister should be directed to answer the question relevantly, and he should do so. Madam SPEAKER —The Prime Minister will be relevant to the question before the Chair. Mr HAWKE —Indeed I will, Madam Speaker, because I am referring to the person who asked the question. To establish that which distinguished him from the honourable member for Kooyong, in his little advertising pamphlet-- Madam SPEAKER —I suggest to the Prime Minister that he come back to the question before the Chair. Mr HAWKE —Yes, I am coming back to it, Madam Speaker. Mr Porter —Do not defy the Chair. Mr HAWKE —I am not defying the Chair. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for Barker will cease interjecting. Mr HAWKE —Having introduced the question of the Leader of the Opposition and his integrity, direction and experience, I will no doubt have a further opportunity to refer to those issues when he asks me another question-which I look forward to. Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAWKE —Look at honourable members opposite. They are a beautiful sight to behold. They should not get so upset; they will be rid of him soon. As I said, and as was acknowledged in the phrasing of the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition, the outcome was in fact within the range of market expectations. As the Leader of the Opposition said, it has been calmly received by the market. The market, I believe, has received the outcome for October calmly because, unlike honourable members opposite, the market has an appreciation of the aberrant nature of this month's result. The increase in the current account deficit was accounted for by seasonal interest, dividend and aid payments. If it had not been for those payments, the current account deficit would have improved between the months. Moreover, in seasonally adjusted terms, the merchandise trade deficit fell by $185m in the month. Further, the month's deficit was also inflated by the purchase of four aircraft valued at $139m, an increase from the $120m for last month. The Government expects that the current account deficit could remain relatively high for a while yet, as we have said, while seasonal factors and further imports of aircraft occur. But as was indicated in the Budget, we expect that the first half of 1987 will show a significant improvement compared with the first half of 1986-87. Mr GEAR —My question is also directed to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to media reports that Geopeko has put a drilling rig into Kakadu National Park? What does the Government intend to do about this? Mr HAWKE —We have been advised that the Geopeko drilling rig was operating in the vicinity of the Ranger 4 lease yesterday afternoon and again this morning. It should be understood that the Ranger 4 lease contains two pre-existing mineral leases on which, as a matter of law, the Government cannot prevent further exploration, but in regard to which the Government will use all its powers to prevent mining. Ranger 4 also contains a number of lease applications on which the Government does not recognise the right to explore. Drilling occurred outside the pre- existing mineral leases in areas which we do not recognise as interests under the Commonwealth legislation. Today Geopeko moved to Ranger 68 which is also a lease application but we understand that the wet weather there has prevented it from attempting to drill. I am advised that the drilling rig has since left the park. In the circumstances of the action by Geopeko, the Government has decided to lodge an application for a declaration and, if necessary, a court injunction restraining Geopeko from any exploration activity outside the lease areas. It is quite clear that Geopeko's action is highly provocative and this Government will not countenance that action. It is not entirely surprising that this action should have been taken by a group which has already been subject to rebuke in a number of quarters for the nature of its activities. I refer first of all to what it did in the Pilbara. The Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission severely rebuked this group for the nature of its activities, for its provocative action and the Commission handed down a decision which was upheld by the State Supreme Court. So not only has Geopeko been rebuked for its activities by the tribunals of Western Australia but also its Japanese partners. What did the Besco company in Sydney do? It just sacked 500 people to whom it gave half an hour's notice. That is the sort of company with which we are dealing; it is a company which has no respect at all for the laws, conventions or customs of this country and it has properly been subject to rebuke by the courts and tribunals of this country and its Japanese economic partners. This Government will fight Geopeko in the courts to prevent any activity outside pre-existing leases. I repeat my earlier statements on this issue-that the Government will not countenance any mining in the existing Kakadu National Park. That is categorical; this is final. Motion (by Mr Howard) proposed: That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition moving forthwith a motion of censure against the Prime Minister for his failure to address adequately the impact on Australia's economy of today's record balance of payments deficit fiqure. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —We will be delighted to facilitate that move by the Opposition because for three days we have been sitting here waiting for some questions to arise out of its big Thredbo meeting. It is so hopeless that it has been unable to fill out 45 minutes of Question Time; so let us have a decent debate and this might put a finish to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) once and for all. Question resolved in the affirmative with an absolute majority. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(2.14) —I move: That this House censures the Prime Minister for his failure to address adequately the impact on Australia's economy of today's record adverse balance of payments deficit figure. Honourable members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. There is far too much conversation and injection from both sides. The Leader of the Opposition has the call. I intend that he be heard. Mr HOWARD —Today the Commonwealth Statistician released the worst current account deficit figures on a monthly basis that this country has ever seen. What does the leader of this country do? Does he treat that seriously? Does he address himself to his responsibilities? Does he face up to the reality that he has presided over the worst current account deficit figures on a monthly basis that this country has seen? The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was elected to power 3 1/2 years ago on many promises: not least were the promises that he would raise and restore the living standards of individual Australians and individual Australian families. As every month goes by more and more one fundamental question has to be asked by the Australian public: Does any Australian, does any Australian family, does any Australian business really believe it is better off now than it was 3 1/2 years ago when this man came to power? The answer resoundingly has to be no, because not only has he mismanaged and misled but above all he has deceived the Australian people over the last 3 1/2 years. Nothing more starkly illustrates the failure of this man and the failure of his leadership than his stubborn refusal to address, in a serious fashion, the really serious economic issues that face this country. He is unwilling to debate me outside this Parliament. Mr Hawke —Ha, ha, ha! Mr HOWARD —The Prime Minister laughs. So he will debate me, will he? The only way to get this man before the bar of public opinion is to move a censure motion in this Parliament because he does not have the guts to face me in a debate. Time and time again I have asked: Why don't the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition face each other across the debating chambers of this country? The Prime Minister refuses the invitation every time. He is totally unwilling to join in a public debate. Today we are presented with undoubtedly the worst current account deficit figure on a monthly basis that we have seen. We have the spectacle that in 1986 this country will have the worst current account deficit of any country in the entire Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. We will even have a larger current account deficit than Italy or Greece. Mr Keating —You had the biggest. Mr HOWARD —That man sitting beside Old Silver has given us the worst current account deficit in the whole of the OECD area in 1986. No matter what economic statistic one looks at, whether it is inflation, economic growth or levels of taxation, the record of this Prime Minister is deplorable and that is nowhere better illustrated than today's current account deficit figure. He was asked a serious question about the current account deficit figure and, as with the contempt in which he holds the Australian public, he treated that question as to the real impact of that very bad current account deficit figure quite indifferently and uncaringly. That figure demonstrates that month by month this country is sinking further and further into debt. We have a situation in which, under this Prime Minister, we are heading towards an external deficit of $100 billion. When this Prime Minister took over, the accumulated debt of this country was insignificant compared with what it is now. When this Prime Minister took over he made some promises. Do honourable members remember what he promised us? Do honourable members remember that ringing promise that there would be no capital gains tax? Mr N.A. Brown —What a joke. Mr HOWARD —And that was a complete joke. Above everything else this Prime Minister promised that we would have economic stability. In the time that he has been Prime Minister all of the major economic statistics, one by one, have turned against him. Let me take inflation. Our relative inflation rate is now 16 times that of Japan; it is three times that of the average of the OECD countries. In 25 years it is, relatively speaking, a worse inflation rate, compared with that of OECD countries, than it has been at any time since the OECD was founded. That is the Prime Minister's record on inflation. Mr Hunt —What about interest rates? Mr HOWARD —My colleague the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia says to me: `Let us have a look at interest rates'. This man, this Prime Minister, has presided over the highest real interest rates that we have had in this country since the years of the Great Depression. He wonders why the enormous price advantages conferred on Australian exporters and on Australia's manufacturing industry have not turned our current account deficit around and why they have no hope of turning our current account deficit around in the early part of next year, which was the central core of my question. The Prime Minister knows that the current account deficit will not turn around early next year. He knows that all of the promises that have been made to the financial markets about the current account deficit turning around next year are not going to be realised and that is why he flippantly dismisses any serious addressing of these fundamental economic issues. That is why he finds it difficult in this Parliament to address the level of the current account deficit that we have been given today. Let me go back to the question of interest rates. We have the highest interest rates in this country since the years of the Great Depression. We have interest rates in this country which are crippling small businesses. They are crippling farmers and large businesses. I will tell the Prime Minister why people are not investing in manufacturing and exports. They are not doing so for one single reason, and that is that the after tax return on investment in this country has sunk to an abysmally low level. We can have the largest depreciation since the end of World War II, we can have the biggest depreciation in our economic history, but people will not be encouraged to invest in our manufacturing industry or our export industries unless they get a decent rate of return. The Prime Minister and the acolytes who sit beside him on the front bench can blame the business leaders of this country and abuse the achievers of this country under the cover of parliamentary privilege. They can do both of those things, but when it comes to the final crunch businessmen in this country will invest only if there is a decent return on their investment. This man has demonstrably failed to provide that very satisfactory investment climate. Perhaps the most important promise that this Prime Minister made when he was elected was the promise that he made on employment. Not only is he now in the process of dishonouring the promises that he made on interest rates, not only dishonouring the promises that he made on taxation, dishonouring the promises that he made on economic growth, dishonouring the promises that he made on the value of the Australian dollar, dishonouring the promises that he made to the pensioners and all of the other welfare beneficiaries of this country, but he also is now in the process of dishonouring the promise that he made on unemployment in this country. We have a situation where there are more people out of work now than there were when this man became Prime Minister in March 1983. The reality is that the level of unemployment in Australia is higher now in percentage terms than it was for all but seven of the 84 months that the Fraser Government was in office. That is the record of this Prime Minister and this Government on economic matters. Today's current account deficit figure is a symbol of the economic uncompetitiveness of this country and the economic failure of this Prime Minister. Instead of addressing this matter seriously, the Prime Minister seeks to treat it as a total joke. I go back to the question that I asked the Prime Minister. I asked him whether he could point to any evidence in the figures of the last six months or in any other economic material that would suggest that there was going to be a sustained economic turnaround in the early part of 1987. The truth is that the apparent breathing space that financial markets have given the Australian dollar and the Australian economy over the last few months is due to a combination of two factors. One of those is the very overt intervention of the Reserve Bank of Australia to put a floor under the Australian dollar and to return some stability to the Australian dollar. The second factor is the belief of financial markets that in the first half of 1987 there will be a significant turnaround in Australia's current account deficit. Because of those two things, a temporary stability has been restored to the Australian dollar. It is therefore very important, if we are to address seriously economic issues in this Parliament as distinct from treating them as a huge rhetorical joke, that we assess the validity of the proposition on which that strategy is based. That is why I asked the Prime Minister to tell me in Parliament today what comfort he could draw from the figures of the last six months and what comfort he could draw from other economic circumstances to justify the belief of financial markets that there would be a sustained turnaround in our current account deficit during the first six months of 1987. I asked that question very seriously of the Prime Minister because I would have thought that the Prime Minister of this country would want to tell the Parliament why he believed that the financial markets' apparent belief that the current account deficit was going to turn around next year was a correct economic proposition. Instead of the Prime Minister treating the Parliament seriously, instead of the Prime Minister taking the Parliament into his confidence and trying to point to some of the material in the statistics of the last six months or some of the external indicators, he treated the whole of the issue as a huge irrelevant joke. I have news for the Prime Minister. As far as the Australian people are concerned, we do not regard our huge current account deficit as a huge irrelevant joke. We do not regard our very high inflation rate as a huge irrelevant joke. We have the highest levels of taxation, the highest levels of government spending and the highest levels of national debt along with our highest levels of interest rates since the Great Depression. We do not regard any of those economic realities or economic statistics as being a huge irrelevant joke. That is why the Opposition has brought forward this motion of censure of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, in his indifferent, flippant and irrelevant answer today to a question which is fundamental to the economic debate in Australia, has totally and utterly failed to take seriously the economic dilemma that is facing this country. I return to what I said at the beginning of this debate-that the figure that was released today has demonstrated in a far starker fashion than any figure that we have had released over the last 12 months, the fundamental fact that there is not one individual, there is not one family, there is not one sector and there is not one business in Australia that really believes that it is better off now than it was 3 1/2 years ago when this man became Prime Minister of Australia. No matter what measure one takes-whether one takes the measure of inflation or the measure of living standards-this man presumably will get up and will give us a long lecture about the tax cuts that we will receive in December. He will give us a long lecture about the tax cuts that we will receive in July of next year. But what he will not tell us, and what his outrageously dishonest taxpayer funded-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will not impugn the Prime Minister as being dishonest. Mr HOWARD —Madam Speaker, he will undoubtedly fail to tell the House in the outrageously misleading advertising on taxation which is being paid for by the Australian taxpayer and not being paid, as it should, by the Australian Labor Party, that notwithstanding the so-called tax cuts in December of this year and in July of next year the individual taxpayer on average weekly earnings will be paying a higher percentage in taxation than he was paying in March 1983; that the individual family that was paying an average tax rate of 17 1/2 per cent in March 1983 will be paying an average tax rate of 20 1/2 per cent in July 1987 after the so-called Keating tax reforms. He will fail to tell us that all that the so-called Keating tax reforms have done is to return to the Australian taxpayer part of what the Hawke-Keating Government has taken from the taxpayer in terms of higher levels of taxation. The Prime Minister is deserving of the censure of this Parliament for the lack of economic leadership that he has given to the country over the last 3 1/2 years. When faced with the worst current account deficit figure that we have seen in this country's history, after realising the impact of that current account deficit figure on individuals and families in the community, what has been the Prime Minister's response? Instead of the Prime Minister being willing to tell the Australian Parliament that there is reason to believe that the situation can turn around and instead of the Prime Minister being willing to confront the economic issues of this country in a serious fashion, he treats the economic statistics that we have had today in a totally derisory, totally irrelevant and totally dismissive fashion. I say to the Prime Minister, on behalf of the Opposition, that we do not believe that current account deficit figures of this magnitude, with the implications they have for Australian individuals and families, can be dealt with in the totally irrelevant and dismissive fashion that the Prime Minister has adopted today. We believe that these figures demonstrate far more eloquently than any figures that we have had for a long time in this country that no matter where we look there is no evidence in the Australian economy that any individual, any sector of the economy, any family in this country and any business in this country can very seriously believe that it is better off than it was 3 1/2 years ago when this man became Prime Minister. The reason why it cannot have that feeling is that this man fails to take seriously the economic crisis that faces this country. He knows, as well as I do, that unless the current account deficit turns around in the first six months of 1987 there will be another run on the Australian dollar and that unless the expectations of financial markets are in fact fulfilled, the Australian dollar will again come under pressure. When the Prime Minister was asked a question about that today his response was to treat the matter as a total joke. In those terms and on that basis we, on this side of the House, believe that the Prime Minister is deserving of the censure of this Parliament for his abject and indifferent failure to address seriously the current account deficit and the other economic problems that face this country in 1986. Madam SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded? Order! Honourable members will remove the cards. Mr Sinclair —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Do you intend to do anything about that disgraceful behaviour? Madam SPEAKER —Order! Is the motion seconded? Mr Sinclair —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. I now rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. On successive occasions, when members have behaved in the House as the Government members are now behaving your predecessors have taken action against them. I ask you to enforce the Standing Orders and to apply the same discipline to the members of the Australian Labor Party as on occasions you have applied on this side of the House. Mr Young —Madam Speaker-- Mr Donald Cameron —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You do not have to take your instructions from him. Just sit him down. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Sit down. That is quite enough coming from the honourable member for Moreton. The Special Minister of State is speaking to the point of order. Mr Reith —Who can speak to a point of order? Mr Young —Anybody who gets the call. I do not intend to allow the remarks of the Manager of Opposition Business, the right honourable member for New England, to go unchallenged. If he has a specific complaint about the behaviour of some person in the House he can take it to you and you can make a ruling. But to say that the behaviour of Government members-we have just listened to an appalling speech by the Leader of the Opposition-is very-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is now debating the issue. I call the Prime Minister. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister)(2.36) —Madam Speaker-- Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. You have made some rulings in this place about the behaviour of honourable members. That was an orchestrated arrangement, done by the Leader of the House. It was not an isolated thing. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. The Chair has, on occasions, called for honourable members to lift their behaviour in this House. It has not been inundated by those who have chosen to do so. I have asked the honourable members on my right to put their cards away; I expect them to do so. I point out that the honourable member for Denison occasionally brings objects in with him and the Chair has given him a lot of tolerance in so doing. I call the Prime Minister. Mr HAWKE —I and the Government welcome the motion which has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and I will certainly take this opportunity to proudly defend the economic record of my Government. In so doing I will take the opportunity to contrast our performance and achievement with that of our predecessors. But before I go to the details which will sustain the response which I make- Honourable members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Prime Minister to be quiet for a moment. When the Leader of the Opposition started his address I asked the House to give him the right to be heard. Freedom of speech goes two ways: To speak and to be heard. Mr Beale —Why have you gagged the Bills? Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for Deakin will not interrupt the Chair. The House will now give the Prime Minister the right to be heard. Mr HAWKE —Before establishing the case on behalf of the Government it is perhaps appropriate that I preface what I have to say, and before making the judgment that I make, by referring to the judgments that have been made by others, because it could be said that perhaps a Prime Minister or a government will attempt to take a jaundiced or biased view. I therefore preface the convincing case that I will put by going to the observation that was made by Moody's Investor Services Inc. in September when it undertook its analysis of the Australian economy. It made some remarks about the management of the Australian economy by this Government. Moody's thinks the Budget was brave. It said it took into account the wisdom or lack thereof of a country's economic managers. It said: One of the positive features of the Australian scene is the intelligent guiding of the ship of State. That is the assessment made by Moody's of the qualities of economic management in this country. I go to the comparative assessment made by a member of the previous government. I have had cause in the past to refer to the assessment made by John Hyde. John Hyde was a member of the previous Government. He addressed himself to the question: What is the quality of the economic management of the Hawke Government and what is its quality compared to that of the Fraser Government which, in terms of economic leadership, was in the hands of the now Leader of the Opposition? This is a member of the Opposition Party when in government making a comparative judgment between the two, and this is what he had to say: I now think that on balance it- that is the Hawke Government- has governed better than we governed, certainly better than we governed in our last 12 months. That is not the Australian Labor Party making that judgment; that is a person who is not just some unnoticed back bencher of the previous Government, but a man who is consistently writing in the financial journals of this country. It is his judgment that the Hawke Labor Government, in terms of government overall and economic management in particular, is a better government than that which, in economic terms, was led by the Leader of the Opposition. I use that by way of preface to the analysis that I will make about our performance. At the outset I go to the observation made by the Leader of the Opposition that there is no sign: He asked what is the evidence of the turnaround. In reply to that let me go to the publication of 12 September of this year of the Australian Chamber of Manufactures. Mr Powell of the Australian Chamber of Manufactures made observations about the period ahead. That is what the Leader of the Opposition is talking about. He is asking what is the evidence about a turnaround. I will quote Mr Powell. He has this to say: Manufacturers are more optimistic about prospects for the period ahead. The decline has not been as intense as the slide in 1982-83 and there is mounting evidence that the improved international competitiveness is beginning to make itself felt. The improvement has been reflected in the performance in a number of import competing industries as well as increased export activity. However, it is too early to say that this is the so-called J-curve. The improved competitiveness appears to be associated with that of corporate planning, new products and market strategies as much as the depreciation of the Australian dollar. So there we have the assessment being made in the heart of Australian manufacturing industry, by one of its leading spokesmen, that the evidence exists-which is shared by this Government-for the prospects ahead. Let us look at the performance of this government compared with that of the Government in which the Leader of the Opposition was the leading economic spokesman. The Leader of the Opposition talked about economic growth. In the last year of the previous Government real gross domestic product fell by 0.5 per cent. The corresponding fiqure for non-farm GDP was 0.4 per cent. What is the performance under this Government? The corresponding figure for non-farm GDP was 0.4 per cent. Over this Government's first three years in office the average annual growth has been just under 5 per cent. That is the comparison. The Leader of the Opposition's performance put us into the worst recession in 50 years. We have been running this economy with a growth rate of just under 5 per cent. Let us look at the question of employment. The Leader of the Opposition by asking a question. he asked: `Does any Australian family believe that it is better off?' I suggest that that question be directed to the 670,000 Australians who are now in jobs and who were not in jobs before we came to office. Does the Leader of the Opposition think that those 670,000 Australians are not members of families? In the last 12 months that he was in office we witnessed the disappearance of a quarter of a million jobs. Were those quarter of a million Australians members of families or were they not? Ask them what they thought about the quality of economic management of the Leader of the Opposition who threw them on to the scrap-heap of unemployment. Ask them what they think. Ask the 670,000 Australians who are now in jobs and who were not in jobs when we came to office. That is my answer to his question. Ask any Australian-any of the quarter of a million people that he threw out of employment in his last 12 months in office; the 670,000 whom we have put into work-and he will get the answer. In the whole of the Opposition's seven years in office the grand total of its employment increase was 362,000. That is the number of additional Australians, members of families, who found work in the seven years of the Fraser-Howard Government. In approximately half that time we have put 670,000 in work. In other words, in about half the time we have put about double the number of people in jobs. Let us go to the question of labour costs. In 1982 average earnings per employee grew by 16.5 per cent. That was the performance of honest John. It was a massive wages blow-out as that Government had no wages policy. The increase in earnings in this country was 154 per cent higher than that of our major trading partners in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. This country knows that we have brought that back and the position in Australia is much more in line with what is happening in the rest of the world. Real unit labour costs have fallen by 7 per cent under this Government and further falls are in prospect for 1986-87. Let us look at the question of profit share. One would think, to hear this man talk about what has happening to economic management, that when he was Treasurer profit shares were being sustained so that investment could be undertaken and jobs could be created. Of course, the opposite is the truth. In the year ended December 1982 the gross operating surplus of companies as a percentage of gross non-farm product fell to 12.1 per cent, which was the lowest level since the series began in 1967. Because those policies produced that tax situation we had a fall in investment, we had that massive decline in jobs and a significant rise in unemployment which meant that when this Government came to office we inherited simultaneous double digit inflation and double digit unemployment. That was the legacy which we inherited and which we have turned around. Against that figure of 12.1 per cent for the profit share that it left to this country, since March 1983 the profit share has averaged 13.8 per cent. Industrial disputation was something the Opposition went on about before. The simple statistic about industrial disputation is that we have more than halved its level. The monthly average of industrial disputes under that Government was 248,400 days lost; under this Government it is 116,000. I now come to the question of interest rates. The Leader of the Opposition has the hide to talk about interest rates. The fact is that the highest interest rates occurred in the period when he was Treasurer of this country. In April 1982, 90-day bank bills reached 22 per cent, which is 2 percentage points higher than at any time during this Labor Government. That is when we had the highest interest rates. In June 1982 the 10-year, long term Commonwealth bond rate hit 16 per cent, which is one percentage point higher than at any time during the Labor Government. The Leader of the Opposition tries to put it in terms of real interest rates. Of course he tries to claim some credit for the fact that he got lower retail interest rates because he had a massively higher inflation rate. Any first year economic student can see through the stupidity of that observation. If we are to talk about the question of Australia's international competitive position and analyse the future prospects for this country, it is sensible that we look at the level of international competitiveness under this Government compared with the level under our predecessors. In 1981-82 Australia's international competitiveness was at its worst level in six years. Our international competitiveness now is at the best it has ever been, and that is because of the economic policies of this Government. On the very central point of the current account deficit as a proportion of GDP I remind the House that it was in 1981-82 that the current account deficit was 6 per cent of GDP. That percentage, under the treasurership of the Leader of the Opposition, who has brought on this motion on the basis of the current account deficit, was the highest figure since 1951-52-the highest figure in 30 years and under the Leader of the Opposition's treasurership. If we are to talk about families we should talk not merely about jobs but also about education. Under that Government the treatment of education was nothing short of despicable. Real expenditure on education was allowed to decline. Under this Government this country has witnessed a massive rejuvenation in the education system. We have seen in the participation rates the ending of the national disgrace. When we came to office what was the participation rate? It was 36 per cent. Mr Brumby —What is it now? Mr HAWKE —It is 46 per cent. What about tertiary education? Additional intakes into higher education will mean that 36,800 extra places will have been created between 1983 and 1987. I suppose that when one talks about families one also talks about housing. We have done more for the housing industry and for the housing of Australian families than has been done by any other Australian government. So, I repudiate the motion with contempt. I stand here as a matter of pride, not only in terms of what we have achieved in the economic management of this country but also in terms of comparing that with the contemptible performance in economic management perpetrated upon this country under the economic stewardship of the current, but quickly departing, Leader of the Opposition. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(2.51) —The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has done for the Australian economy what Henry Morgan did for the Caribbean tourist trade. The basis of the pathetic response by this pathetic Prime Minister is to come in here and say: `Look what happened 3 1/2 years ago'. I am delighted for us to have the opportunity this afternoon to look at what is happening today. Let us also look at what happened 3 1/2 years ago. Every Australian needs to realise that the base from which we compare the two relevant periods is the fact that then Australia had less than $30 billion gross debt, whereas today it is three times higher. We learned this morning, thanks to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, that our indebtedness has increased by $1.74 billion. That is why the pathetic individual who is leaving the House now, in spite of the fact that he is being censured, deserves to receive the censure of this House. Today we have learnt that we now have a record annual deficit of $18,000m. This means that, whilst at the end of June this year we had a gross foreign debt of $90 billion, the figure will be $100 billion by the end of 1986 and $110 billion by June 1987. I note that the Prime Minister has left the chamber. Over the last few years we have seen members of the Australian Labor Party belittling and denigrating this House. We have seen their absolutely appalling behaviour in the House. That behaviour has now been epitomised by the hypocrite who is the Prime Minister walking out of the chamber in the midst of a debate on a censure motion against him as an individual. If he as an individual has any ability at all he ought to debate with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and not run for cover. Mr Robert Brown —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. The Leader of the National Party-- Mr Griffiths —He should go back to signing his old man's cheques. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Maribyrnong will withdraw that remark. Mr Griffiths —Like the right honourable member's father should have done, I withdraw. Mr Robert Brown —Madam Speaker, the Leader of the National Party used a most unparliamentary expression when he referred to the Prime Minister as a hypocrite. He should withdraw that remark. The only hypocrite is the Leader of the National Party. Mr SINCLAIR —I withdraw. The point at issue-I hope that many people are listening to this radio broadcast today-is that the Prime Minister is the subject of a censure motion by the members of the Opposition. He is being censured because he treated a very serious question about the balance of payments with absolute contempt. The only time he has a proper opportunity-normally he walks away from this chamber other than at Question Time-to consider the most critical element of the well-being of ordinary Australians, he walks out of the chamber. That is how little regard he has for the Parliament. In my view, any Prime Minister who behaves in that way deserves the description I gave him a moment ago. The balance of payments figures mean that by the end of this financial year Australia's foreign debt will be $7,000 per person. The figure has gone up threefold during the Prime Minister's period of government. It will be $28,000 per Australian family. A few moments ago the Prime Minister boasted in here about the growth statistics. They have been financed by debt. If any people in Australia think that they are better off, they ought to look at that indebtedness figure and at their bank balance. They will have to debit $28,000 for the family, which is the Hawke bill and the bill of the Treasurer (Mr Keating). That is what Paul and Bob have added to it-$28,000 per family. What is the situation in regard to the balance of payments? Our rate of inflation today is five times that of our Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development trading competitors. Let us have none of this absolute comparison with the situation 3 1/2 years ago. The rate of inflation has never been anywhere near as high comparatively as it is now. The Prime Minister was boasting that interest rates are great. He should ask the average home owner or the average worker out there on the shop floor what he thinks about trying to borrow some money. That home owner or worker will say that our interest rates are impossible. They are three times the world average. Unit wage increases are four times those of our major trading partners. Only last week the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), in Bangkok, was suddenly honest. He acknowledged that Australia's farming sector is in crisis. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics has told us that farm returns are expected to fall by a further 4 per cent in 1986-87, after adjustment for inflation. The situation on the Australian family farm has never been worse, in spite of a good season. The only reason that, back in 1982-83, the Treasury, under my colleague the Leader of the Opposition, ran into difficulties was that we had a record drought, the worst drought over the greatest area of Australia that had ever been suffered in the recorded history of white settlement. In spite of good seasons in much of Australia today, in spite of the fact that livestock prices are not bad and in spite of the fact that wool prices are fair, Australian farming is still in crisis. On top of all this, record tax is being taken by this Government. We have just had a debate about the fringe benefits tax. The Prime Minister refuses to come into the chamber to acknowledge his sins. I explain once again that never before in the history of the Australian Parliament can I recall a person subject to censure so treating with contempt the processes of the Australian Parliament. He is not even man enough to come in here and stand up to the censure motion. What is more, Labor Party members are walking out. I welcome that because it shows the way the Labor Party treats the Parliament and the people of Australia. The fringe benefits tax is really what it is all about. It is part of this Government's attempt to get at the ordinary people of Australia. It is part of a big taxing program to fund a record level of indebtedness which has been fuelled by record spending and which is now aggravated by a current account figure which shows that the Government does not have control of the economy or of itself. I hear the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), who is over there on the front bench, talking. Social welfare is one of the areas where the average Australian is suffering. The Minister introduced an assets test which means that many small business people who otherwise would have received the pension are denied it. He is one of those who failed to introduce the cross checks, which is the reason for the nonsensical identity card the Government is introducing. If the cross checks had been there, they would have ensured that there was an ability to work out who had applied for unemployment benefit and who had applied for jobs in the Commonwealth Employment Service offices and many people who presently are not entitled to receive benefits but are receiving them would have been identified. In its three years of office the Labor Government's spending as a percentage of gross domestic product has exceeded even the record of the Whitlam years. In the context of all this, our balance of trade is continuing to crash to record levels. Unfortunately it is not possible in the short term to find solutions to that problem. The question that the Leader of the Opposition put to the Prime Minister was not of high political moment-it was of very high concern to the average Australian. What the Leader of the Opposition sought was the basis by which the Government-- Mr Keating —It was not a well prepared question. Mr SINCLAIR —Including the interjecting Treasurer, could see some prospects for improvements in 1987. We all know that the Treasurer has instructed the Reserve Bank of Australia to hold up the Australian dollar. Even the Australian Financial Review on 18 September 1986 said: The Reserve Bank is currently involved in a real edge-of-the-chasm balancing act of utmost importance to all Australians . . . few of us have any real idea of its . . . potential hazards. The reality as far as the average Australian is concerned is that unless there is some improvement in our balance of payments and our current account figures in 1987 we will all be ruined. We will be more than just `rooned' according to Hanrahan. We will all be in a situation where this nation will be absolutely bankrupt. Let us look at the situation. We know that in Japan the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) has just refused to allow some sales of coal at what were world prices. He has claimed that there has been a slight increase in those prices as a result of his intervention but in volume and value coal sales are down. We know about the situation across the board for our minerals. We know the idiocy of this Government's uranium exporting policy. The honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham), and anybody who has a worthwhile uranium deposit in Australia, except those in the Labor State of South Australia, are told: `You cannot export uranium'. It is only in this year's Budget that the Government has finally decided not to pay Queensland Mines Ltd to prevent its carrying on with its export contracts for uranium. What a ridiculous Government this is. It prevents the sale of uranium and it seeks to prevent Australia improving its balance of payments. Then we hear all this nonsense about logging in Tasmania. My colleagues from Tasmania are concerned because there has always been proper conservation-a proper concern for the environment-and a recognition that the needs of the average Australian, including those in Tasmania, are met by ensuring that the natural resources, whether they be under the ground or on the surface, are developed for the benefit of men and women of this country. Of course these resources need to be marshalled in an environmentally protective way. They are and they were. But the Labor Party would not let that happen until, thank goodness, the Minister for Primary Industry said to this person who is Prime Minister: `Look, you have got it wrong yet again. Never mind what you said about logging, go ahead and do what you should do.' Then there are the Japanese. I have been fascinated by the way in which this Government has tried to tell the Japanese that our industrial record is something to be proud of. We should tell the Japanese to look at the statistics of stoppages on the waterfront. One should read this morning's Daily Telegraph to see what it says about the increase in stoppages or look at the disaster that the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) has caused in Australian hospitals. There is no use his running around saying: `It is all the State governments that have caused the problem'. It is not. The problem is Paul Keating; it is Bob Hawke; it is Medicare; it is medidisaster. Those opposite should realise the constraints that have been placed on hospitals, shutting down wards, denying beds to people and denying ordinary Australians access to normal surgical procedures. What sort of a government is this that denies access to medical benefits for ordinary Australians? That is the sort of record that the Japanese need to look at when they see the nurses out on strike, waterfront workers on strike, the unavailability of medical care and doctors being unable to practice in a normal way under Medicare. Our industrial record is deplorable. No Japanese looking at Australia's record will think that anything that this Government has done under its idiotic accords will lead to a better position. Under the Hawke Government there has been a continued anti-small business, anti-individual and anti-rural policy attack. As far as the individual is concerned, this Government could not care less. Big unions get along with big government. We all saw the Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions around the Parliament yesterday and today. We know that the Government is off in the corner, trying hard to negotiate yet another accord. We know that it has made a mess of superannuation and that the obligations being placed on employers are denying jobs for ordinary Australians. We know that costs are over the hill and that this balance of payments figure represents an impossibly high burden of debt on ordinary Australians. It is in that climate that we on this side of the house not only condemn the Prime Minister but censure him and the Government he leads. We believe that the Government has set out on a course of political suicide. The sooner it gets there the better. But ordinary, average Australians should not be taken too. It is about time the Government addressed the very critical economic situation we all face. Instead of playing politics, let us hear a bit of substance. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The right honourable member's time has expired. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(3.05) —We have been watching pressure being placed on the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). We have been waiting for the tell-tale political lapse. It came today in his very politically revealing nervous, uncertain little speech delivered without preparation or forethought from a nervous, failing Leader of the Opposition. We all understand the body language of the Parliament. We know when a speech is hurting and failing. His speech failed dismally to do anything to the Government or any member of it. The only damage from this speech was on the faces of those who sit behind the Leader of the Opposition. They were mortified by it because there was not one shred of credibility to it or a basis for it. The current account figure is completely in line with the Budget forecast and is totally accepted by the market expectation. There was no basis for the speech. Those opposite could not sustain Question Time and their leader could not take the pressure any longer. In the old-fashioned political jargon he cracked. Under a political lapse he brought up this censure motion. The Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) stepped into the breach to do his best without his heart in it. There were a few empty shibboleths, some empty rhetoric and a few empty sentences but in the end there was nothing because basically the Opposition is dead in the water in the Parliament as the year closes. Is it any wonder that the editorial in the Australian today is headed: `Opposition flounders around aimlessly'. It states: The Federal Opposition is looking like an opportunistic rabble. It is looking less and less like an alternative government. I say hallelujah to that. If the leader writer of that newspaper had been here today another remark would follow up which would say the very same thing. Obviously, the nation has smelt the weakness of the Leader of the Opposition. It knows that there is no sense of strategy, policy or understanding about the basic economic facts of life. The nation knows therefore that the only party with any strategy or hope of dealing with Australia's problems is the party in government in Australia, the Government of Bob Hawke. The Leader of the Opposition said: `The times will suit me'. But have not times changed since that remark was made? The one thing that the Leader of the Opposition said which revealed his worry was when he talked about the apparent breathing space the financial markets have provided the Government. It is eating his heart out. What he really is saying is: `Why do not all you people out there in the market support me? Why will you not help me claw this Government down? Keep up the exchange rate instability'. That is why this censure motion was moved. The Leader of the Opposition is desperate to say: `Can you not get the instability going again?' He is really frantic saying to the markets: `Please, get the dollar sliding again. Do something. Do not accept the figures of the Government. I will censure Hawke so I can draw your attention to some of these numbers'. That is the point of this motion. It is not a motion to attack the Prime Minister. It is designed to rip and tear at the fabric of the Australian economy. That is the whole point of it. The Leader of the Opposition has read that even the Government's greatest detractor, Syntec, has said that the Government might slip through and be re-elected. When he read that he must have nearly turned to stone. He thought it was just going to be a cruise downhill all the way, that the exchange rate and current account deficit would bury the Government and that all he had to do, with no brains, no policies and no forethought, just typical Liberal Party arrogance, was just slide into office. Well, he has come a gutser because basically the financial markets have given the Opposition the big thumbs down and they have given the Government and its strategy the big thumbs up because they know we are the only party with a strategy. Mr Tuckey —You are one to talk about arrogance! Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will not sit at the table and talk across it while the Treasurer has the call. Mr KEATING —He is even out of his place, Madam Speaker. The strategy of the Leader of the Opposition was simply to sit there and watch the financial markets distract the Government from its task, but the fact is that with a Budget and wages outcome of this rigour, with the competitive improvement in the economy and with this current account deficit today-which never made a ripple on the Reuters screens around the country because it is in line with the Budget forecasts-he can now see that if he could not beat the Government with major changes to the tax system, a massive collapse in the terms of trade, the remodelling of the Budget and the putting together of another wages accord, he will never beat us. He knows it and honourable members opposite know it, and he is now getting desperate. The Leader of the Opposition cannot sustain a Question Time. Two minutes into Question Time when the pressure was too much for him he had a political lapse and he presented an unprepared motion on the current account deficit. What did we get out of him? Was there one idea proffered about the coalition's policy on competitiveness, wages, fiscal policy or monetary policy? There was not. It was a whingeing, whining attack on a successful government and a successful Prime Minister. That is what it was about. It was simply about the fact that he is under pressure and is failing and that this Government, with the tremendous difficulties it has faced with the terms of trade collapse of this stupendous proportion which it has now guided Australia through, is driving him to his political grave, and he knows it. He also knows that the person who holds the record for the greatest current account imbalance in our history is J. Howard, the honourable member for Bennelong. It was 6 per cent of gross domestic product in 1980-81. He knows the reason: He was one of the reckless gamblers on the resources boom of 1978 to 1980. He knows that it was his Government that dropped the ball on manufacturing industry. It overvalued the exchange rate and ripped the farm sector to pieces with that high valued dollar thus ripping export prices apart and ripping the factories apart with a flood of imports. He dropped the ball on Australia. The resources boom was basically a big fizzer. In 1982-83 we were left with the first negative growth in 30 years, double digit unemployment, double digit inflation and a Budget deficit of nearly $10 billion or 5 per cent of GDP That is the Howard inheritance, so we should not be impressed by him getting up and talking about one month's current account deficit. It is not a year's current account deficit but one month's. Even that month's figures are in line with the Budget deficit and in line with market expectations. That is what triggered this nervous little attack-one month's current account figures. However, the figures are entirely in line with all expectations. Where are the villains responsible for the growth in Australia's current account imbalance over the years? The Opposition, the National and Liberal parties, when in government wrecked our import competing industries. They took the view that Australia did not have to do anything clever, decent or creative-- Mr Tuckey —When are you going to do that? Mr KEATING —The honourable member for O'Connor should be back in his place. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will not talk across the table when the Chair has asked him to cease. I ask him to consider his position and to heed the Chair. Mr KEATING —It is this absence of any sense of responsibility by the former Government in keeping Australia a developed economy-it watched our secondary structure move into obsolescence while it backed minerals alone and agriculture as a second bet-which is the cause of Australia's current problems. The fact of the matter is that those things were created in the period of the Howard Treasurership. They were created in the late 1970s and the early 1980s. The wages policy under the present Opposition wrecked Australia's competitiveness, but all the time it kept the exchange rate overvalued because it had no wages or anti-inflation policy. It wanted that downward pressure on local prices coming out of cheap imports. The cheap imports ripped the guts out of our country and left it the way it is. It is only this Government which has made all the fundamental decisions to get this country right again. We have fixed the wage profit shares in the economy, pulled down the massive $9.6 billion Budget deficit, reformed the tax system by cutting marginal rates and lifting incentive in the system by encouraging reward and investment once more, removed the double tax on dividends on business, reformed the financial sector, reformed great slabs of our industry-the steel, motor car and other sectors of industry-and removed the rigour of the Howard foreign investment rules to get investment back into Australia again. These are the things which the Government has done but, of course, the other great thing it has done is float the Australian dollar which, through its depreciation, will now allow the Australian economy to see its trade accounts turnaround and to cover the problems of the current account as we rebuild our great secondary structure once again, as we rebuild our great manufacturing industries which the Opposition destroyed, as we give our import competing industries a go once more and as we find the marginal markets for our coal, wheat, wool and our other great primary industries which were butchered by the National and Liberal parties. That is what this Government is doing about the current account. While we have been doing that, for our fourth year in succession we have put together another historic wage restraint agreement with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. We have another historic wage agreement for wage restraint in this country so that Australia will be a competitive country. That is why the financial markets, Australian business and Australian investment support the Government's strategy. That is why there has been a flood of money from abroad into Australia to support the stockholders of this country. They know that there is a strategy and policy underlying the Government's position. They know that the investment in time and in work on the exchange rate, on the current account and on import replacement investment will take time. They understand that. They look at the many countries in which they invest and they do not see the same quality changes in the United States of America, in Britain or elsewhere. They have seen the Australian economy become more fluid, more flexible and more dynamic than it has been at any time in the last 30 years. That is why the times have changed for John Howard who, when sitting in some posh hotel in New York, told the rest of the world that times will work for him; in other words, that Australia is going bad and that he will have a free sleigh ride into public office at the expense of his countrymen. His tell-tale remark in the whole debate was: `Why are the markets giving the Government an apparent breathing space'? His view is: `How dare the markets do that. Don't they know that they should be supporting the Liberal Party'. For the first time the markets have woken up and they are supporting their pockets, like they always have, and they have given the Opposition up basically as a party that cannot run the Australian economy. They have no trust in the Opposition. But the big news today and the relevance of today is the tell-tale political lapse by the Leader of the Opposition in coming in here with an unprepared speech, spooked by the tension of Question Time, unable to sustain a Question Time, and proposing an unprepared motion on a current account figure which is in line with the Budget and market expectations. It is not a flicker of the rate on the Reuters screens. But there he was, up here basically rattling on, nervous energy, clasping his hands, flaking skin and all the rest of it that comes along with pressure, pressure, pressure on a failing, finished Leader of the Opposition. The damage is not on the Government, it is on him. We watched him in this debate and we know where it hurt most. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(3.21) —Madam Speaker, whom do we believe? Do we believe the Treasurer (Mr Keating), Senator Richardson or Jack MacBean? Do those honourable members in Labor marginal seats believe what they have now heard when they remember what this Treasurer was telling them in May, given what happened after May? Do they believe the fellow who walks in ever decreasing circles, who lives most of the time in Canberra but says he lives in Sydney for the purposes of claiming his allowance which other members cannot claim? Do they believe the person who represents the electorate of Blaxland and who hardly ever goes there and who is totally out of touch with his basic constituency? Do they believe the man who takes VIP flights in preference to commercial flights because he does not like mixing with ordinary people? Do they believe the man who drives around Sydney in a car with tinted glass because he is frightened of what people will say about the fringe benefits tax? Do the honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch), the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth), the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) and the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren) put their faith in the man who misled the Australian public about the true state of the economy for month after month and who did nothing about it? Do Government members think that this empty shell sitting on a rotten, stinking hole of an economy will hold out under the slightest bit of pressure? If they think that, why did they not go to an election before Christmas as they planned? Why did they have a cheap and easy Budget? Why did they rearrange the parliamentary sittings to clear the decks for an early election? They did this because they were scared, and rightly so, of what is going to happen to this economy. Does the Treasurer really think that an economy that sits on the time bomb of debt that Australia sits on is a flexible economy? Do the people opposite think that those businesses and farms that have been struggling with 20 per cent interest rates for 12 months will hang on for much longer? Do they really think that the bankruptcies will hold off for very much longer with those sorts of pressures? Does even the trade union movement think that it can continue much more to hide the stinking mess of industrial relations in Australia when on this very day the hospitals are in ruins, the grocery shelves in Sydney are unfilled and the garbage is uncollected in Canberra? Does the Government really think that it can kid the people any longer? Of course it cannot. This Treasurer for month after month claimed that the Australian economy was in the best of condition, that everything was on track. The Government admitted in May that the whole thing was a sham and that we were heading towards becoming a banana republic. It got advice from Mr McMullan and Mr Cameron, its political advisers looking at the entrails of public opinion. They said: `Forget the basic state of the economy. Forget what your real task is. Try to brush up your image. Try to appear cheerful. Try to go back to your pre-May mode and try to kid people that this whole sham, this whole deck of cards, will stay up until the next election'. This deck of cards will not stay up for these reasons: It might be all very well for the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to giggle, laugh, make jokes and act like a stupid clown in Question Time when he is asked a serious question about a $1.7 billion balance of payments figure, but he cannot gloss over the fact that all Australians know that they are worse off three and a half years after the Hawke Government came to office than they were under the Fraser Government. Everybody in Australia knows that. Anybody who is trying to get into a hospital knows it. Anybody who is trying to cope with prices when inflation rates have gone up to 9 per cent, anybody in a business paying interest charges of 20 per cent or anybody borrowing for a home who is paying 15 1/2 per cent or more interest on his mortgage knows that if the Australian dollar was worth a dollar when we went out of office it is worth only 67c today. Australians know that one cannot fool everybody about that. The Treasurer claims that a one-third depreciation of the currency is a fine achievement of this Government. The ordinary people in Australia know that adds to costs of everything that is bought from abroad. Many things that go into household budgets or go into local domestic products as the input come from overseas. They know that the inflation rate in Australia is five times that of our trading partners. They know that prices in the supermarket are going up day by day and week by week. They know that at the end of each month they are struggling to survive. They are paying more on their mortgages, more for their groceries and vastly more for their motoring. They are paying more for every item of household equipment. They are struggling to pay their health care costs, and with health they are not even getting a service. They know that. If one asks any person in the community whether he is better off under the Hawke Government, of course he says he is not. The Treasurer even boasts that under the Labor Government real wages have fallen. There is nothing to be proud about in real wages falling. The objective of any Australian government is to have real wages go up, but because they have been earned. That is what the Australian public wants. This Government sits with this house of cards, with an overborrowed economy, with taxation rising well above the levels it promised and with the costs of government going to historic highs. It has overspent, overborrowed and overstretched us and we are running into extraordinary difficulties. That cannot be overlooked. What is the Opposition going to do about this? We talk about principle and opportunism. We read today in certain editorials that the Opposition is said to be unprincipled and opportunistic because it made a decision against the introduction of a national identity card. I suggest to the House that the unprincipled and opportunistic decision on that would have been to follow yesterday's public opinion poll and vote in favour of it. But we voted against it. We will vote against it in the House today and we will vote against it in the Senate because we genuinely believe that the introduction of a national identity card would change Australia from a fully free country to a country which is only partially free. That is not an opportunistic decision; that is a decision to fight on a matter of principle and to convince the majority of Australians that their liberty is in danger. If that is opportunism I am opportunistic. Was it opportunistic for the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) to propose the setting up of the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System and to question the very basis of regulation in that system when the present Treasurer was wholly against such a move? Was it opportunistic for him to do that when he was Treasurer? Of course it was not. The very debate which allowed the Treasurer to switch camps and deregulate the financial system was set in train by the present Leader of the Opposition at a time when it was not a popular thing to do. Who was it who drew attention to the historic need to change our rotten system of industrial relations? Who took the lead in that debate long before it was popular and long before the general public was saying that it had to be done-at a time when business was frightened to act and when members of the Australian Labor Party were continuing, as they do now, to support an excessively powerful trade union bureaucracy? It was the Opposition which took the lead in that regard. It was the Opposition which said that an 84-year-old system was no longer appropriate and had to be changed. It was the Opposition which said that the work practices of the last 20, 30 or 40 years must be changed. One can change those practices only by freeing up workers and employers within a revised and more flexible system. Was that opportunistic? I suggest that it was opportunistic for the Government to try to copy the rhetoric without doing anything about the substance. Was it opportunistic for the Leader of the Opposition, in replying to the pathetic state of the nation address by the Prime Minister-honourable members will remember the wartime speech-to commit the Opposition when in government to have zero real growth in spending in the Commonwealth Budget? Was everybody rushing around and saying that there should be substantial cuts in government spending and in all the various programs of government, when the present Government was increasing its expenditure at twice the rate of the Fraser Government? No, they were not. That was a path breaking and very courageous decision on the part of the Opposition to make that forward commitment. Because of the state of the economy now, we now see that that commitment may not be sufficient. It may be necessary to do more. This country is in such an extraordinarily difficult position. It relies excessively on the twin pillars of commodity markets in rural and mineral exports. It has done so for too many years. It is too narrowly based to cope with external difficulties. The only way of bringing Australia around is to make a clear attack on the size of government, thereby reducing taxes to a point where we can increase incentive, and to a point where we can get the investment that this Government has so palpably failed to raise. We also need to reform the Australian industrial relations system. There is no hope for Australians unless it is an exciting plan in which to invest. The Treasurer's Budget figures forecast a decline in real terms in fixed business investment of one per cent over the coming year. There is no hope for Australia under such a forecast. This Budget forecasts a decline in fixed business investment, which is the only hope for the future. It forecasts a current account deficit at the end of the year which is as bad as the figure at the beginning of the year. It forecasts an inflation rate at the end of the year which is just as bad as the figure at the beginning of the year. It forecasts an unemployment rate which is worse at the end of the year that it was at the beginning of the year. Is this a Budget of hope? Is this a Budget which meets Australia's requirements? Of course, it is not. The only plans being put forward at the moment to redress this imbalance, to get this country moving again, are the plans of the Opposition-to cut government spending, reform the tax system, provide incentive, get stuck into the rotten practices of the industrial relations system, reduce the power of the Creans, the Keltys and the Carmichaels, and to allow small business the freedom to build, invest and employ. That is the objective of the Opposition. That is a clear-cut need that we must certainly put again and again to the people. The people in this sham of a Government popularised themselves initially in the boardrooms of Australia and in financial circles in other capitals, where their number is now up. The market has discounted all the horrors for the next few months by pushing the dollar to only two-thirds of its previous level. One should bear in mind that every time the market gives so-called support for this Government it is giving support for this Government at a level which is only two-thirds of the level of three years ago. The charade to which we have been treated today is a very thin one. All of those members opposite who represent marginal seats and who listen to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer know in their hearts that Senator Richardson was right. This Government has betrayed its own constituency as well as the ordinary people of Australia. The only people in this Parliament who look after the ordinary people of Australia are members of the Liberal and National Parties. We have a sacred trust to bring this country back to the heights that it achieved in the post-war reconstruction period. We are determined to do it. We will expose these people for what they have done. They will never in Australia's history be forgiven. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade)(3.35) —We have just heard from the person who is the Opposition spokesman on Treasury matters, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton). He is the one whose poor, shallow, confused little mind is supposed to contain all the bright ideas that the Opposition has-- Mr Tuckey —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. We have had considerable discussion in this Parliament in recent times about insulting language. If the tax dodger opposite wants to do that, I am quite pleased about it and we will talk about the Treasurer, who steals money-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member will withdraw those remarks. Mr Tuckey —My point of order is to ask that the other matter be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will withdraw those remarks. Mr Tuckey —I am raising a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat for a moment. The honourable member should know that, in taking a point of order, one does not pour scorn or use unparliamentary language. While he was on his feet I asked him to withdraw those remarks which are an offence against the Standing Orders. When he has done that, I will then deal with his point of order. I ask the honourable member to withdraw those remarks. Mr Tuckey —I withdraw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister has used what the honourable member for O'Connor said were insulting words. I doubt whether they are unparliamentary words, but it might help the House if the Minister withdrew and we continued with the debate. Mr DAWKINS —If the person to whom they are directed finds them offensive, of course I will withdraw them. Mr Carlton —They were offensive. Mr DAWKINS —I withdraw them. We have just heard from the Opposition spokesman on Treasury matters, whose confused mind is supposed to contain all the bright ideas for the Opposition in terms of how it will solve the problems of this country. Of course, we listened in vain, because throughout his speech, and throughout the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) we heard nothing about what they have in mind in terms of specific policies. Of course, that is what this debate is all about. This debate has not been brought on by any unexpected collapse in the balance of payments, in the current account. There has been no unexpected or dramatic rise in the current account deficit. It has been brought about by a collapse of confidence in the Opposition and, particularly, a collapse of confidence in the Leader of the Opposition. The last thing that this debate is about is the balance of payments. This debate is about an increasingly desperate, increasingly deceitful and increasingly cornered Opposition and Opposition Leader. The Opposition is bereft of ideas, bereft of policy, bereft of political decency, bereft of consistency and, most importantly, increasingly bereft of friends. The thing which all Australians find most incredible-the thing which most Australians will never forgive in a politician-is a politician who backflips at every opportunity. The Leader of the Opposition came to his position after a desperate and discredited period as Treasurer. He brought to the position ideas and high sounding notions about what he had in mind for this country. But he has slipped into a duplicitous approach in relation to the policies that he is now pursuing. On every issue he has backflipped from the position he adopted prior to stealing the leadership from the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock). I do not think that decent Australians will accept that sort of conduct, that sort of absence of political morality, in any of its leaders. The Leader of the Opposition, as the Treasurer (Mr Keating) pointed out, has embarked once again upon another instalment in the economic sabotage of this country. He has been attempting to undermine the country at a time when everybody recognises it faces one of the most difficult circumstances ever. The reason for that is not that this Government has created any particular mess. In fact from the position the economy was in when the former Treasurer-he is now the Leader of the Opposition-had reduced the economy to its knees, reduced it to a position of negative growth, it was this Government whose policies brought the economy back to a strong position of growth only to find that the world then turned against us. Just imagine the state the economy would have been in if, in the period of the former Government, the world did to us then what it is doing to us now. The problems we are confronting are, in a sense, not new but their magnitude is very new. Over the last 30 years we have seen our terms of trade decline by about one per cent a year but it was only last year and this year that we saw a decline of such massive proportions. That has really delivered a great blow to the approach that this Government was taking in relation to restoring healthy, economic growth, reducing inflation and reducing unemployment in this country, after a period when growth had gone into reverse, the economy had gone into reverse, unemployment was spiralling upwards and inflation was totally out of control. Under these circumstances what does the Leader of the Opposition intend to do? He is not prepared to offer any helpful suggestion about how, under these circumstances, the country might work together. He is not prepared to work to the clearly optimistic signs that are now available to encourage investment, to encourage renewed confidence in the prospects for this country. Of course he is not prepared to do that. What he is prepared to do is go around the country, and indeed around the world, with his carping criticism about the disaster that befalls us. But what is it that apparently is illustrated by one month's current account figures which brings on this absurd debate, this absurd diversion from the great problems that are confronted by the Opposition and its pathetic leader? There is nothing in the figures that were released today which would require the Government to revise any of the predictions it made in the Budget. We predicted that for the first six months of this financial year there would be a very poor performance on the current account, that there would be high levels of current account deficit during these six months largely for seasonal factors and largely because the effect of the policies that we are putting into place will not really begin to bite, in terms of their effect on the current account deficit, until next year. There is nothing at all in this month's figures which cause us to lose any of the confidence that we have in the prospects for the future. What we have seen, in terms of trends that have been developing over the last few months, is exports growing. Over the last three months exports grew by 22 per cent. When one takes into account the difference between value and volume one recognises that volumes have been growing very strongly indeed. Imports have been growing much slower than exports, which means that over time we are beginning to claw back our current account deficit. As I have said, this problem is not new; it is not one of our creation. It is a problem where the world has turned against us in terms of the price it is prepared to pay for what we sell it and in terms of the prices it requires us to pay for what we need in this country. That kind of problem simply cannot be overcome overnight. What we inherited in this country was a totally unbalanced economic structure and that must also be recalled. I listened to the Opposition spokesman on Treasury matters talk about the fact that we in this country have relied for too long on the rural sector and the mining sector for our export revenue. It was him, his colleagues and his Party when in government which destroyed manufacturing industry in this country as a result of an over-valued currency. This made the price of the products which our manufacturing industry could produce quite uncompetitive with that of the rest of the world. They had a wages policy which was quite out of control which meant that the costs of production in this country were rising higher than they were in any other country. We had a financial system which was in chaos and restrictive and therefore it provided no basis for proper investment or the proper formation of capital to make way for investment in this country. We had a protectionist policy, an industry policy, which provided the highest levels of protection to the least efficient industries in this country, therefore ensuring that there was the greatest concentration, indeed a pre-occupation, with the domestic market. Honourable members opposite are the last people in the world who can tell us about what should happen to manufacturing industry. They are the ones who destroyed manufacturing industry through their inappropriate policies over nearly 30 years. We are attempting to put some heart back into manufacturing so that it can play its proper role in Australia's export performance. We recognise that manufacturing cannot continue to contribute only 20 per cent of our export revenue. Manufacturing industry must make a much greater contribution but it will not make that contribution by a return to the failed policies of the Liberal and National parties. Their policies are the reasons why manufacturing has been in such a poor position to respond quickly to the restored circumstances which now confront it. Let me return to the essential proposition of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition is intent on pouring scorn on the fortunes of this country and the fortunes of this economy. I find that to be one of the most disgraceful forms of conduct from any person who purports to be and who holds himself out as a potential Prime Minister of this country. Fancy anybody who wants to be Prime Minister deliberately denigrating the prospects of this country. He thinks that if he is able to convince and persuade everybody that what we are saying is wrong, that the fortunes of this economy are not as good as they palpably are, then that will provide the basis for him to grease his way to power. Of course, the Australian people will see right through him, and most other people who have any influence within this economy, within this country, already have seen through him. Why does the Opposition not offer some positive, some helpful, some co-operative suggestions about what we ought to be doing with this economy? Mr Carlton —We have stacks of them. Mr DAWKINS —Of course the Opposition has not. It is because it does not have any policies that it has to carry on with this sort of nonsense. It has to manufacture a position of crisis where there is no crisis. Let me repeat: There is nothing in today's current account figure that causes us, or indeed most economic commentators around the world or around Australia, to adjust our predictions. There is nothing in this figure which causes us to revise our predictions for the rest of the year. All of this has been expected not only by us but also by the business community and that is what is so alarming about the Opposition's position. It tries to create a position of crisis not because it can offer any suggestions as to how we might improve the circumstances more quickly but because it just wants to manufacture a position of crisis. It wants to magnify what it believes to be the problems in order that people will have less confidence in the future of this country. We have seen more and more business people, intelligent business people, recognise increasingly day by day that the Australian economy now has a new robustness and a new competitiveness which will encourage them to expand their businesses and to start new ones. Most important is the disgraceful disparagement of the trade union movement by the Opposition spokesman on Treasury matters. There has never been a time when the trade union movement of this country has been more co-operative, more realistic, about what needs to be done in terms of industry policy. We have never had a more co-operative trade union movement and yet this Opposition says that one of its key objectives is to smash the trade union movement and to smash its leadership. It is the trade union leadership and, I think, the intelligent and non-political part of the business community which are recognising what has to be done and are co-operating magnificently with the Government in trying to achieve the turnabout that we need. The point is that it is only this Government which has the necessary mix of policies to deal with the problems that confront us. We have a wages policy that is working. It will continue to work and continue to be able to adjust to the circumstances with which we are confronted. We have an export strategy which recognises that while agriculture and mining are important and will continue to be important, they can no longer make the enormous contribution that they did. They need to be helped because we cannot any longer expect to look forward to the optimistic fortunes for commodity prices on which the Opposition, when in government, was prepared to rely. We recognise that manufacturing industry has an important part to play but that will only happen when the necessary restructuring occurs. This is happening. We have a foreign investment policy which is going to encourage more and more foreign investment into this country, not in speculative areas but in proper productive areas. We have industry plans which recognise the importance of those key industries and the fact that they can and will become more efficient. Most importantly, we have a strategy for agriculture. We have assisted agriculture enormously by floating the dollar. Agriculture has been saved by this decision. But more than that, we see in key areas of agricultural production that, as a result of the encouragement that we have been able to provide, there are good prospects in the area of meat, wool, sugar and so on. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Dr WATSON(Forde)(3.52) —Madam Speaker, I would like to address the issue of- Motion (by Mr Dawkins) agreed to: That the question be now put. Original question put: That the motion (Mr Howard's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 75 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 13 —— Adermann, A. E. Jull, D. F. Aldred, K. J. Katter, R. C. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B. Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S. Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J. Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Brown, N. A. McVeigh, D. T. Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M. Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G. Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ewen Moore, J. C. Cameron, Ian Nehl, G. B. Carlton, J. J. Peacock, A. S. Cobb, M. R. Porter, J. R. Coleman, W. P. Reith, P. K. Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanConquest, B. J. Rocher, A. C. Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M. Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D. Drummond, P. H. Sharp. J. Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F. Everingham, P. A. E. Sinclair, I. McC. Goodluck, B. J. Slipper, P. N. Hall, Steele Smith, W. Halverson, R. G. Spender, J. M. Hawker, D. P. M. Sullivan, K. J. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Tuckey, C. W. Hodges, J. C. Watson, D. J. H. Hodgman, W. M. Webster, A. P. Howard. J. W. White, P. N. D. Hunt, R. J. D. Wilson, I. B. C. Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A. Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J. Blewett, N. Kent, L. Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J. Brown, John Kerin, J. C. Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E. Brumby J. M. Lamb, A. H. Campbell, G. Lee, M. Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J. Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J. Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay LeoCleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J. Cohen, B. Martin. S. P. Cross, M. D. Mayer, H. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B. Dawkins, J. S. Milton, P. Dubois, S. G. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morris, PeterEdwards, Ronald Mountford, J. G. Fatin, W. F. O'Keefe, N. P. Fitzgibbon, E. J. O'Neil. L. R. T. Free, R. V. Punch, G. F. Gayler, J. Saunderson, J. Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D. Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, J. L. Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W. Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H. Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R. Hawke, R. J. L. Theophanous, A. C. Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E. Holding, A. C. Uren, T. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Willis, R. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W. Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 47 of the High Court of Australia Act 1979, I present the annual report of the High Court for 1985-86. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Industrial Matters) —Pursuant to section 19 of the Ombudsman Act 1976, I present the annual reports of the Commonwealth Ombudsman and Defence Force Ombudsman for 1985-86. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —Pursuant to section 25 of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act 1973, I present the annual report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission for 1985-86. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report of the Australian delegation to the Fortieth Session of the United Nations General Assembly held in New York from 17 September to 18 December 1985. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence) —For the information of honourable members, I present the text of a statement relating to a National Advisory Authority on Computer Security. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —For the information of honourable members, I present the second report of the Medicare Benefits Review Committee dated June 1986. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report on Australia's response to the acquired immune deficiency syndrome. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —For the information of honourable members, I present volumes two and three of the Better Health Commission's report `Looking Forward to Better Health'. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce) —Pursuant to sub-section 45 (4) of the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973, I present the annual report of the Industries Assistance Commission 1985-86. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —For the information of honourable members, I present the minutes of the twenty-eighth meeting of the Australian Water Resources Council meeting held in Adelaide on 3 July 1986. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services) —Pursuant to section 8 of the Urban and Regional Development (Financial Assistance) Act 1974 and sections 15 of the Growth Centres (Financial Assistance) Act 1973 and the Land Commissions (Financial Assistance) Act 1973, I present an amending agreement which finalises arrangements between the Commonwealth and South Australia in relation to financial assistance provided for the development of the Monaro growth centre and for approved programs of land acquisition and development by the South Australian Land Commission. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HAYDEN —I do. Madam SPEAKER —He may proceed. Mr HAYDEN —There is an article in this morning's Age headed `Government decides not to risk Syria bans' and there are three points I have to refer to following a discussion that I had with the journalist concerned. The article states in part: Britain at first appealed to Australia to join in imposing sanctions against Syria. That is not correct. Britain at no time asked us to. It asked us, almost immediately after the announcement of the closure of its embassy, to assume responsibility for representing its interests in Syria. It never at any stage appealed to us to join it in imposing sanctions. While it is true that if there were retaliation against Australia for any action that we might hypothetically have taken against Syria, which action could disadvantage Qantas Airways Ltd, that I have to stress, was not a consideration in our minds. It is possible to re-route Qantas in a number of different directions, one in particular which, on a very rough estimate, I calculated would have cost no more than $10 per passenger, if the figures I have are correct and if my mathematics are correct. If the journalist got the impression from me that this was a dominant concern in our minds, I apologise to him for not being clearer. Similarly, there is not concern that any Australian sanctions now could lead to Syria's retaliation harming Australia's interests. There could be retaliations, but they would be more likely to disadvantage and inconvenience Lebanese people wishing to come to Australia. For our part, the bilateral relationship with Syria is at extremely modest levels and in that sense would not represent any serious retaliation, in fact no notable retaliation against us. Again, if I left such an impression it is most unfortunate and I apologise. It is necessary that I do clarify those things. I conclude by emphasising that there was only one consideration in our mind, and that was to respond positively to the request of the British Government to represent its interests in Syria when it withdrew. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that many Post Office Agencies are to be closed. They provide a network of offices with postal and agency services to residential areas and small communities. They serve a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced if forced to travel further to purchase postal items or collect parcels. It would be an unnecessary expense particularly for pensioners without their own transport. We maintain that the purpose of Post Offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer. They are a community centre particularly in country areas and if necessary they should be subsidised to retain them. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of post office agencies and that the network should be extended, with the Agency services they offer expanded. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Andrew,Mr Ian Cameron,Mr Duncan,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Hawker,Mr Jacobi,Mr Lee,Mr Macphee,Mr Rocher,Mr Ruddock,Mr Shipton,Mr Slipper and Mr Tuckey. 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: 1. That over 67,000 men, women and students enjoy the pursuit of their sport and recreation every year at the Anzac Rifle Range at Malabar and have done so since 1967. 2. The people of Sydney through their membership of 41 clubs headquartered at the Anzac Rifle Range together with a number of other community, school and commercial groups, the police and armed forces will lose this community facility if the Federal Government proceeds to sell the Range to private developers. 3. The Australian Bicentenary Fullbore Rifle Championships are to be conducted at the Anzac Rifle Range in April 1988 as part of the celebration of Australia's Bicentenary. Your petitioners therefore urge the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to retain the Anzac Rifle Range for the continued use and enjoyment of the people of Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt,Mr Cadman,Mr Cowan,Dr Harry Edwards,Mrs Kelly,Mr Martin,Mr Ian Robinson,Mr Ruddock, and Mr Wright. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned at the impact of the new Fringe Benefits Tax on the following grounds: 1. Its severe and damaging effect on business confidence, investment and incentive, especially in the rural, mining and small business sectors. 2. Its capacity to seriously worsen unemployment through the additional costs it imposes. 3. Its extremely negative impact on the competitiveness of export industries at a time when the nation desperately needs to improve its trading performance. 4. In that it may compel many honest and decent citizens to defy the Tax in order to preserve their livelihoods, their businesses and the jobs of their employees, thus causing hardship, the breakdown of respect for the law and discord within the community. We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax legislation forthwith. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, are seriously concerned about the impact of the Fringe Benefits Tax on the following grounds: 1. It is unjust for any person to be liable for tax on benefits received by another person. 2. Compliance with FBT will increase administrative costs for all employers including Local, State and Federal government departments. 3. FBT is an inefficient tax, which will require the Tax Office to employ an army of bureaucrats. 4. FBT is inequitable because liability arises regardless of capacity to pay. 5. The FBT laws are extremely complex. We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax legislation forthwith. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Connolly and Mr Hicks. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned at the impact of the new Fringe Benefits Tax on the following grounds: 1. Its severe and damaging effect on business confidence, investment and incentive, especially in the rural, mining and small business sectors. 2. Its capacity to seriously worsen unemployment through the additional costs it imposes. 3. Its extremely negative impact on the competitiveness of export industries at a time when the nation desperately needs to improve its trading performance. 4. In that it may compel many honest and decent citizens to defy the Tax in order to preserve their livelihoods, their businesses and the jobs of their employees, thus causing hardship, the breakdown of respect for the law and discord within the community. 5. We also feel it is morally wrong for one person to be forced to pay the taxes for another. We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax legislation forthwith. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Bill 1986 is having a detrimental effect on the car industry generally in South Australia, and more particularly, on employment in that industry. 2. The Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Bill 1986 contains many anomalies, inconsistencies and mistakes in drafting and its administrative implementation is an unwarranted burden on Australian business and the Australian taxpayer. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that this House repeal as a matter of utmost urgency this regressive legislation which imposes a disincentive to economic and employment growth, thereby jeopardising the well-being and living standards of all Australians. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Andrew. 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 the anomalous Fringe Benefits tax is iniquitous, inequitable and unfair on the grounds that- it adversely affects business throughout Australia, including farms, by creating a further tax burden it destroys incentive, it has caused unemployment, it is costly to administer and its complexities have caused confusion and widespread anger. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of Labor's Fringe Benefits tax legislation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That the anomalous Fringe Benefits tax is iniquitous, inequitable and unfair on the grounds that- it adversely affects business throughout Australia, including farms, by creating a further tax burden it destroys incentive, it has caused unemployment, it is costly to administer and its complexities have caused confusion and widespread anger. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of Labor's Fringe Benefits tax legislation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The Fringe Benefits Tax will cause hardship to business throughout Australia, especially in the already severely depressed rural sector and in the motor vehicle industry. The Fringe Benefits Tax will be a disincentive to employment and worse, will result in additional unemployment. The economy of this country would best be served by policies that lightened the tax burden, not increased it, that encouraged enterprise, not stifled it, and stimulated growth, development and jobs, not prevented it. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will repeal this legislation, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. 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: They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Give speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a Referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Halverson,Mr Kent,Mr Macphee and Mr Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker,Mr Macphee,Mr Peacock and Mr Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully 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 Kent,Mr Milton and Mr Scott. 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 whereas: (a) Aboriginal and Islander languages, which numbered approximately 260 when Europeans first arrived, are even more seriously endangered-already 145 have become extinct. (b) English-speaking population expansion and English-speaking mass media expansion threatens the survival of the remaining languages of Australia. (c) Aboriginal languages reflect an ethos that is truly Australian and unless steps are taken to implement language maintenance, this ethos will be lost not only to Aborigines but to non-Aboriginal Australians, and to the world. We humbly pray the Government to: 1. Through the Prime Minister's Department, provide $300,000 per annum for a guaranteed period of ten years to enable the Aboriginal community of Australia to establish a co-ordinating body to implement steps to prevent the extinction of the remaining languages, and to introduce programmes which will enable these languages to continue into the future for the sake of all Australians. This body will enable us to maximize existing financial, material, and human resources, and is the least expensive way of implementing urgently needed maintenance programmes. 2. Through the Prime Minister's Department, provide finance for the establishment of Regional Language Centres-ten are urgently needed-cost $200,000 each. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purposes for our Nation. And your petitioners, in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Andrew and Mr Macphee. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That many Australian wage and salary earners and self-employed persons do not enjoy secure retirement incomes provided by superannuation; and That the Government issued in December 1985 Guidelines for the implementation of the proposed productivity decision by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and draft Operation Standards for Superannuation schemes. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. Guarantees to every employee the right and freedom to select the superannuation scheme of his/her choice. 2. Protects the individual exercising that freedom of choice from any coercion, influence or other pressure which may be applied by any employer, association or trade union. 3. Will recognise only those schemes which provide genuine superannuation and reject those schemes which do not provide for- preservation of benefits to retirement vesting of employer contributions equal employer and employee Trusteeship control to ensure security of investments. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned plead that the Parliament implement pro-family policies. In particular we appeal for: 1. the retention of the present graduated assessment system for payment of the Family Allowance; 2. indexation of the Family Allowance in order to keep pace with inflation; 3. an increase of 3.7% in the Family Allowance benefit to return it to 11.5% of the Average Award Wage (making it similar in value to the 11.5% of the Basic Wage when Child Endowment was first introduced by the Chifley Government in 1941). 4. retention of the Dependent Spouse Rebate and the amount of the Dependent Spouse Rebate adjusted so that it is equal in value to the tax-free threshold allowed when calculating taxable income. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Drummond and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: Graduated family allowances are of important assistance to families with more than one child. All family allowances, whether for one, two, three or more children, have not kept pace with inflation. There are suggestions that all family allowances should be paid at the one flat rate. This would severely disadvantage families with more than one child. There are also suggestions that the dependent spouse rebate be reduced or removed. This would represent another blow to the family unit. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should: ask the Federal Government to increase the value of existing family allowance payments, and reject any moves to change the payments to a flat rate or to tamper with the spouse rebate; And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker and Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) that the phasing down and eventual closure of the services of the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Centre at Glen Waverley will be detrimental to the rehabilitation of disabled Australian citizens; (2) that the Glen Waverley Rehabilitation Centre is ``purpose'' built and its loss would deprive disabled Australian citizens of a unique multi-million dollar facility; (3) that the essential accommodation for disabled Australian citizens will no longer be available. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: (1) that the phasing down of the services of the Glen Waverley Rehabilitation Centre be reversed immediately; (2) that the one-hundred-and-four-bed residential facility be fully utilised immediately; (3) that sufficient funding is provided by the Commonwealth Department of Community Services to operate the Centre at full capacity. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our Nation and your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Aldred. To the Speaker and Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia shows- That we wish to express our deep concern at the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission in relation to the proposed restructuring of the textile, clothing and footwear manufacturing industries in Australia and in particular- we reject the proposal of the IAC to cut protection to a 50% tariff we reject the IAC's projection that 20,000 jobs will be lost with expected estimates to be more like 60,000 jobs we reject the IAC's view that we will find new jobs without assistance to retrain we reject the IAC's finding that 60,000 jobs will be created in mining, agriculture and elsewhere Your petitioners therefore pray that you will support the TCF Unions Alternative Seven Year Plan so that present employment levels in these industries can be maintained. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard. To the Speaker and Honourable Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully showeth: That we wish to protest at the cutbacks announced in the Federal Budget of August 1986. Large numbers of people live in poverty and many more are now moving in that direction. Gains in education, multi-culturalism, welfare and in many other areas that have been important to the Australian people are being eroded and in some cases totally destroyed. Members of the ethnic community have been hit twice as hard by the August Budget. They experience the hardship of general economic policies as well as the severe cutbacks that effect services essential to developing equal opportunity and the promotion of multi-culturalism. We therefore call upon the Federal Government to reconsider the economic direction which it is pursuing and develop economic policies that cater for the needs of all Australians. Specifically, such policies must include the following which are vital to the ethnic and general Australian community at large- the Federal Government to undertake full responsibility to maintain and expand the ESL programme; Retain the Human Rights Commission; Retain the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs; Reinstate funding to the education centres programme; Maintain the autonomy of SBS Television and Ethnic Radio; Maintain the branches of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in Albury, Wollongong, Newcastle in NSW, as well as the other branches in Victoria and Queensland; To not introduce Tertiary Education fees; to maintain the Bill of rights legislation; To restore full funding to the Commonwealth Employment Programme. Your petitioners as in duty bound shall ever humbly pray. by Mr Cadman. 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: They consider that the people of the Philippines have been unjustly and corruptly defrauded of large sums of money by ex-President Ferdinand Marcos, his wife and their associates, that much of this ill-gotten wealth has been invested in countries outside the Philippines, including Australia, and that, in the interest of social justice, it should be returned to the Philippines, to be used for the benefit of its people. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Take all possible steps to repatriate to the control of the Philippine government all assets and financial interests that ex-President Marcos, his wife and their associates may have in Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Charles. To the Honourable Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled to Petition of Peace; your petitioners therefore pray that the Government is more committed in establishing peaceful relations with the People within and outside of Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Connolly. To the Honourable the Speaker and the members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully showeth: That the humble petitioners have grave concern about recent changes in the Extradition (Foreign States) Act of 1966 which deny basic rights which have been a cornerstone of the English and Australian law for over seven hundred years. We are speaking of the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and the right of an individual to defend himself against his accusers. This concern has come to light during recent extradition proceedings against Messrs, Hempel and Etheredge in Western Australia. We are concerned that because judicial protection of these basic rights has been excluded from the Act refugees, migrants, Australian overseas travellers, and visitors are at risk when they have been to (or come from) countries where the norms and practices of human rights and civil liberties are below traditionally accepted Australian standards. We, the undersigned petitioners, therefore urge the Government to re-examine the Extradition (Foreign States) Act as amended in 1985, and amend the current Act so that the rights of the accused are once again judicially protected in Australia. In addition, we urge the Government to refrain from entering into any further extradition treaties or proceedings under the current Act until the process of re-examination and amendment of the Act has occurred. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Government should cancel the Fringe Benefits Tax they intend to impose on businesses throughout Australia because: 1. The tax discriminates against charitable organisations, sports clubs, private schools and religious organisations; 2. The tax will mean employees around Australia will suffer reductions in their renumeration packages; 3. The Bill places another impossible burden of paperwork on small business; 4. The Bill is absurd in its application to Government employees, who now constitute 32 per cent of the workforce. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the intention of the Hawke Government to unionise independent contractors, sub-contractors, the self-employed, partnerships, sole traders and family businesses will: Remove the freedom of independent small business to: (a) set their own prices (b) work their own hours (c) control their own businesses (d) negotiate their own contracts; and will create impossible working conditions which will include the payment of: (a) union superannuation, compensation, payroll tax, annual leave loadings, public holiday loadings, PAYE tax deductions (b) limited incomes (c) inflexible awards and conditions; and (d) fixed hours of work. We the undersigned call upon the Government to restore incentive and opportunity to the Australian economy and to abandon these coercive measures. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Halverson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that persistent rumour suggest 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. Proceed with abolishing more stringent conditions applying to the granting of the TPI pension. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Halverson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That the Hawke Government should; 1. Pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices; 2. Not increase or extend fuel taxes; and 3. 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 Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled, we the undersigned citizens call upon all Members to pay due respect to pensioners and concessional card holders and cease the constant erosion of our entitlements by the Hawke Government. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth: That we strenuously object to the Government's decision to delete 45 commonly prescribed drugs (including analgesics, anti-histamines, cough mixtures and expectorants) from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme; That we strenuously object to the Health Minister's assertion that the health problems for which these medications are prescribed (e.g. arthritis and allergic rhinitis) are ``relatively minor, self-limiting illnesses''. That we beg the House to reconsider these deletions from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. 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. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the many anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions brought to its notice, the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. Your petitioners call for Government intervention to provide economic justice for families and humbly pray that whatever action possible be taken to provide some price control in the following areas, which most directly affect the family budget: food and other essential items petrol rent and bond levels 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 in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901 and each point depicting a State and the Territories of the Commonwealth. 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 its form or to its acceptance as the sole Australian National Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Members of the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled: Will ensure that the existing Australian National Flag remains sacrosanct from change and remains the sole National Flag. 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 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 immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The 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 Hodgman. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The 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 Kent. 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. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia of Albanian back-ground respectfully showeth: We most strongly oppose the use of the `Special Broadcasting Service' and the taxpayers funds for nationalist political purposes. We are deeply concerned that the existing Albanian program on Radio 3EA Melbourne is not meeting the needs of the community. It is being used against its interests, as well as the interests of the broader Australian society. We respectfully believe that such use of public facilities undermines Australian principles of multi-culturalism and has a damaging effect on community relations. Your petitioners therefore strongly urge the Government to take immediate action to ensure that the present announcers of the Albanian program are removed and replaced with community representatives. by Mr Kent. 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 we strongly oppose the introduction of the `Australia Card' or any other form of National Identification Numbering System. We believe that the introduction of a National Identification Numbering System is not only totally unnecessary but is a severe threat to our civil liberties and privacy. We condemn the Government's actions on this matter, particularly as no reasonable nor responsible justifications for the proposal have been forthcoming from the Government. We humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should reject any proposal for a National Identification Numbering System. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled, the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: (1) We oppose the introduction of a Tertiary Administration fee on the grounds that it will pave the way for an elitist system of education available only to those who can afford to pay. and (2) We oppose the introduction of a tertiary administration fee on the grounds that it will provide the legislative machinery to increase tertiary fees at any time deemed necessary by government, offering no recourse to tertiary students. What your petitioners therefore humbly pray; that the House take all possible steps to withdraw the introduction of the Tertiary Administration Fee. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Langmore. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of Australia in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. The introduction of an administrative charge for annual enrolment will restrict access to higher education for a range of disadvantaged groups, particularly women, rural dwellers and some low income earners. 2. Students will be deterred from study because of the probable escalation in the charge in future Budgets, prohibiting students' ability to plan the long term costs of their education. 3. The introduction of an administrative charge is contrary to the education provisions of the ALP/ACTU Accord and ALP policy which states that the party ``will maintain the provision of free tertiary education''. 4. The overseas student visa charge and full cost tuition for overseas students is unfair and further that it adds to the case of those calling for the reintroduction of fees. Your petitioners therefore pray that the annual administrative charge for higher education students not be introduced and that both the visa charge and full cost tuition fees for overseas students be removed. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, shall ever pray. by Mr Langmore. 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: 1. That the Summerland Point Post Office recently closed at short notice by Australia Post should be reopened. 2. This Post Office has serviced a community consisting mainly of the aged and young families with small children who are now faced with a five kilometre journey to the nearest Post Office. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should ask the Minister for Communications not to deny the 800 permanent residents of Summerland Point on Lake Macquarie the use of a Post Office. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Lee. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We, the undersigned wish to protest at recent changes effecting War Widows such as: (a) ``The freezing of their part-aged pensions''. (b) ``The delay in indexing their pensions by 6 weeks'', and (c) ``The reduced availability of Pharmaceuticals''. We also consider that the Government has failed to honour its obligations to War Widows. War Widows Pensions and conditions are compensation for the loss of our husbands. There has been no suggestion that recipients of compensation for industrial or vehicle accidents should return part of their Compensation so why should we lose conditions that our men have fought for on our behalf. We therefore, pray that the Government honour its obligations to war widows. by Mr McVeigh. 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- (1) A cessation of the testing of nuclear weapons would break the cycle of research, development and deployment of nuclear weapons and prevent the acquisition of new and ever more lethal weapons of mass destruction. It would thus be a major and significant step towards ending the arms race and beginning the disarmament process; and (2) The Soviet Union has extended its unilateral moratorium on nuclear weapons testing until August 6 this year and has again invited the United States to cease its nuclear testing program. Your petitioners therefore urge the Australian Government to put the strongest pressure on the United States Government to join the Soviet Union's nuclear test ban. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows- That we wish to express our deep concern at- 1. the ABC Management's decision to originate evening programmes from the Eastern States to the detriment of regional programmes; and 2. the absence of a West Australian representative on the ABC Board. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government give the highest priority to- 1. the retention of regional evening programmes in West Australia; and 2. the return of a West Australian to the ABC Board. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. 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: By cutting ESL funding and eliminating funding for community languages and multicultural education you have attacked tens of thousands of Australian children. You have condemned these children with limited English to gross educational inequality and very dim prospects for their future. On behalf of these children we call on you to remove this new discrimination which your budget has guaranteed by immediately restoring ESL and Multicultural education funding. 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 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: The legislation to tax fringe benefits is iniquitous, inequitable and unfair; It will severely disadvantage both employees and employers; Employees will clearly lose many fringe benefits as a direct result of the additional heavy taxation burden being imposed upon employers; Employers will be forced to pay even higher levels of taxation to provide fringe benefits for employees. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Immediately abandon the Fringe Benefits Tax. And your 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 production 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. 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 or benefits. That we are already required to pay a 1 percent levy to partly finance the Medicare scheme and that we would regard any further taxation of our health insurance arrangements as unfair and unreasonable. That therefore we urge the Government to ensure that there is no taxation on illness and no special taxation on those who seek to insure themselves against the cost of private medical treatment in hospital. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mrs Sullivan. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that they are opposed to the elimination, as from 1 November 1986, of a number of commonly used medications previously on the Schedule of Pharmaceutical Benefits. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives assembled call upon the Government to reject any proposal that discontinues the provision of free medications to pensioners. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Sullivan. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We, the undersigned, plead that Parliament will legislate, or act in accordance with the present legislation, to replace the current members of the Film Censorship Board who have admitted to Senator Harradine on 12th December 1984, as reported in the Senate Select Committee on Video Material, (see attached extracts), that they are not applying either the blasphemy or obscenity tests as required under the provisions of the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations, and that these persons be replaced by persons who will apply these and other related test in accordance with the said Regulations. Your petitioners humbly pray that you will give this matter your earnest consideration, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tuckey. To the Speaker and Honourable Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully showeth: By drastically cutting E.S.L. funding, you have disadvantaged thousands of Australian children. Not only will students with limited English face gross educational inequality, but the entire Australian community will feel the wider effect-through the resultant inability of some of its citizens to contribute effectively to Australian society. On behalf of the children who will be directly affected, and the Australian community generally, we call on you to restore full funding for the general support element of the Commonwealth E.S.L. program. by Mr White. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned who are staff of the ABC and the SBS respectfully showeth that: The proposed legislation to amalgamate the ABC and the SBS, together with certain existing provisions of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 (as amended), would have the effect of removing the present Staff Elected Director of the ABC from office before the end of his elected term, and of barring him from standing for re-election. This offends basic democratic principle. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: The Government will remedy this situation by either, continuing the current Staff Elected Director in office until the normal expiration of his term on 15 December 1987 or, making such amendments as are necessary to the Broadcasting and Television Legislation Amendment Act 1986, to enable the current Staff Elected Director to contest an early election after amalgamation, whilst preventing him from seeking a further term immediately following the one for which the early election is held. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Jenkins,Mr Kent,Mr Langmore,Mr Scott and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of the State of South Australia respectfully showeth: We most strongly oppose the moves by the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service to sell or close Payneham Rehabilitation Centre, situated at 411 Payneham Road, Felixstow in South Australia. We oppose and express our concern that vocational workshops and education services which were available at Payneham Rehabilitation Centre have already been discontinued while staff are still employed at the Centre. We ask that immediate steps be taken by the Government to fully utilise the Centre for what it was designed for i.e. the rehabilitation of sick and injured people to their maximum potential. We ask that the workshop and educational services be re-established immediately and that redeployment action of staff from Payneham Rehabilitation Centre be ceased. by Mr Bilney,Mr Duncan,Mr Hurford and Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of Western Australia call on the Commonwealth Government to reverse recent decisions which deny Secondary Allowances to Year 11 Students under the age of 16 years and make such allowances directly payable to students on attaining the age of 16. This request is made on the basis that: (i) Education benefits as part of income support benefits generally are a Commonwealth responsibility under the constitution. (ii) It is the right of parents with children in Year 11 in Western Australia to receive the same benefit as parents with children at the equivalent stage of their education in other parts of Australia irrespective of their age. (iii) This decision by the Commonwealth Government will impact most unfairly on the capacity of low income families in Western Australia to keep their children at school in Years 11 and 12. (iv) Direct payment of the allowance to 16 years olds will make it easier for young people to leave home and bring more pressure on State Authorities to find alternative accommodation for them at the community and taxpayers' expense. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard. 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 a Western Sydney State University in conjunction with the New South Wales Government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Queensland, Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by 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 the Federal Division of Maranoa respectfully showeth that: the ABC proposes to abolish certain country programmes from regional stations. Such action will disadvantage those country listeners who only have the benefit of one radio station. Regional stations broadcast entertainment and topics of local interest and any reduction in these programmes will undoubtedly inconvenience those listeners in the more remote and isolated areas of the state. Talk back shows and the Hospital Hour are only two such programmes which it is thought are to be abolished. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Approach the ABC requesting that they reconsider their proposal to adopt the above and that commonsense prevail in ensuring that those listeners who reside in country areas are not disregarded. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in 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 taxation deductions; that the Hawke Government's Fringe Benefits Tax is an unwarranted burden on the small business and rural sectors, which will severely affect their long term viability. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government withdraws the Fringe Benefits Tax legislation without delay. by Mr Halverson. To the Right Honourable Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the assembled Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. We the humble petitioners at Warrnambool Institute Student Union, in the Federal electorate of Wannon respectfully showeth: That the introduction of an Administration Charge of $250 for higher education students in Appropriation Bill 1986-87 (Volume-1, Page-98) is a regressive step for the Education system; That the introduction of an Administration Charge will force students to withdraw from studies and thereby destroy the opportunity for them to complete their education; That the Administration Charge is a form of Tuition Fees and as such destroys the principle of free education for all; We the humble petitioners hereby request you to amend the Appropriation Bill 1986-87, so that the system of free education for all students will continue. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Right Honourable Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the assembled Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. We, the humble petitioners at Bendigo College of Advanced Education and from within the community served by the College, respectfully showeth: That the introduction of an Administration Charge of $250 for higher education students in Appropriation Bill 1986-87 (Volume-1, Page-98) is a regressive step for the Education system; That the introduction of an Administration Charge will force students to withdraw from studies and thereby destroy the opportunity for them to complete their education; That the Administration Charge is a form of Tuition Fees and as such destroys the principle of free education for all; That it is contrary to ALP policy which states that the party ``will maintain the provision of free tertiary education.'' We, the humble petitioners hereby request you to amend the Appropriation Bill 1986-87, so that the system of free education for all students will continue. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Langmore. To the Right Honourable Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the assembled Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. We, the humble petitioners at Lincoln Institute of Health Sciences Student Union, the Federal electorate of Melbourne, respectfully showeth: That the introduction of an Administrative Charge of $250 for higher education students in Appropriation Bill 1986-87 (Volume-1, Page-98) is a regressive step for the Education system. This Administration Charge is a form of Tuition fee and as such destroys the principle of free education. That the increase in the VISA Charge for Overseas Students further erodes the effectiveness of education as a form of overseas aid, and means that only the already-privileged will have access to education in Australia. That tertiary allowances continue to be inadequate to meet the real financial needs of students, and the introduction of the Austudy scheme does nothing to remedy this situation. We, the humble petitioners hereby request that you amend the Appropriation Bill 1986-87, in the interests of a free and accessible education system. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Langmore. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Victoria respectfully showeth: That all legitimate business expenses incurred in earnment 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 of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned, respectfully showeth that we, the people of Victoria would like to remind you of your moral duty in regard to your decision to sell uranium to France, against ALP policy. The French are still nuclear testing in the South Pacific, despite world wide protests. We therefore call on you to reverse the decision to sell uranium to France. by Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of 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 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 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 Federal Division of Fisher respectfully showeth that: The proposed capital gains tax penalises small business, discourages long-term investment, hinders capital formation and will freeze existing investment patterns and limits the investors' ability to adjust to changed market conditions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Immediately abandon its ill-considered capital gains tax proposal. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the 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 Government's actions in changing levels of pharmaceutical benefits will adversely effect the infirm and elderly and that it will cause further unnecessary economic hardship and suffering among all people who are currently dependant on existing benefits. The Government's actions are little more than yet another burden placed upon our Australian citizens. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Restore pharmaceutical benefits to their former level, therefore lifting this unequitable burden now being placed squarely on the infirm throughout Australia. Give a firm undertaking not to further desert those citizens in need of medical support. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the electorate of Fisher respectfully showeth that: Whereas the present Government of the Commonwealth of Australia has purported to present the title deeds to Ayers Rock in Central Australia, in reality the joint property of the people of the Commonwealth to an Aboriginal Land Council on 26 October 1985. Whereas opinion polls and statements of representative groups, Members of Parliament and respected individuals show clearly that the Commonwealth Government had no mandate from the citizens of the Commonwealth to act in such a disgraceful manner. Whereas the present Government claims to be totally opposed to apartheid (separate development) in South Africa but purported to hand over Ayers Rock to an Aboriginal Council in support of a policy of apartheid (separate development) which has been shown to be detrimental to the Aboriginal people of Australia. Whereas it is pursuing this policy making it a crime for most white and many Aboriginals to enter, without permit, large areas of the Commonwealth designated apartheid (i.e., set aside for separate development), contrary to our democratic traditions and experience of freedom of movement for citizens of all racial origins within Australia. Whereas Australian citizens have no present means available to them to prevent this violation of their natural rights to unfettered common ownership of, and access to, a treasured natural asset. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Seek means available for the protection of the people's interests to reverse this outrage and preserve the democratic traditions of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher respectfully showeth that: 1. That we, the undersigned, are totally opposed to substantial Federal Government funding presently being wasted on undesirable, inefficient and incompetently run Government projects that are unacceptable to the vast majority of decent Australians. 2. That Government grants should not be directed toward projects that are of no, or dubious, worth to the improvement of Australia. 3. That public funding should not be used in encouraging lifestyles contrary to the Australian family way of life. 4. That public moneys should not be given to minority groups to support projects that are of a direct political nature. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Halt forthwith the pubic funding for the abovementioned purposes. 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 Australian public cannot condone the continued use of public funds on projects that contribute little to the community at large. That given the present economic situation, where economic restraint is urgently needed, the current Australia Post ``We Deliver'' campaign is an unacceptable waste of public funds. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Represenatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Immediately cancel any projected funding for Government or Government instrumentality sponsored works that are not of direct community benefit; Exercise restraint on any further funding. 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Shire of Caboolture respectfully showeth: 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. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The impact on all Australians of our worst ever current account deficit. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: That the business of the day be called on. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 2, sub-clause 2(4), line 3, leave out ``Sub-section 7(1), sections'', insert ``Sections 7,''. No. 2-Page 2, paragraph 4(a), proposed new paragraph 9(1) (b), line 25, after ``Secretary'', insert ``certifies, in writing, that the Secretary''. No. 3-Page 2, paragraph 4(b), lines 29 to 33, leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraph: ``(b) by adding at the end of the following sub-sections: `(3) The Minister may determine, in writing, that a class of persons specified in the determination is a class of financially disadvantaged persons for the purposes of this section. `(4) Sections 48, 49, 49a and 50 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 apply to certificates made under sub-section (1) and determinations made under sub-section (3) as if in those provisions references to regulations were references to certificates or determinations, references to a regulation were references to a provision of a certificate or determination and references to repeal were references to revocation. `(5) Certificates made under sub-section (1) and determinations made under sub-section (3) shall not be taken to be statutory rules within the meaning of the Statutory Rules Publication Act 1903, but sub-sections 5(3) to (3c) (inclusive) of the Act apply in relation to such certificates and determinations as they apply to statutory rules. `(6) For the purposes of the application of sub-section 5(3b) of the Statutory Rules Publication Act 1903 in accordance with sub-section (5) of this section, the reference in the first-mentioned sub-section to the Minister of State for Sport, Recreation and Tourism shall be read as a reference to the Minister administering this Act. `(7) Section 5 of the Evidence Act 1905 applies to certificates made under sub-section (1) and determinations made under sub-section (3) as that section applies to an order made by the Minister. `(8) In this section, ``financially disadvantaged person'' means an eligible person included in a class of persons determined by the Minister, under sub-section (3), to be a class of financially disadvantaged persons.'.''. No. 4-Page 3, sub-clause 7(2), lines 35 to 39, leave out the sub-clause. No. 5-Page 12, sub-clause 25(1), lines 17 to 26, leave out the sub-clause, insert the following sub-clause: ``(1) Section 3 of the Principal Act is amended by inserting after the definition of `Secretary' in sub-section (1) the following definition: ` ``special needs group'' has the same meaning as in section 39 of the National Health Act 1953;'.''. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(4.14) —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. The Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill 1986 has been agreed to by the Senate with a number of amendments. In brief, the amendments have three effects. Under the Bill, a new mechanism is being inserted to enable capital grants of up to 100 per cent of the capital cost of the approved home where the Secretary of the Department of Social Security is satisfied that the home is intended to be used exclusively, or almost exclusively, for the accommodation of financially disadvantaged persons. The Secretary may determine a class of persons to be financially disadvantaged persons. The first effect of the amendments gives the Minister rather than the Secretary the power to determine classes of financially disadvantaged persons, to require the determination to be notified in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette and to be laid before each House of Parliament and to be subjected to disallowance in the same manner as regulations. The second effect of the amendments requires the Secretary to certify in writing whether the Secretary is satisfied that the approved home is intended to be used exclusively, or almost exclusively, for the accommodation of financially disadvantaged persons and to require that each certificate also be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and disallowance. The Bill also substitutes a Gazette notice mechanism for the current requirement under the definition of nursing home care in sub-section 4 (1) of the National Health Act 1953 and under section 3 of the Nursing Homes Assistance Act 1974 that services of a kind provided in a nursing home be prescribed in regulations. The third effect of the amendment is to retain the current requirement of prescribing regulations in relation to these definitions. These amendments are acceptable to the Government. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(4.18) —It pleases me that on this occasion we can thank the Government for its co-operation in accepting the Opposition's amendments in the Senate. It is truly evidence of a bipartisan approach to age care in Australia and we would like to extend our thanks to the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) for his co-operation and common sense. We have no hesitation in supporting the amendments in this place. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Debate resumed. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(4.19) —It gives me some satisfaction to speak to the Australia Card Bill 1986 today. As honourable members will be aware, when this proposition was originally floated some considerable time ago, I indicated publicly my concern about the proposal. I did so at that stage because it was my view that the concept had not been given sufficient scrutiny, particularly by the Parliament. More particularly at that time there were no propositions or firm proposals for comprehensive corollary legislation encompassing the necessary privacy protection and the necessary data protection legislation. Mr Reith —So now you will be a good boy and do what you are told. Mr GRIFFITHS —The honourable member for Flinders may wish to explain to his constituents why he is prepared to oppose a measure which demonstrably will reduce the incidence of tax fraud and social security fraud in this community. Opposition members march into this House day after day and talk about reducing the deficit, whilst at the same time they do not have the backbone to support any major reform of our taxation system. There is a $6 billion credibility gap in the Opposition's position. The honourable member for Flinders will embrace that approach at his own electoral peril. He reminded me only a few moments ago, incidentally, that his margin is somewhat slim. Whilst he is a friend and colleague of mine, I must say on this occasion that he will run the risk of reducing that somewhat narrow margin even further. In the substance of my contribution today I will touch upon the implications of the introduction of the Australia Card for our banking industry and for combating crime in our community. As honourable members would know, I have for some considerable time been involved with the National Crime Authority as Chairman of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the National Crime Authority. Having developed a degree of knowledge, I hope, in that area, I wish to concentrate on that component. However, before doing so, I raise a number of points which cannot be put aside in this debate. Opposition members have found themselves hoist with something of a petard on this issue. The cynicism they embrace in terms of all taxation reforms in now legion, and that is widely accepted out in the community. One need not heed the words of a Government member of this Parliament because they necessarily might embrace a degree of partisanship. Let me quote from the editorial on page 10 of the Australian today. I do not often quote newspapers because I do not necessarily think that they are the repositories of all wisdom. On this occasion demonstrably they are. The editorial is headed: `Opposition flounders around aimlessly'. Those are the words not of a Government member but of a leading newspaper of this country. The editorial states: The Federal Opposition is looking like an opportunistic rabble. It is looking less and less like an alternative government. Certainly, that interpretation of the Opposition was reinforced by the bath the Opposition received on the censure motion moved in this House earlier today. The editorial goes on: The decision to oppose the introduction of the Australia Card straight after being so forthright on the fact that a Coalition government would abolish the fringe benefits tax makes the Opposition look like the tax avoiders' party. I stress the last words `makes the Opposition look like the tax avoiders' party'. The reality is that the Opposition is the tax avoiders' party. It has a record in government of failing to take any steps against a massive tax avoidance industry, the end result of which-- Mr Braithwaite —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take exception to that comment. The honourable member is describing us as the tax avoiders' party. That is not correct. I ask that the remark be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —If the honourable member takes objection to the remark, I ask that it be withdrawn. Mr GRIFFITHS —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek your guidance. I was quoting not my own views but from the editorial of a leading newspaper of this country. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If it is a quotation, it is allowable. Mr Reith —I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am informed that it was a quotation. Mr GRIFFITHS —For the purpose of the smooth flow of proceedings, I withdraw. I reiterate and quote the words of the Australian editorial of today: . . . makes the Opposition look like the tax avoiders' party. Whether I say it or not is irrelevant to the debate. What I am submitting and what I believe is irrefutable is the proposition that the Opposition when in government was extremely lax about the whole tax avoidance industry. It presided over some of the most massive rip-offs ever known. Opposition members ought to be ashamed of themselves. I am surprised that my colleagues are prepared to interject in this debate in this context when they know that their record speaks for itself. All wage and salary earners in this country also are aware that they were heavily subsidising the friends of the Liberal Party. Those friends comprise a whole range of people who do not accept their responsibilities to pay tax to anywhere near the degree that most honest Australians do. I quote also from the Sydney Morning Herald's editorial of today, which is headed `Howard: too clever by half?'. The editorial states: We are asked to believe that Mr Howard is atypical; that he has the courage to brush aside the interest groups and cut spending to finance his tax cuts and the abolition of the assets test. Unfortunately, the Opposition feels unable to say what spending it would cut but that makes what the Opposition does all the more important . . . And Mr Howard will be vulnerable to the accusation. The Government claims the Australia Card will ultimately stop more than $500m . . . in tax evasion and social security fraud. He is vulnerable to the accusation that he is not assisting with that process. We need not rely on editorials. From time to time they will be critical of the Government. But it is fair to say in the context of this debate that, now that the Government has brought in, for the first time in the history of this country, a comprehensive package of legislative reform that not only encompasses the concept of an identification card, the Australia Card, but also contains measures to enhance the privacy and data protection legislation-I have subjected these proposals to considerable scrutiny because, as I said, my original position was that I did not support an ID card without the supporting package of legislation-the civil liberties of ordinary Australians have been enhanced. National identification systems are a fact of life in a range of countries, including, for example, France, Denmark, West Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Belgium and Israel. The United States of America and Canada have a de facto identification card which is a social security card that has been progressively increased in its complexity and utilisation. The end result, as I have indicated, has been a de facto ID card system. My colleague the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown), in an excellent address earlier today, gave a very long list of information already supplied by all Australians to the Australian Taxation Office. It encompassed, for example, dates of birth, persons to whom one was married, names of children, shares and bank accounts. It went on and on and was a rather exhaustive list. We do not hear people out in the community complaining about the need to provide that information. Of course they must. A census is also taken periodically by the government. It encompasses a whole range of very important and very private and confidential information. Once again, in the whole history of the census apparently there has been no leaks of information. This is a further indication that governments, provided the mechanisms are put in place, will keep sensitive information confidential. The point that the honourable member for Charlton made is very important. I thought it appropriate to reiterate it. Before getting on to the substantive part of my contribution I will make one further comment. The Australian Taxation Office in its submissions to the parliamentary Committee and in a whole range of other forums has indicated time and again that an identification card system would be of considerable assistance in its attempt to recoup money from the black economy. Indeed, it nominates the Australia Card proposal as perhaps the most important single measure that a government can embrace in responding to these difficult areas. Honourable members might have heard yesterday-I suspect that we all did-not only the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) but also the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) in this House and elsewhere attack in a most reprehensible way a senior officer of the bureaucracy, Mr Boucher. I will not repeat the words that they used but I place on record my view that this is the not the appropriate forum for that type of cowardly attack. I stress that Mr Boucher was simply reiterating views put by the Australian Taxation Office over a considerable time and, I might add, views that were accepted on an unanimous basis by Opposition members of the parliamentary Committee. They unanimously accepted the points made by the Australian Taxation Office. Indeed, they were put far more emphatically by the Australian Taxation Office before that Committee. Once again, both the Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia and his discredited colleague, the Leader of the National Party, are caught out abusing this House. There are a range of issues to which one could go to look at the potential for an Australia Card to recoup money from the so-called black economy. It is very important to get the black economy into some sort of context. It is a reality that when in the community we talk about hundreds of millions of dollar, tens of millions of dollars or billions of dollars people have very little comprehension of what that means in terms of the total economy of this country. So it is a little hard to judge precisely what politicians and others are talking about and the extent of the problem when these figures are bandied around. It is worth putting them in terms of the percentage of gross domestic product. In evidence given before the joint parliamentary Committee the estimates of losses to revenue differed widely. Obviously, this is to be expected because by the very nature of the beast that is very hard to measure. Various estimates put before the Committee ranged from some 5 per cent to 15 per cent of Australia's gross domestic product comprising the so-called black economy which in 1984-85 terms was estimated at about $207 billion. Whether one accepts that figure is somewhat irrelevant. There is broad bipartisan support for the proposition that whatever the black economy totals it is in the billions of dollars. I ask honourable members, particularly Opposition members, to reflect for a short time on what they might be able to do with some of that money to address the very real needs of honest Australian taxpayers who have paid their share of tax all through their lives and then get the pension. It would be nice to have a little of that money to flick to them. There are a whole range of measures of the black economy. It is worth making the following point. In evidence before the Committee the Second Commissioner of Taxation, Mr John McDermott, stated: I have seen figures reported from other authorities that suggest that tax evasion in Australia is running in the vicinity of $6000m or $7000m a year and I have seen other figures, provided by the banks, which vary from something like 5 per cent of gross domestic product to 10 per cent of gross domestic product . . . In other countries the estimates are even wider. In the United Kingdom I think they range from 3 per cent to 15 per cent and in the United States they range from 5 per cent to 27 per cent. Once again I simply reinforce the dimensions of this problem. Another important point from the report reads: The ATO was of the view that no other single action could be taken that would produce revenue gains of the magnitude estimated as a result of the proposed Australia Card Program. Once again, it does not matter what degree of emphasis one attaches to the Australian Taxation Office evidence. It does not matter whether one embraces any of the estimates from other sources. No one, members of the Opposition included, was willing to attack that proposition. Everyone accepted unanimously that the Australian Taxation Office point of view was that the Australia Card proposal was the single most important weapon available in the fight against the black economy. The Committee also accepted the estimates by the ATO. Whilst accepting them, it noted-and this was placed in evidence by the Australian Taxation Office-that its proposals probably were significant underestimations of the amount of money in the black economy. Another area of considerable concern in the community is that of social security fraud. I am always most sensitive to talking in this House about this issue because it can quite easily be put out of all context. We then find that the few who abuse the system colour the other social security beneficiaries with the old terminology embraced by the now Opposition of dole bludgers and so on. That is certainly not a view that I want to put before this House but it is almost self evident that a minority-the extent of it is open to legitimate debate-are abusing the whole spectrum of the social security system at considerable cost. Of more importance than the amount of money immediately involved is the one fundamental reality that where, as happened recently, people take out something like $800,000 from the social security system by using multiple names and false identities, there will clearly be a reduced capacity to direct limited resources to those most in need. That of all things ought to weigh heavily on the minds of Opposition members when they oppose this significant anti-fraud measure. Some time ago, as Chairman of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority I made a few public comments in response to Commissioner Costigan's appearance before the Committee in which he put his views on an ID card system. As I indicated at the outset of the debate, I supported his views at that time. I thought it important that they be made public because I feared that the identification card system, as a corollary, would not receive a legislative package that would protect privacy and enhance data protection. As is now the case, we have taken those further steps. I now strongly support the Australia Card proposal on that basis. Mr Costigan, when he came before the Australia Card Committee, put the view that there were better ways of going about this matter than embracing the Australia Card concept. It is interesting when one looks at the original report of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union that, for example, there was a whole range of recommendations on the processes that people must adhere to when opening accounts in banks or other financial institutions. The reality of those proposals is that they are far more demanding than the simple production of an identification card. From memory, they encompass names, addresses, accounts in other banks, shareholdings in companies, name of spouse, date of birth and so on. They were much more rigorous than the mere production of an Australia Card. To that extent it is fair to say that the proposition that he put-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr REITH(Flinders)(4.39) —People listening to this radio broadcast would be very interested to know exactly what is going on in this debate today. Mr Deputy Speaker, you quite rightly suggested that I ought to be cautious about the number of interjections which I wanted to contribute to the debate. One of the reasons that I am fairly keen to get my views across and to say some of the things that I want to say is that this debate has been gagged. It is all very well for the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths) to say what he said, because he has 20 minutes in which to talk. He was able to talk for as long as the Standing Orders allow. He was able to talk for so long because very few honourable members on his side are prepared to get up and say that they are in favour of this ID card proposal. What a contrast that is because on our side of the House we have 30 members on the speaker's list, some of whom will not even have the opportunity to address the Federal Parliament on what has been described by an Australian Labor Party member today as one of the most significant pieces of legislation that has been introduced in this House in the last 12 months or even the last two years. It is a favourite ploy of Government members to shift the debate to a point of view which suits them. I suppose we understand that. After relying on editorials to form the basis of their judgments and opinions, they have been saying that this is about catching tax cheats and that, if we do not agree with what they say, we are friends of tax cheats. They are a long way off the mark. Many people in this House-there is a level of bipartisanship about it-take the view that there are things that ought to be done to fix up the Australian Taxation Office and its ability to collect tax and that there are things that ought to be done about people who bludge on the dole system. Let us start there because, once we start at that point, the real issue is not about whether we should be doing something, but rather what we should be doing. Our position on the ID card is that this is the wrong way to go about it. There are better, cheaper and easier things that the Government should be doing. For example, the Government says that it wants to get stuck into social security fraud-the people who come across from New Zealand and tour Australia while receiving benefits from our dole system. We agree with that and, in fact, we have been pressing the Government to do something about it. We do not need an ID card to do something about people who are bludging on the dole. We do not need to bring in an ID card which will have to be worn or carried by pensioners, disabled people, children and, in fact, every Australian. All we need to do is make those people on the dole do something in return for the money they get. Let them put in a couple of days work a week and that will soon knock over the fraud and the dole bludgers. We can be sure of that. I call it the ID card because to call it the Australia Card is just a public relations gimmick. As the Labor member for Hotham (Mr Kent) said recently, nothing could be more un-Australian than the ID card. He came to Australia from Europe, so he knows how lucky we were in this country until now. That is why he calls it the Hitler Card. That is not a bad description. People say that the Opposition is opposed to this Australia Card Bill. We are opposed to it and we will fight this Bill all round the country until it is dropped. People are right to say that we are opposed to it, but we are not alone. In fact, increasing numbers of people will be joining us. Labor Senator Cooney let his views be known when he called it a licence on citizenship. Labor Senator Bolkus said simply that the scheme would not work and the Labor member for Aston (Mr Saunderson), who was on the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card which looked at this proposal with a magnifying glass, voted against it. Mr Grace —Tell us about John Howard's views. Mr REITH —Superficially the proposal sounds all right. I admit that. People have been saying that and the interjection just made suggests that people have been saying that is correct. What did we do? It was brought into the Parliament, there was discussion about it and we put the Government on its mettle by saying: `If you want to look at this proposal, let us send it off to a committee of Government members, Democrats, Liberals and Nationals, and let them go away and get all the information to see whether it really is a good idea or not'. That Committee went off and examined it and people such as Frank Costigan appeared before it. It had a very close look at what the Government was proposing. What did the Committee come back to the Parliament and say? It said that this was not a scheme that ought to be introduced and that it was opposed to the scheme because basically the system would not work, it would cost more than the Government had estimated, it would save less than was estimated and the Government had left out a lot of costs. Significantly, the Committee said that there were other ways which were much cheaper to achieve the same result. None of that should be any surprise. Labor Senator Bolkus told some of his colleagues some months ago, the scheme was prepared by: . . . a bureaucracy which has been inept, incompetent and irresponsible in its approach to tax avoidance as has been indicated by the Auditor-General. What prophetic words they were because this week another parliamentary report has come down on the operation of the Tax Office which basically said: `Look, if you fix up the inefficiencies in the Tax Office, you will not need all these new taxes and you will not have to foist on to Australians a new ID card system'. On the issue of the interest that accrues in people's bank accounts it was estimated that $500m is there for the taking if only the Taxation Office would get its act together. There are some other comments I want to make about this Bill but let me just briefly say that it will cost a packet. We can be sure of one thing, that the bureaucracy will grow and grow. I rather like that saying of Sir Robert Menzies, who once said: One thing about bureaucrats is that they never swallow their young. Leave them alone and we will find them increasing every year. They have been increasing in the Health Insurance Commission and with this proposal 2,150 of them will pop up to give us the Australia Card. The implications of this Bill are quite horrific. The Bill allows the Government to do something it has never been able to do before-to centralise information, to give it control over citizens. The fact is that, once we start on a scheme like this, there is just no end to it, absolutely none whatsoever. In the second reading speech the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) said that the Australia Card Register will not contain information about such things as medical histories, employment histories, et cetera. I say to the Minister that I do not believe that to be right. Under Schedule 1, if he cares to read it, the address of each place at which the card subject-that is a lovely phrase-has previously resided during the period since first applying for a card or during the period of the last two years, whichever is the shorter, is recorded. That way the Government will know where a person has been and it will have a pretty good idea of what people have been doing. It will also record a person's right to obtain employment in Australia and that, of course, will give it a pretty good idea of what line of work a person is in. Under clause 25 (2) (g) the administering authority-the Health Insurance Commission-can enter into the register information relating to dealings between the authority and the person. There is no doubt in my mind that that is a very wide clause. I have no doubt that in due course the authority will be able to record anything that a person says over the phone and that under clause 25 that will be recorded against a person in the Register. It will be put on a permanent record. One of the arguments relates to a constant theme of the Government that the innocent have nothing to hide or worry about. That is interesting because Frank Costigan, QC, appeared before the Committee and he said: `Do not proceed with this scheme'. If the Government is going to bring in a scheme which is to have benefits in terms of the enforcement of laws, particularly against criminals, one would think that the one person who would support it is the one man in Australia who knows the most about organised crime. But what did he say? He said: `Do not bring it in'. Criminals will benefit from a scheme like this because most people will assume that cards are valid, so there will be a big profit in forging cards. It is always the innocent who suffer from the excesses of government controls and this new centralised data collection agency will give the bureaucrats more controls than they ever dreamed possible. As my time runs out let me conclude with what I believe to be one of the unintended consequences of this piece of legislation. Clause 41 is headed `Investments' and it was drawn not by the Health Insurance Commission or the Department of Health but by Treasury. Who are the specialists in unintended consequences in Australia? None other than those in the Treasury. Under clause 41 bodies corporate that repay money lent must require the production of a card. If they fail to require the production of a card they face a fine not of $20,000 but of five times that amount, $100,000. There are many voluntary organisations in our community that are bodies corporate within the definition of the Australia Card Bill. Those voluntary organisations such as veterans organisations, churches, and cricket clubs-in fact I am in a pony club that is incorporated-under the width of this Australia Card Bill had better watch out that they comply with the requirements of this Bill on the production of cards. I see that the Minister for Health is listening. It is about time the Minister listened to some of the unintended consequences of this Bill. Even in a situation in which a person has paid a deposit of $30 for the hire of a hall on behalf of a corporate body and the money is paid back out of the profits of the social function, that person falls within clause 41 and can face a fine of $100,000. The implications of this Bill are horrific. I say to people listening to this debate today that it is one of the most important debates we have had in this Parliament. It will affect them. I say that it is in their long term interests and in the long term interests of our country that we throw out Labor's ID card. Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(4.52) —When one asks most people outside this House what they think about this Australia Card they say: `What is new? Do we not already have a whole proliferation of credit and identification cards? What is really new?' I got a collection of over 25 cards from two members of my staff and myself. It is the day of identification cards. If the Opposition is so obsessed about intrusion into individual rights, the privacy of the individual and control over citizens it should have said something about this years ago. Take the American Express card: To get an American Express card one has to fill in a fairly detailed form providing details about oneself such as name, date of birth, driver's licence number, debts, landlord, mortgages-- Mr Conquest —You have a choice about filling that in. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member for Hinkler will keep quiet. Mrs KELLY —The choice one has is to have no transactions, never get into any hire purchase agreements, never buy anything, never try to cash a cheque-- Mr Conquest —Never open a bank account. Mrs KELLY —Try to cash a cheque with no identification. One cannot. Mr Conquest —They trust me. Mrs KELLY —Maybe all people do not have an honest face. The American Express form also required professional data about the applicant. When an applicant signs the form he signs to say: `I authorise American Express to confirm and exchange credit information concerning my financial affairs'. American Express can give all the information about the applicant to anyone. There is no legislation covering privacy and the applicant has no rights to have a look at the information that American Express has on record about him. At least when the Australia Card is brought in there will be an identification system which has high integrity and there will be legislation to ensure the privacy of the information. Access to that information will be available to the card holder so he will know what is on his record. That is a much fairer system than the system that exists today. So all this nonsense about intruding control over citizens is a joke. Most people in the community know it is a joke. They think the whole thing is a big yawn because the days of identification systems have been with us for a very long time. The cards I have here, as I said, are an example. The Australia Card proposal is very simple. It has been deliberately misrepresented by the Opposition for pure political gain. I shall briefly run through what is involved in the Australia Card to try to return some perspective to the debate after some of the rantings of the Opposition. The Australia Card is very simple. All it will have on it is a name, a photograph, a signature, an identifying number and an expiry date. There is no tattooed number at birth. There is no need to present the card to military police at State borders. Each Australian will receive an invitation to apply to the nearest Medicare office for an Australia Card. A suitable time will be agreed for a photograph to be taken and arrangements will be made for the card to be collected. If a card is lost, destroyed or stolen a new card may be issued upon application to the Health Insurance Commission. Upon issue of a new card the previous card will be rendered ineffective for further use. It is a very simple procedure. Mr Conquest —You don't live at Camooweal. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Hinkler will cease interjecting and the honourable member for Canberra will address the Chair. Mrs KELLY —I shall explain the details of getting a card in remote areas if the honourable member will be patient. Children will need a card but until the age of 18 years the child's card will be issued to the responsible adult. The child's card will contain name, identifying number, date of birth, sex and the name and identifying number of the responsible adult but no photograph. That is all very straightforward. What use will the Australia Card have? It will be used only for taxation, social welfare and Medicare purposes. Despite all the rantings and ravings of the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) and the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) about the use they see being made of the card, in the main once a person has verified accounts with financial institutions he or she will seldom need to produce a card other than for Medicare purposes. I shall repeat that so that members of the Opposition understand. The Australia Card will be used only for taxation, social welfare and Medicare purposes. Once one has verified one's accounts with financial institutions one will seldom have to use the card-only for Medicare purposes. People already have a Medicare card anyway. So cards will not be required for each transaction with a financial institution. For social welfare purposes, cards will be used for initial identification only and on a daily basis they will not be required by the vast majority of persons. One will not have to carry the card compulsory anywhere and one will have to use it only on those occasions which I have outlined. As I have said, there is an enormous amount of support in the community of the issuing of an Australia Card. As my colleagues have pointed out, the newspaper editorials are showing a great deal of support for the Australia Card. I think that can be summed up by yesterday's Australian editorial. It states: The Federal Opposition is looking like an opportunistic rabble . . . Mr Hodgman —What a shocking thing to say. Mrs KELLY —It is a shocking thing. We saw examples of that today again. The editorial continued: The decision to oppose the introduction of the Australian Card straight after having been so forthright on the fact that a coalition government would abolish the fringe benefits tax makes the Opposition look like the tax avoider's party. The introduction of a national ID card complete with photograph will stop millions of dollars being lost either through social security fraud or by people avoiding their tax obligations. It is a proposal that deserves the support of all honest Australians. I believe that all honest Australians do support the introduction of this identification card. Mr Hodgman —Let's have an election on it. Mrs KELLY —We probably will. Under the Australian card proposal it is estimated that when fully operational the card will cost $55.6m a year to operate and provide total savings of $932m, meaning a net total benefit of at least $877m every year. That is an enormous amount of money, an amount which is very difficult to obtain. If one redistributed that amount of money, one could make enormous changes. What would that mean if we altered some of the tax scales, for example? If the present scales were kept and one used that money to provide tax cuts it would mean that a cut of $2.50 a week could be given to every taxpayer. That is the point that must be looked at, as opposed to the irresponsible position of the Opposition. It says: `We will not introduce this. We don't want any of the savings involved. We don't want the $877m that could be obtained every year. We will let people continue to obtain social security benefits fraudulently and evade tax. We will continue to allow that because we don't want to bring in a high integrity identification system'. The Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card stated: The Committee is concerned that fraud can be committed against the Commonwealth in the area of social security with relative ease. Comments have been made about the report of the Joint Committee. It did not come up with a recommendation that there be nothing. In fact, it came up with the proposal for a tax file number. The Committee highlighted how much social security fraud is going on in the Commonwealth. It stated: During the inquiry the Committee became aware of a number of unsourced estimates of social security fraud ranging between $200-$500 million per annum. These figures gain further support from a recent internal paper prepared by the Department of the Special Minister of State . . . which was reported to indicate the fraud in the social security area alone could be in the order of $300 million per annum. International experience suggests that social security fraud will account for at least one per cent of payments, that is, at least $150m a year. Total welfare outlays are currently about $20 billion, so I think that that is a fairly conservative estimate. The Opposition's answer to the problem would be to tighten the application procedures for social security benefits, with emphasis on proof of identity, and tighten up the operations of the Australian Taxation Office to uncover undisclosed benefits. This, in reality, implies that the Opposition is proposing significant increases in the staffing levels of the Department of Social Security and the Tax Office. This will not solve the basic problem unless a means of establishing identity, with a high degree of integrity, is introduced. The time and the money spent confirming the authenticity of documents presented will far outweigh the benefits of any new procedures. However, the financial benefit of subjecting only those who apply for social security benefits to careful scrutiny could be offset by failing to catch those others in our society who seek to get a free ride by dealing, for example, only in cash. The Opposition is ignoring those who hold bank accounts in false names, investors with unit cash management and property trusts, those who receive rental income from real estate agents, primary production income or professional income. How does the Opposition propose to administer the tax laws against those individuals who hide assets, for example, in safe deposit boxes? Perhaps it proposes that the Tax Office send inspectors to each bank to demand access to those boxes. This would require how many more extra staff? The Health Insurance Commission will require 2,158 extra staff during the implementation period of 1987 to 1989. However, after this time, when the system has been established, it will require only 1,000 people to administer it. This compares very favourably with the tax file number proposal which was championed at one stage by the Opposition. I am not sure whether it still holds that view. It seems to change it regularly. The establishment costs for this system are almost the same. The argument that the Australia Card will need a huge bureaucracy is exposed when it is discovered that the Liberals are proposing a scheme which needs a bureaucracy of roughly the same size, whether they support the tax file number proposal or their other vague proposals for the tightening up of security in relation to people who get social security benefits. Over the first 10 years the Australia Card program will provide net total benefits of $4.7 billion, after costs of $759m. The Opposition cannot claim savings in that region. I would like to make a few other comments about administration. Special arrangements will be made for people in remote areas. They will be sent invitations to register very early in the two-year registration period. As the first action will be to complete an application and return it by mail for processing, no special arrangements will be required to this point. Following processing it will be necessary for all registrants to make personal contact with authorised Commission officers so that interviewing can take place. Either full time field officers or agents will be appointed by the Commission. They will travel to all parts of the country to make it convenient for people to have their photograph taken and be issued with their card. Special arrangements will be made for wide groups of people. The Bill enables a second person to apply on behalf of people who, because of special circumstances, cannot have a photograph taken or who cannot use the card themselves. A person called a prescribed representative will be able to use the card on behalf of those individuals. There are two main categories of prescribed representatives relating to minors and handicapped or particularly disadvantaged people. Arrangements will be made for incapacitated people and people in nursing homes. I believe that the system that we are establishing under this legislation is fair. It will be used only in very limited circumstances. It will not be compulsory to carry a card at all times. It will endorse and support a fair and equitable tax and social security system. I believe it has the support of the great majority of fair minded Australians who believe that, if they are prepared to make their contribution to the tax system, all Australians should, and that their money should not be wasted by people who do not deserve to obtain benefits. This system is a fair one and most fair minded Australians will support it. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(5.07) —On 13 September 1985 I asked a question without notice requesting the estimated costs and net savings involved in a national identity card, the number of public servants required to establish and maintain such a system, and an assurance that the card would not be open to fraudulent misuse or jeopardise the privacy and freedom of individual Australians. The Government failed to answer the questions on that occasion. Fourteen months have passed and I still do not believe that these most important issues have been conclusively or even adequately addressed. Until these questions can be convincingly resolved, I, for one, cannot accept or endorse the introduction of an Australia Card. The report of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card indicates the reasons for forcing every Australian to have such a card: Firstly, tax evasion will be removed; secondly, social security fraud will be reduced; thirdly, illegal immigrants will be identified; and, fourthly, there will be a benefit of protection to areas of Commonwealth expenditure. Laudable intentions, but at what price? It appears impossible accurately to estimate the costs or savings involved in the introduction of the Australia Card. Figures range from $297m to $1 billion, with a $100m per annum operating cost and a $450m revenue gain after 1992-93. That seems a long way away. In relation to the extra public servants needed to police the whole system, we find that in the health system alone there will be an extra 2,150 public servants, deployed in 42 new Medicare offices, to say nothing of the tax, immigration, State and local government areas where implementation is also required. The Government has also conveniently overlooked the cost to the private sector. Dr Alan Moran, the Director of the Government's Business Regulation Review Unit, estimates that the cost to the private sector of government regulation is generally twice the cost incurred by government in any regulatory activity. Meanwhile, this Government and its mates in the Australian Council of Trade Unions are busy imploring business to invest and create jobs. Not content to level new capital gains and fringe benefits taxes and costly superannuation deals on to the wealth and job creating sectors of this community, the Government now seeks to impose further regulatory demands in the form of identity cards. In the area of welfare fraud, which the Government has been so keen to publicise, its own officials have considerable reservations about the effectiveness of the Australia Card. Less than one per cent of social security problems relate to identity whilst over 60 per cent relate to income variations which recipients failed to report to the Department. An assistant secretary in the Department of Social Security, Mr Trevor Murphy, declined to give any specific estimate of the amount of money that the card would save in social security abuse but he indicated that a very rough figure of $16m per annum could be suggested-a far cry from the figures used by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett). In the area of illegal immigrants being indentified by the Australia Card, the Government's claim is extravagant, to say the least. It is estimated that there are 50,000 illegal immigrants in Australia, but it is fanciful to suggest an ID card will solve that problem. The Australia Card will simply not identify this illegal immigrant work force for the purposes of taxation receival and they will continue to work in the black economy as they are very aware of their illegal status and would be foolish to expose themselves. Apart from the obvious costs involved in the identification procedure with birth certificates and personal appearances for photographs, the Government has overlooked the ongoing cost of address changes, as experienced by the Australian Electoral Commission. Dr Colin Hughes of the Australian Electoral Commission reports that there are 1.1 million changes to electoral rolls each year and obviously the Australia Card involves all Australians with a consequent increase in these potential changes and massive costs. Mr Hawker —It will be over $2m. Mr McARTHUR —Obviously it will be more than $2m. With regard to privacy and individual freedom, the introduction of the Australia Card brings about a major change in the common law position of citizens in Australia. If doubt exists about the validity of a person's ID card he is virtually assumed guilty until proven innocent. Further, it is a major intrusion by big government into the lives of Australians and by its mere existence there is a presumption that neither the Government nor common law mechanisms are adequate to protect the public purse from its thieves or the general community from cheats and lawbreakers. A total overhaul of the faulty administration of this Government is clearly what is desperately needed, not a new bureaucracy to cover up existing incapacities and inefficiencies. Under the Australia Card proposal, there is a hidden agenda in that the proposal creates a national, centralised data bank that can match individuals and their activities throughout the whole of Australia. In this key area of computer linking of names and activities, Mr John Shattuck, in giving evidence to the Committee, indicated that there is a world-wide trend, once an individual's number has been established, for authorities to use this linkage capacity to identify further areas of interest to governments. As he says in the report, computer matching can turn the presumption of innocence into a presumption of guilt. This supports the fears of the Opposition that `Big Brother Australia' will be watching every man, woman and child through a major computerised surveillance network. This may effectively become an internal passport. This is 1986 in Australia, not 1939 in Germany. The area of privacy gives great concern to every Australian. Mr Justice Michael Kirby made his position clear in May 1985 when he said: What is at stake is nothing less than the nature of our society and the power and authority of the state in relation to the individual. Until now, the state and its agencies have not been able to intervene in our lives without a lawful and reasonable excuse to do so. On the other hand the Minister for Health was quite categoric about his position when he addressed the South Australian Labor Conference in June this year. He accepted that the introduction of the card created a conflict between the effectiveness of the taxation system and individual privacy. He said: The interest of the community has to come before the individual's right. Mr Hawker —Say that again. Mr McARTHUR —The interest of the community has to come before the individual's right. He is further reported as saying that the card was a crucial weapon in effectively redistributing wealth in our society. That is typical of this socialist Government. It is so pre-occupied with redistributing the income of hard-working Australians that it inhibits and prevents people from making a profit and creating jobs. There is no doubt that the Government has vastly overestimated the benefits of the Australia Card, underestimated the costs and administrative inconvenience and has completely overlooked the invasion of privacy. In the area of combating organised crime, the former Royal Commissioner Mr Frank Costigan, QC, is strongly opposed to the Australia Card on the basis that the integrity of the documents establishing the identity of the cardholder are questionable, and he further asserts that the viability of the card would have a tendency to institutionalise crime as the Australia Card would have value to be reproduced for fraudulent purposes. Likewise studies done in America have indicated that a national identity card benefits organised crime rather than assisting in combating the crime buildup. In the area of tax collection, the Australian Taxation Office wishes to utilise every piece of legal and administrative armory to ensure that it can collect taxes and overcome its own administrative incompetence. A report tabled in the Parliament this week, entitled `A Taxing Problem', clearly indicates the inefficiencies of the Australian Tax Office, its inability to cope with modern management techniques and its desire to utilise any strategy to coerce taxpayers into paying their taxes. Let me take just one recommendation from the House of Representative Standing Committee on Expenditure which explodes the myth that the Australia Card is an essential component of the Government's attack on tax fraud and evasion. In recommendation 18, the Committee states: With or without the adoption of the Australia Card, the Australian Taxation Office take the necessary steps to establish a high integrity identification system which would ensure maximum taxpayer compliance. This clearly indicates the Tax Office has other mechanisms, apart from the Australia Card, to implement its measures of tax collection. The Australia Card is a costly, centralised, bureaucratised system of gaining very questionable benefits to individual Australians while imposing considerable restrictions on their privacy by extending big government's capacity to monitor their daily lives. The legislation, upon careful examination, fails on all accounts to achieve its objectives. It should be voted against and rejected totally by the Australian people. Mr O'NEIL(Grey)(5.18) —I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today on such an important issue as the Australia Card. Let me say right from the start that I have consistently supported the introduction of the Australia Card unlike some of those in the Opposition who have jumped from one position to another over a period of months. Since becoming a member of this House in 1983, I have constantly been confronted by the inequalities of our taxation system. My frustration with the tax system has been exacerbated by the very makeup of my electorate of Grey. The Iron Triangle cities of Whyalla, Port Pirie and Port Augusta, in particular, are socio-economically depressed cities with a relatively high dependence, in comparison with the rest of the nation, on social security benefits. So it makes my blood boil when I hear of people ripping off the social security system and evading their taxation responsibilities. It has been said that Federal Government revenue is, quite simply, money belonging to all Australians, who provide it in trust for their own and their nation's welfare. Therefore, those who abuse the social security system and those who avoid paying their taxation and avoid their taxation responsibilities are in fact robbing all of us. The result of this cheating is the relatively high personal income tax rates which honest Australian pay as you earn taxpayers have had to bear. Those people who can well afford to contribute their fair share, and in some instances more, have instead avoided their responsibility, while those who exist on social welfare benefits cannot have their incomes increased substantially when millions of dollars are being diverted from the taxation system. The Australia Card Bill 1986 will introduce a positive and workable solution to these problems and will ensure that the taxation and social welfare systems provide fairness and equity for all Australians. Honest Australians have nothing to fear from the introduction of the Australia Card. In fact, they would actually benefit from the assurance that others are not misusing taxpayers' funds or avoiding their responsibilities to pay their full share of the tax bill. I believe that the benefits of the Australia Card far outweigh any possible dangers to civil liberties or privacy. I am well aware of many of the concerns relating to these two issues that have been raised within the community but I remain firm in my belief that such fears are unfounded. One of the many concerns brought to my attention by my constituents in the electorate of Grey is that the Australia Card will become a de facto internal passport. This is a legitimate concern of many Australians from Eastern European backgrounds who have lived under totalitarian regimes. However, once I have explained to these people that the legislation does not compel them to carry the card nor to produce it, except in specific circumstances laid down in the legislation, they find that their original concern about the Australia Card being a de facto internal passport is no longer valid. When I point out to these people that the Australia Card will help to ensure fairness and equity in the taxation and social security systems, they then give their full support to it. To put it quite simply, honest Australians are sick and tired of tax avoiders and welfare cheats living off their hard work. The Australian Taxation Office conservatively estimates that revenue gains under the Australia Card's introduction will be in the area of $724m per annum once the program is fully operational-that is, over $700m of taxation is currently being avoided and much of this comes about from income that is understated on taxation returns. The Australia Card will help to wipe out this undeclared income and make all Australians pay their full share of tax. It amazes me that the Opposition, in totally opposing the Australia Card, offers no sound alternative policy to combat tax evasion. One could be led to believe that the Liberal and National parties do not care about the cancer of tax evasion and avoidance which was allowed to flourish under this previous coalition Administration. Twelve months ago leading members of the Opposition supported the introduction of some form of uniform identification system. But all of a sudden, when the crunch finally comes, they have failed the Australian people. One wonders what this is all about. Is it because of some political posturing or do they think they can pick up points? Let me say to the Opposition that the Australian community fully supports the Australia Card, particularly when it is explained in real and simplistic terms. This Bill will require the Australia Card to be produced as a form of identification for people involved in a number of financial activities and engaging in employment. This will allow the Taxation Office to link all sources of income to the one identification number, thus closing up many of the opportunities to gain income without declaring it to the Taxation Office. Mr Donald Cameron —My one-year-old child doesn't have a card; yet you are going to make her have one. Mr O'NEIL —Of course, the honourable member who interjected is always negative in his approach. He opposes anything positive that is done to try to catch tax avoiders. One can understand this because he got out of Parliament and made a very good sum for himself. He is more than happy with the lump sum that he got out of the previous Parliament. Without a link such as the Australia Card there is little possibility of clamping down on tax evaders in an effective and comprehensive manner. This point seems to be lost on the Opposition. All that it can offer are vague promises to review identification procedures for the opening of accounts with financial institutions and also to ask the Taxation Office to improve its administrative efficiency. This is just pointless. It is like asking traffic police to chase speeding cars with pushbikes. The only people who could possibly gain any comfort from the Opposition's stance are those who have bled the system for years and who would continue to bleed the system under a Howard regime. The second area where the Australia Card will be of major use will be as a weapon to combat social security fraud. There is no doubt that there are those in our society who engage in welfare fraud. Unlike the Opposition, which seems obsessed with attacking those on social security, this Government has taken firm but fair steps to ensure that only those in genuine need receive welfare payments. The latest moves in this direction were those announced in the recent Budget. All of us would agree that assistance is needed to find out who is engaging in welfare fraud. The Australia Card will be used for this purpose. It would be very difficult to establish the exact amount of fraud that is taking place if the Australia Card proposal were not adopted. One is constantly bombarded with anecdotal evidence which suggests that there is significant fraud in this area, much of which is based on false identities. Unfortunately, the Opposition has been becoming increasingly under the influence of the right wing ratbags who accuse all welfare recipients of being criminals. What is the Opposition's cost effective answer to this problem? Its answer is to force the unemployed to work in some sort of Stalinistic form of forced labour. A conservative estimate of the administration cost of this would be $700m. The other starting policy of the Opposition will be to enforce a stringent form of identification procedures for social security claimants. How this can be done without a single, uniform method of identification such as the Australia Card is beyond me. I think it is beyond most members of the Opposition as well. The costs involved in forcing the unemployed to work for their welfare benefit, both in dollar terms and in terms of those who need to be employed to supervise the scheme, are enormous. Instead of pandering to the whims of the loony right wing, the Opposition should have the courage to support the Australia Card legislation. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) claims that the introduction of the Australia Card will treat all Australians as if they were criminals, yet he has no difficulty at all in classing all those on the unemployment benefit as dole bludgers or welfare cheats. Instead of trying to weed out those who have abused the system, the Opposition says that everyone on a welfare benefit is a cheat and should be punished accordingly. The Australia Card will ensure that only those who are eligible for a social security benefit will receive a social security benefit. At present, multiple types of identification are required to gain a welfare benefit. Yet, even with this precaution, there are those who have found ways of abusing the system. One of the ways which have constantly come to my attention is when a person receives a welfare benefit under his true name and works either full time or part time under an assumed name. Without a uniform identification system which would be required when beginning employment or applying for a benefit, there is no way of cracking down on these people. They will continue to get away with abusing both the taxation system and the social security system without any real fear of being caught out. As I stated earlier in my speech, I have a high proportion of social security recipients in my electorate. I also have a large group of people who are on less than average weekly earnings, even though they work. The vast majority of these people honestly and properly pay their taxes or take out from the social security system no more than is their due. For many of these people life is a struggle, yet they manage to get by without resorting to ripping off the system. It is these people who will benefit from the Australia Card because they do not have to prove their honesty to anyone. In the final analysis, only those who are ripping off the system will have anything to fear. The vast majority of Australians who go about their activities in an honest manner saw the taxation system become a laughing stock, especially when it was under the stewardship of the present Leader of the Opposition. The Commissioner of Taxation, Mr Boucher, is quoted in this morning's Melbourne Age as saying that the late 1970s and early 1980s was a time when `beating the Tax Commission was the national pastime'. I think that is a scandalous situation. It is very outrageous. He goes on to say about those years, and remember those were the years when the current Leader of the Opposition was Treasurer: There was nothing too contrived, nothing too complex, for them to do if they thought there was a dollar of tax to be saved at the end of it, and they were big dollars too. Instead of attacking the integrity of Mr Boucher because he dares to speak out against tax evasion, we should be looking at ways of stopping the tax crooks and we should be trying to ensure that all Australians pay their fair share. This legislation will assist the Taxation Office to ensure that all Australians pay their share. I am not of the belief that it will wipe out all tax evasion but I am convinced that it is the most effective weapon available to us and I am not alone in thinking this. The vast majority of Australians believe that the Australia Card is a necessity in combating tax evasion and social security fraud. The Tax Commissioner, Mr Boucher, believes the Australia Card is a necessity. I am sure that many thinking members of the Opposition believe that the Australia Card is a necessity, yet when it comes to the crunch, when a weapon is finally found to beat the tax cheats, the Opposition goes to water. Who do its members represent? Do they represent the honest citizens in their electorates or do they wish to represent the tax cheats who live off the system? I know that the honest citizens of my electorate are fed up with tax evasion and social security fraud. Another area of concern to many constituents in Grey is the increasing numbers of illegal immigrants taking employment from Australians. Grey has a large migrant population, a population which came to this great nation according to the immigration rules in existence. Many of these people wish to bring other family members to Australia and they apply to do so under the existing immigration laws. These honest people are appalled to find that up to 60,000 illegal immigrants have entered Australia contrary to our laws. They take jobs from honest Australian citizens and residents. They take from the social security system and they have no obligation to the taxation system. By making employment more difficult, by placing controls on all financial transactions, and by making the welfare system more difficult to abuse, the Australia Card will be a major deterrent to illegal immigrants. Nobody claims that it will totally wipe out illegal immigration but it will certainly deter those who contemplate abusing Australia's hospitality. In conclusion, let me say that the vast majority of people in Grey who have spoken to me on the subject of the Australia Card have fully supported the introduction of a high integrity identification system. I call on these people to make their voices heard in support of this Government's assault on tax evasion and social security fraud. The honest people of Australia deserve more from the Federal Opposition than the miserable alternatives that it has put up in relation to the Australia Card. I fully support the introduction of the Australia Card and congratulate the Minister for Health for bringing before the House this major weapon to attack tax evasion and social security fraud. The honest people of Australia fully support this measure and I commend the Australia Card Bill 1986 to the House. Mr CONQUEST(Hinkler)(5.34) —I wish to raise the question of the cost of introduction of the Australia Card. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) suggests that public sector costs will be around $1 billion, but the best he can say about private sector costs is that they are difficult to estimate. He has not, however, convincingly denied the Business Regulation Review Unit estimate of $2 billion in private sector costs. The Minister says that the net benefit for revenue will be $4.7 billion over the first 10 years after his predicted figure of public sector costs has been deducted. Predictably, the costs to the private sector do not appear as a deduction because he chooses to avoid the issue. In determining benefits and costs, categories of each must be considered. It is useless to examine only economic benefits and costs because, even if there is a net economic benefit, the qualitative costs, that is the social, psychological, and privacy related costs, may be too oppressive. The Government's claims for the identity card are ambitious and are designed to impress the electorate at large. The Minister says: Welfare fraud is caused to a large extent by the inability of the Department of Social Security to fully verify identity . . . In other words, the problem is created by not having a means of establishing correct identities. Yet a February 1986 edition of the Centre for Independent Studies Policy report states that only 2 per cent of welfare fraud is due to false identification. This is corroborated by a current issues brief from the Legislative Research Service of the Parliamentary Library, which states: The existence of ID cards will not assist the Department of Social Security in its major problem of people supplying false information about their income levels and domestic circumstances. It would seem that the Minister has been emphasising that which need not be, because identification is not the major source of welfare fraud. The Government says that the increased flow of information to the Australian Taxation Office, following the introduction of the identity card, will lead to increased revenues. Let us test these claims by referring to the reports of the Auditor-General on Efficiency Audits in the Australian Taxation Office, which were presented to Parliament in December 1984, as well as the report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure entitled `A Taxing Problem'. The reports discuss controls over processing of income tax assessments, processing and assessment of income tax returns, checking of dividends and interest disclosed in income tax returns, processing of income tax instalment deductions and the collection of sales tax by the Australian Taxation Office. When we line up these items with the comments which state, inter alia, that increases in staff resources do not show a proportionate increase in the amount of tax revenue collected; improved management practices, particularly the modernisation of the Australian Taxation Office's automatic data processing facilities and the development of priority setting mechanisms; and, together with the examination of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of alternative tax collection systems, namely a withholding tax on interest paid; we see that the amount of tax collected from the existing tax base could increase very substantially by improving taxpayer compliance. The reports also brought to the attention of the Parliament a certain malaise in the administration of our tax laws. If these problems are addressed there will be no need to use an identity card, and considerable revenue will be derived. The inability of the Australian Taxation Office to match taxpayers' declared income and undeclared interest income is the fault of the Australian Taxation Office, and it is not due to the lack of an identity card. In the Auditor-General's view the Australian Taxation Office has had the power, under Income Tax Regulation 11 (2), since 1936 and revenue that should have been collected has been forgone. The advent of computer based financial record keeping should have made a matching routine operation. Tax file numbers could be incorporated with the banking system arrangements to facilitate the matching of interest paid by banks to income declared by taxpayers. This could achieve the objective of the identity card at minimal costs, with few objections on qualitative grounds from civil libertarians. The concept or thought of having an ID card which is green and gold and called the Australia Card is an attempt to manipulate symbols of freedom and democracy, sporting and patriotic achievement, and to my mind it is sickening. The publicity has featured the card and has blatantly avoided a further sinister aspect, the numbering system. The experience of other countries, for example Canada and the United States of America, convinces me that the use of the card will surely spread in time, and access to information held on file will be gained by other agencies. Any assurances given by the Government that confidentiality of private and personal information will be guaranteed, must be viewed with suspicion. To justify my statement, I referred to the Senate Hansard of 17 April 1986, page 1893, to learn that a health insurance regulation, which comprised eight words, would have made it lawful for all private medical information held by the Health Insurance Commission to be given to the Department of Social Security. The Commission's computer records have details of all the medical conditions suffered by virtually the entire population. These could have been broken down into medical profiles of identifiable individuals, families and groups. The Minister responsible for this regulation was none other than the Health Minister, who is also responsible for the introduction of the Australia Card. Fortunately, the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances appreciated the terrible consequences of this regulation and acted appropriately. It was eventually disallowed by the effluxion of time. What greatly concerns me is that had the mistake not been picked up, confidentiality would have been lost. Can we now assume that it will never happen again? Can we assume that the Committee will always detect anomalous regulations? Agencies of government acquire personal, private information, en masse. Its ability to protect, to guarantee its confidentiality, is suspect. This is what worries my constituents, and well it might. At the National Taxation Summit last year the brochure said that in the long run the objective is to rationalise the many government identification systems currently in operation and that a three-year program will be initiated to obtain savings from a rationalisation of the diversity of government identification systems. It would seem apparent that the Government already anticipates extending the use of this invidious card beyond its current proposed uses. This card, or the information thereon, will be as accurate only as the breeder documents from which the data is extracted. The proposed card is not considered secure enough because it is too easily tampered with-hardly a secure basis from which to embark on a national identity scheme. Once the system is established it will be virtually impossible to resist demands to make it available to a wider range of agencies. Data trials and exchanges will be built up from records we leave in connection with our credit transactions, medical treatments, financial dealings, education and, eventually, telephone calls. Section 51 of the Constitution gives the Commonwealth many powers over its citizens, but it seems incredible to think that our founding fathers planned to allow big brother legislative powers to require that all persons should compulsorily be given a number at birth and must use it for any purpose Parliament chooses to specify. The emotive, derisive catch-cry of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) `What have you got to hide' needs to be considered in juxtaposition with the situation in Tudor and Stuart times which permitted inspectors to enter private homes if they considered it necessary for the enforcement of economic regulation purposes. The victories against those forms of physically intrusive behaviour are fairly secure. However, it appears that the battle will now be fought again with this unwanted, invidious electronic surveillance. As Justice Michael Kirby said: What is at stake is not just the catching of a few tax evaders. It is not even the efficiency of policing. It is not the defence of innocent and law-abiding citizens from lawbreakers. What is at stake is nothing less than the nature of our society and the power and the authority of the State in relation to the individual. Information is power. Power is the difference between a totalitarian state and a democracy. Intimate data delivers the ability to manipulate or dominate. Privacy is nothing more than the right to control the supply of personal information. It is closely linked with democracy and freedom. The Australia Card Bill is a threat to our civil liberties by destroying the privacy which guards our individual, ultimate autonomy. If this Government succeeds we, the Australian people, will have surrendered for all time the rights, the privileges and the democratic freedoms on a most questionable premise, thus delivering our children to the totalitarian state. The honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) earlier referred to some divisions in the coalition. He tried to suggest that we were divided on this matter. The honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil) who spoke prior to me spoke about waverers. That is a rather curious observation by those two people. Was it not Senator Bolkus, a Labor Party member, who said that the identification card was a simplistic response to a range of difficult problems, a response that will not work? Was it not the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent) who called the ID card a Hitler card? Was it not Senator Cooney who said that the ID card imposed a licence on citizenship? Was it not a Labor member of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, the honourable member for Aston (Mr Saunderson) who voted with the Nationals, the Liberals and the Democrats against the ID proposal? The majority of that Committee with all the evidence available to it and with all the people who came before it, rejected the proposal 5 : 3. Labor is the Party which is severely divided over the ID card proposal. Publicly and privately Labor members of parliament have significantly undermined support for the ID card-now let them stand to be counted. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(5.45) —It is a pleasure to follow the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil) from this side of the House. He shows a great compassion for his constituents. I believe he argued a very cogent case for the Australia Card during his presentation, as I believe all honourable members on this side have so done. As we have come to expect in this place, this is in stark contrast to the contributions from those opposite. The contribution just given by the honourable member for Hinkler (Mr Conquest) typifies just that. But I am pleased that he referred to some comments made by honourable members on this side of the House when the Australia Card proposition was being formulated as it gives me the opportunity to perhaps draw on some examples from his side of the House which clearly illustrate that those blokes opposite are not lily white either. The proposition before us today is that the Australia Card will improve the situation and is, in fact, designed to combat tax evasion and welfare fraud. We have to remember that the particular proposition was first suggested in the draft White Paper on tax reform of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in mid-1985 and that it was immediately welcomed by commentators and the public. When this proposal was presented by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) at the National Taxation Summit it was met, again, with overwhelming support. Consistently, approval for that proposal has been expressed publicly through opinion polls, discussion groups and so on in the wider community. I am not just talking about Labor seats; I am also talking about those seats held by National Party members and even those seats held by Liberal Party members. It is important for us to grasp the view that has been expressed by those opposite on what this is all about. The honourable member for Hinkler also talked about differences of opinions, to which the honourable member for Bendigo referred, between the National Party and the Liberal Party on this issue and tried to make some capital of the fact that there were obvious differences in the coalition. We, on this side of the House, know that what happened in Queensland is a forerunner of what those blokes opposite are trying to do in this place in a national sense. We know that the Nationals and the Liberals are starting to go their own separate ways. It will not surprise us one little bit if, after this debate on the Australia Card Bill, we get a few breakaways in the Senate, that we get some people from the other side of this House who are fair dinkum enough to crack down on tax evasion, on the welfare cheats. We will see them come across to our side to see that this legislation gets through. I will go to a chronology of some of the comments that have been made by those opposite over the years. Senator Chaney, the Leader of the Liberal Party and Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, said on 18 July 1985: I believe that we should, as a party, be prepared to examine objectively any proposal which is put forward and to very carefully check any proposal against the sort of problems that have been raised. He was talking, of course, about controlling payments in the social security area where some recipients were not entitled to those payments. As far back as 12 or 18 months ago the Leader of the Liberal Party and Leader of the Opposition in the Senate raised some concerns when he said that we should look at the issue objectively, that we should not just be looking for cheap political capital and that we should not be trying to find political advantage. He said that we should take a careful look to see whether there is merit in it. I think that is a very important point. It was taken up by a number of those opposite. I will now refer to what the National Party members have said. The honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) when he was the shadow Minister for Social Security before the shake-up-one of several on that side of the House-said in 1982 in Parliament: What we need in Australia to effectively fight all forms of abuse is a proper identification of each Australian with a number, photograph and even a fingerprint. The only thing he left out was the tattoo on the forehead. He want on: This will identify each of those who are on the employment register or the taxation records, or those who are social security recipients and receiving health and education subsidies or any form of government assistance. We need a policeman to safeguard the public purse. Is that intrusion? I just wonder. He went on: A plastic policeman would be the most effective way of preventing this abuse. Dare I say that the honourable member may have been referring to the Australia Card. He went on to talk about the need for an ID card with a photograph, a fingerprint and whatever else and was reported in the Sunday Mail on 16 June 1985 as saying: Some of that information may not be necessary now-- okay, he had had a bit of a think about it-- but my opinion hasn't changed. Concern for civil liberties has to be balanced against the level of social security fraud and overpayment. So, the honourable member for Dawson took a principled position. He thought about the matter and made some suggestions. He took a principled position and he stuck to it. I will be watching him very carefully, when the vote is taken tomorrow morning, to see which way he sticks up his hand. Honourable members on this side of the House have a great deal of respect for the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), because time and again he has shown that he is not afraid to speak his mind. He was not afraid to come out and suggest that there were some good points about the fringe benefits tax and that maybe the coalition should have rethought its position on that tax. So, we on this side of the House have a great deal of respect for the comments which the honourable member for Gwydir makes, because he thinks carefully about the issue. A Press release on 5 June last year reported him as follows: The proposed national identification system offered dual benefits to the Australian people . . . The use of plastic cards for an effective means of identification would streamline the collection of tax revenue, imposing a greater accountability on that small minority of taxpayers who sought to evade their responsibilities to the community . . . The second major benefit would be to cut down on fraud affecting Government outlays, especially social welfare payments . . . I will be making representations to the government strongly supporting this aspect of the `White Paper' proposal. That is terrific. That is great stuff. We could not agree more with the National Party members. We will be watching them. We will be watching the honourable member for Dawson and the Deputy Leader of the National Party when the vote is taken tomorrow morning. The present shadow Minister for Social Security, the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), has made many statements in this House on many issues. Most of the time he is chasing the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) on certain matters and he never quite gets a handle on his own area of responsibility. But I will give him credit. A media release on 8 June last year, issued not long after the media release on the same matter by the Deputy Leader of the National Party, reported him-surprisingly, again this is a National Party member-as follows: The introduction of a national identification system, using ID cards, offered benefits to the Australian people, which outweighed any civil liberties considerations. So the honourable member was in tune with his Deputy Leader. He continued: The use of plastic cards as a means of identification would streamline the collection of tax revenue, imposing greater accountability on that small minority who seek to evade their responsibilities to the community by not paying taxes. Another majority benefit would be a reduction of fraud affecting Government outlays, especially social welfare payments. The introduction of an ID system should require people to quote the same identity number to both the Tax Office and the Social Security Department. Identity cards were now used extensively for banking and other financial transactions and [I] could see no infringement of civil liberties in their introduction. With the Government's White Paper on tax reform recommending the introduction of ID cards, there is now broad bi-partisan support for this measure. It should therefore be implemented. Hooray! But where is the honourable member now speaking in support of the proposal? We do not know. Time and again-for example, on 19 September 1985 and 23 May 1986-the honourable member for Richmond said similar sorts of things. He said: `What about tax evaders? We have to do something about them. What about the welfare fraud? We have to do something about that. Let us check out how we might do it. Maybe the ID card is the answer'. Again he ratifies exactly what he said: . . . there is now broad bi-partisan support for this measure. It should therefore be implemented. Let us see what happens. The crowning glory was an interview on Capital 7 television on 15 September 1985 with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). I know that it has been quoted time and again, but I have to get it in here. I know that honourable members will forgive me if I run it past them again because we think the people of Australia need to know where the Liberal Party stands on this issue. We have picked up on the National Party. Its members have said that the ID card has bipartisan support; that it is a great idea-photograph, fingerprints and anything you like. They have said: `We will accept it. Let us get it introduced'. They have said that it will stop the rorts and the ramps in the system and will fix everything. But what do members of the Liberal Party say? On the television station I have mentioned, Laurie Oakes interviewed the Leader of the Opposition. Oakes said: . . . where do you stand on the proposed ID card? That was not a trick question; it was fairly straightforward. Even the Leader of the Opposition could understand it. He replied: I personally see some merit in having an ID card providing the civil liberties concerns that people have voiced can be looked after and provided the Government can satisfy the community that there is some cost benefit in it. I haven't gone overboard in supporting it but, as a matter of principle, I think there is some merit in giving it favourable consideration. He was talking about principle, which is interesting because it is the first occasion I can recall for quite some time when this man of principle has said that he has a particular principle on an issue. He said in the interview that he was concerned about the ID card. That is great. Laurie Oakes went on to ask: But what about on the grounds of deregulation? If you support deregulation how can you support an ID card? The Leader of the Opposition said: I don't think there is any inconsistency . . . How does that line up with the Opposition's mates in the New Right? How does it line up with their great call for the deregulation of everything? Do they still think that is a great idea? I will come to the National Party again shortly because the point is very important. Another member of the Liberal Party is our colleague from New South Wales, Mr Nick Greiner, the Leader of the New South Wales Opposition. He follows the lead of his model in the Federal Parliament, the Leader of the Opposition, in every way. The views that he puts forward and everything that he does follow the lead of the Federal Opposition Leader. Today he got thrown out of the New South Wales State Parliament, which says something. On 28 June 1985 the Canberra Times reported: In Sydney, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Greiner, said he supported the introduction of national identity cards. They are in the interests of the community. Only people who were acting dishonestly had anything to fear. That is courageous stuff. We on this side of the House love it. Where does he stand now? The article continued: He did not believe there was a significant issue of civil liberties involved. That ties in pretty much with the view of National Party members. It is not fair, however, to refer only to the people who are here, because other people have made similar sorts of comments. On 25 March 1986 the Age reported: The Australian Retailers Association claimed the card would go a long way towards eliminating the cash economy `once and for all'. In a statement to the National Taxation Summit in July 1985 Mr Eric Risstrom of the Australian Taxpayers Association said: Identity cards would be very good. Seventy-eight per cent of those voting in our survey said they would accept them. That is not a figure that we would have got 10 years ago, but it is today's figure. I believe the Government is right in moving ahead with that. Today Mr Risstrom continued to support the concept of the identification card and totally repudiated the scurrilous attack on the Commissioner of Taxation launched yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair). So, the Australian Taxpayers Association supports the ID card. On and on it goes. In a statement to the National Taxation Summit Mr Eric Mayer of the Business Council of Australia said: Subject to careful safeguards-- that is fine; we accept that; safeguards are built into the legislation-- we support the introduction of a national identification system as a means of tackling tax evasion and social security fraud. We have to get Mr Andrew Hay of the New Right on record too. In a statement to the National Taxation Summit last year Mr Andrew Hay of the Australian Chamber of Commerce said: We are also, Prime Minister, prepared to endorse a range of other base-widening measures which I mention in turn. The proposed national identification system, while imposing some infringement of civil liberties- there is a joke- has merits . . . we note that, quite apart from the $800m to be gained by way of additional tax receipts, the system could play a key role in coming to grips with social security fraud, thereby assisting in the control of expenditure. He gave different sorts of reasons, which one would expect from the New Right; nevertheless he was quite reasonable under the circumstances. On and on it goes. I come back to members of the Liberal Party in this place. The shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), is reported in a media release on 3 December 1985 as saying: Social security cheats are robbing not only the unfortunate taxpayers whose hard earned money is being paid out to thieves, but also genuine welfare beneficiaries who deserve every scrap of assistance they can get. It is time the Government demonstrated at least equal concern over the welfare cheats' scandal to that shown over tax evasion and avoidance. I say `hear, hear!' to the honourable member for Mackellar. That is exactly what this proposal seeks to do. We applaud it 100 per cent. Senator Brian Archer, shadow Minister for Science and shadow Special Minister of State, says in a media release of 2 December 1985: If welfare frauds continue to go uninvestigated, community confidence in the social security system will inevitably deteriorate. There it is from both sides of the other side. The National Party is very strong indeed, stronger perhaps than the Liberal Party, but we have come to expect that. Yet we can pull out example after example in which both sides of the coalition have supported the introduction of the Australia Card because of tax evasion and social security fraud. This is an extremely popular decision that is embraced by this side of the House and the general community. As I have already demonstrated, there is popular support for it. What do we get from those opposite? To sum up, a media release was put out yesterday by the shadow Minister for Health saying that the coalition will oppose the Australia Card. He went on to say what the Opposition would do. Quite frankly, it is a joke. Other members on this side have said that it is a joke. It has been demonstrated and clearly shown that it is a joke. Those opposite cannot do half the things that they want to do. Where were they when tax evasion and avoidance were happening? What did they try to do about that? They did not do a thing. Instead, an unprincipled, opportunist opposition in government sought dubious political advantage over the whole thing. Those opposite want to abuse public servants who defend the system because the Opposition is trying to cover up its inadequacies. It will continue to protect tax avoiders and evaders. Those opposite are the greatest bunch of hypocrites we have seen. Welfare cheats-- Mr Goodluck —I take a point of order. I do not like being called a hypocrite by anybody. Mr MARTIN —I withdraw that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member volunteers to withdraw it. He may do so. Mr MARTIN —They protect the tax avoiders and those people who would use sidelines of organised crime to rip off the system. How do we describe these sorts of people? We could describe the Liberal Party as the party for lurks and perks because it is prepared to protect such things. It can be described as the Party to protect cheats because it is not prepared to support the Australia Card. We have seen the benefits that would come from the card. It is the Party which would allow rorts-- Mr White —I take a point of order. As a member of the Liberal Party I find the words of the honourable member for Macarthur offensive. I ask that they be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The point of order is upheld. The honourable member might withdraw. Mr MARTIN —I will be guided by your discretion, Mr Deputy Speaker. I withdraw. I appeal however to members of the National Party to show a bit of guts and the courage of their convictions because they have been supporters of this Australia Card. The honourable member for Richmond and other members have supported it in the past. Suddenly they have weakened in the Party room. Mr Nehl —You can't cite me as a supporter. Mr MARTIN —I am surprised that the honourable member weakened in the party room. Only one member of the Liberal Party to whom I have spoken in the last 12 months or so has consistently opposed this. That was the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker). In discussions that I have had with him in committee meetings and so on he has consistently said that he did not support an ID card. Everybody else on the opposite side has said that it is a great idea. Yet those opposite now take this public position for dubious reasons. The Australian summed it up today in a headline `Opposition flounders around aimlessly'. It stated: The Federal Opposition is looking like an opportunistic rabble. It is looking less and less like an alternative government. If those opposite are trying to tie the tags on to this Australia Card and think that they will get popular support they can think again. Tasmanians love it. The honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) should know that. He is a man of the people in Tasmania. Why is he not representing here what the people there want? Why does he not agree with members on this side of the House and support it? I expect better of him. I expect him to line up with the Nationals because they have been fair dinkum throughout this matter. I hope that when this Bill comes before the Senate the men of principle over there, one or two of them who in the past have suggested that they support the idea 100 per cent, such as Sir John Carrick and others, have the courage of their convictions and support this card. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(6.05) —The speech of the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) can be dismissed with the words that he protesteth too much. If one looks back through the history of the last 10 to 15 years it can be seen that the honourable member's Party has helped allow the growth of cheating, particularly in the social security area, because in years gone by every time there has been erosion of the power of authority, if departmental inspectors were chasing and checking people, the Australian Labor Party always said: `Invasion of liberty! You cannot go knocking on the door in the middle of the night to see whether that woman on a single benefit is living with somebody. That is terrible. That cannot be done'. The media, whose members are always ready to pick up a dog that has been hit by a car, portrayed these events in full feature articles. Over years and years the Department of Social Security has been backing off to a point where this country's social security system has been reduced to a piece of meat for so many dishonest people who were prepared to cheat the system. As I have sat here today I have been sickened to hear Labor Party speakers, one after the other, pour out invective and emotive comments justifying this invasion on the grounds that all their care was for decent, honest people who are not getting a fair spin. It would have been very easy for me, as a member of the Liberal Party, to look at the polls that those opposite cited when they said that 78 per cent of the population were in favour of the Australia Card. It would have been very easy to say: `We will go along with the majority'. But we did not. We have stood firm. Now that 78 per cent is not unlike the rating of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) because it is now down to a percentage in the 50s. As people become more and more aware of what those opposite are proposing, they will walk away from it and say to the bureaucrats: `Get off your backsides. You have the weapon. Get out there and do your job properly'. It also sickens me to listen to all the defences of the Commissioner of Taxation, Mr Boucher. The Labor Party says: `How dare anybody in the Opposition criticise Mr Boucher for standing up and saying what was right?' This is not Mr Boucher's first excursion into politics. It was only last May that he wrote to perhaps three quarters of a million business people telling them how marvellous the fringe benefits tax was. This is the same Mr Boucher who said that the fringe benefits tax was great because it would allow the Government to do this and that and reduce income tax rate levels. If this man wants to keep sticking his neck out he will get it chopped off. He is paid 100,000 bucks a year-probably more than $100,000-to live in an ivory tower, protected from abuse and criticism as long as he plays his role, does his job and keeps out of politics. If Mr Boucher keeps going like this, one will be justified in saying to him: `Step outside your ivory tower. Put your $100,000 guaranteed and your occupation for life guaranteed to one side and come into the political circuit'. If he has such strong political ideas he should put his neck on the line and take the risks that are so much part and parcel of politics. I return to the ID card. The Government is not just introducing a green and gold card, in Australia's sporting colours, with a kangaroo on it. It is putting a number on every Australian. I do not know who will get No. 1. Perhaps it will be the Prime Minister because Malcolm Fraser got the No. 1 Medicare card. Mr White —Mr Boucher. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I do not think he would want the No. 1 card. All this gobbledegook is about the cards being introduced simply to protect people from tax cheats and tax dodgers. I have kids aged one, four, five and eleven. This Government will insist that they have cards. Are they tax cheats, dodgers of the social security system? Let us be fair dinkum. That is what the Government is doing. It is numbering every single Australian starting at one and going up to 16 million. The Government is introducing a scheme that ironically was first introduced in the world exactly 200 years ago preceding the French revolution. After the French Revolution, much of the ID card system was abandoned. After the Second World War, after what the Germans did with an in-place ID system, the French reduced it to a voluntary system. The Dutch abandoned it after World War II. What the Minister is doing is overturning the very fabric of our society. He is saying to Australians that as far as the Government is concerned, they will lose their personality and become a number. Australia, with 16 million people, is one of the least populated nations in the world. Yet the Labor Government is saying that it cannot cope without giving everybody a number and abandoning the use of their names. It is going to put information about people into data bases so that a person in Brisbane can source information about a person who might live in Perth. That is what the Government is all about. The Minister is a very highly educated person and I have much respect for him as an individual. His ideas sometimes frighten the daylights out of me, but he and I both now that when it comes to the bureaucracy of any country, that which is originally intended is not always how it finishes up. I believe with all my heart-let no man or woman on the other side question my sincerity and my views on this subject-that in the future the bureaucrats will dream up other uses for the ID card. In my office in Brisbane I have a computer that I bought out of my own pocket and in my office in Canberra I have a computer that the taxpayers gave me, along with so many other members of parliament. In a couple of years, from somebody who knew very little about computers, honourable members would be amazed about what even I have been able to dream up to do with a computer. I have no doubt that what the Government is introducing here with this little green and gold card with a logo of a kangaroo on its front will have expanded uses in the future as a result of pressures that will be brought to bear on the Government. I can see it now: The police department, the whole works, will say that they need access to that information. The Minister does not dispute for one moment the truth of what I am saying in this particular regard. My attitude on privacy has been consistent for almost two decades. I came in here exactly 20 years ago and in the late 1960s and early 1970s I fought for the introduction of safeguards to ensure that telephone tapping was very tightly regulated. Indeed today, unless it is done illegally in some places, one has to go to a judge and justify why a telephone should be tapped. I have been consistent in my views on privacy. The definition of privacy is the right to control the supply of information about oneself and it is closely linked to the practice of democracy as we know it in this country. I agree with the Government's desire to crack down on tax cheats, tax dodgers, social security rip-offs or illegal migrants. I do not believe that any person on this side of the House is against those objectives of the Government because we all well understand that all of us have to pay more if somebody has two hands in the till when they should have only one hand in the till. But our concern is the extent to which the Government is prepared to go to achieve this end. There is opposition in the Government's own Party. It is all very well for honourable members to cite examples of the warmth towards this concept that members on this side of the chamber have indicated. Dr Charlesworth —Ha, ha! Mr DONALD CAMERON —The honourable member for Perth should not laugh. He is just back from the world of hockey and it is one of his rare visits to this House. Members in his Party have described it as a Hitler type proposal. The honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent), who fought against the nazis, likened what the Government is doing to what the nazis did in Europe. Other members of his Party have run a mile. Mr Goodluck —George Georges. Mr DONALD CAMERON —Not just him, but a whole lot of others. What did the Government do-it used its conference in Hobart to silence the opposition. Big brother in Hobart-slap-and the decision was made, the ID card was to be supported. All these roses in this place and in the other place just wilted because those honourable members put their pre-selections ahead of their principles. If honourable members opposite say that members on this side of the House should stand up and agree to the proposal, I say that honourable members opposite should have a free vote on this subject. Let them have a free vote because I am absolutely positive that the Government would go down. The vast majority of members on this side and a lot of the members on the other side would vote no. Regrettably, I have been allocated only 10 minutes to speak on this particular subject, so I want to conclude by offering my own credentials in relation to tax evasion. I do not know why the Government could not settle on the use of a tax number. We all have a tax number. I heard some arguments put forward earlier today that a person might have two or three tax numbers. But I believe that, if a person opens up an account to operate all these financial transactions that honourable members opposite have talked about, the use of their tax number would be appropriate. If honourable members opposite want to penalise them, a law could be introduced that, if a person has money in an account with a false number, he should forfeit the lot. I am prepared to see that happen, for people to forfeit the lot, rather than see the introduction of a rubber stamp system and the numbering of a nation, because the modern computer system is not infallible. All these government agencies will be pouring material in, there will have to be a central point, people will be able to break into that, and the examples which have been cited earlier today will surely come alive. I am very pleased that the Australian Democrats have had the guts, despite the fact that it is not popular to do so at this time, to join us in saying no to this proposal. I hope that my Party and the Democrats do not buckle in the Senate because what the Government is doing is wrong. Dr CHARLESWORTH(Perth)(6.18) —I suppose we expected all of the hyperbolic, excessive and ridiculous claims we have heard from the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) and the many others on that side of the House. For instance, the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), said that a person would not be able to leave his house without his Australia Card. He may open a bank account or sell or buy a house every day, but for the vast majority of us these events are very infrequent and, indeed, the imposition of the use of an Australia Card would seem to be a very small imposition. The suggestion by the honourable member for Moreton that in some way our privacy was going to be interrupted by this move was very well countered by the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown). It is clear that the Australian Taxation Office already has much, much more information on all of us than will ever be contained in the Register of the Australia Card. Indeed, those of us who have a credit card gave much, much more information when seeking that credit card than will ever be available in the Register of the Australia Card. That information goes everywhere and we have very little control over it. The Australian Electoral Office holds more information than will ever be contained in this Register. I think the suggestion by members on the other side that in some way the privacy of individuals in this country is going to be interrupted or unduly interfered with by this legislation is absurd. There was nitpicking that this was going to be much more expensive than the Opposition's proposal that there be compulsory community work for those who are on the dole, but that has already been costed at many hundreds of millions of dollars. I find that suggestion a little difficult to swallow also. Why is this issue important to us? What it comes down to and what this debate rests on is the balance between the interests of the community and the privacy of the individual. It is my belief that this legislation strikes a reasonable balance in this consideration. Overseas experience shows that many different countries have different systems and different types of cards. We are fortunate in having the opportunity to look at what is happening in those countries, to learn from their mistakes and perhaps to model our system accordingly. I believe that the Health Insurance Commission has done this. Some of the countries that have a national identification system are West Germany, Belgium, Denmark, France, Sweden, Switzerland and Austria. Those countries hardly have authoritarian regimes, as was stated in the editorial in the West Australian today. They are hardly totalitarian in their nature. That editorial was far from accurate. Whilst some of those countries go much further with their national identity card legislation than this legislation does, we could hardly describe any of those countries as having authoritarian or totalitarian regimes. In this legislation we have the best and most cost-effective way of tackling tax avoidance and welfare fraud. There will be the spin off that it will assist in the application of immigration law and it will enable the production of a births, deaths and marriages register for the whole country. As a result many of the mechanisms which previously have been available to those who wished to defraud the system will be closed off. The argument has been used in this debate that the experience in the United States of America is an indication of the ineffectiveness of identification systems. We need to make the point that the system which operates in the United States is not primarily an identification system; it is used as a de facto identification system. It was produced for a different purpose. I will go on later to describe in some detail how that came about. Why do people need an identity card? There have been very profound and fundamental changes in our society over the last 50 years. Increasingly there is a need for more formalised identification. Fifty years ago people did not get into a plane and fly across the country. They did not drive from one side of the continent to the other. They did not have the opportunity to travel. They were much more stable. They lived in smaller environments, smaller towns and suburbs. Indeed, even in the growing cities there were more cohesive local environments. Most business was transacted with people who were known. A barter or cash system operated. Now there is more and more use of the plastic money system. The majority of our commercial transactions are now anonymous. How does one trust someone one does not know? There has been a transportation explosion in the world. People are much more mobile. So it has become more necessary to have some sort of identification system on which people can rely. That is the very business which American Express is in; it is in the business of selling reliable identity cards for commercial purposes. That is what Visa, Mastercard, Diners Club and Bankcard do. Eight and a half million Australians already have credit cards. They are issued after the voluntary release of detailed personal information and the establishment of a satisfactory credit rating. After that information is provided it can go anywhere. So the suggestion that we hear from the other side that suddenly Australians will be casting away their souls and giving their information in some undisciplined way to the Australia Card register is absurd. Many millions of people in Australia have already given much more information than required by the Australia Card legislation to get other identification cards. If it is good enough for business to operate in that way surely in exactly the same way our Government should be able to require a reliable identification system. It spends money and it raises money. The Government raises money fairly and has to spend it fairly. That is the impetus behind this measure. This Government must be accountable to the taxpayers for the dollars it spends and the dollars it raises from taxpayers. This identification system will allow it to do so. It is salutary to look at what happened in the United States. The social security number system that operated there originated in 1936. Following the Great Depression there was an entitlement explosion in that country. Suddenly public relief and public insurance programs became available. Social security insurance, dependent children's aid and assistance for the unemployed, the disabled, the aged and veterans became available. The Government faced the dilemma that there was no reliable identification mechanism for it to decide who was eligible. So the social security number system eventuated. The integrity of the system was very low. It was necessary for people only to declare that they believed they were entitled to get a number. Forgery and tampering with the card and number system were easily undertaken, so much so that the abuse of that system in the United States is very substantial now. The Australian system will have primary control over identity. The high integrity of the card will make sure that those sorts of abuses cannot be perpetrated. We have learned substantially from the experience in the United States with regard to this. Opposition speakers have raised the right of privacy time and again in this chamber. Of course there are necessary and important rights of privacy concerning things such as details of our family life and perhaps our sexual conduct or even our religious commitment. Those things are important in the privacy of individuals and should not be interfered with. But some people believe the immutable right to privacy should be some sort of insurmountable obstacle standing in the way of an efficient and fair tax system and an efficient and manageable public assistance program. Perhaps they think it should stand in the way of the apprehension of criminals or the exclusion of illegal immigrants. This legislation is important in that it balances the rights of individuals with the interests of the community. As I have said previously-the honourable member for Charlton also made this point-I find it hard to understand how the privacy of an individual is interfered with by the supplying of his name, residential address, postal address, date of birth, sex, digitalised photograph and signature. I refer to what was said by Mr Greiner, the Leader of the Opposition in New South Wales, last year. He supported the introduction of a national identity card system. Referring to national identity cards, he said: `They are in the interests of the community. Only people who are acting dishonestly have anything to fear'. I support what Mr Greiner said. Clearly that is the case. It is in the interests of the community that there should be a fair, efficient and caring system. That is what this legislation is intended to introduce. Time and again in this place and other places legislation comes before members of parliament and there is debate about the right of the individual against the right of the community. I do not hear people on the other side of the chamber complaining that we have speed limits on the road. Perhaps individuals should have the right to drive at any speed they wish. The individual right and the community right have to be balanced. Also, police are able to stop drivers to check their blood alcohol level because the rights of the community have to be balanced against those of the individual. In some ways we even protect people against themselves. We have legislation with respect to seat belts in this country, which is protecting people against themselves. We have legislation with respect to the advertising of tobacco products. In a way this can be seen as legislation protecting people against themselves. I do not hear members of the Opposition getting up and shouting and yelling about that. When it comes to community interest, where is the consideration with regard to this legislation? When we travel we do not object to being searched before we go on an aeroplane for an internal or international flight. We do not object to being searched by Customs officers. The interests of the community are protected by legislation. Members of the Opposition do not believe that the right of heroin smugglers to smuggle heroin should prevail over the right of Customs officers to search them. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Dr CHARLESWORTH —Madam Speaker-(Quorum formed) Before the dinner break I was pointing out that legislation is continually passed by parliaments throughout this country to protect the interests of the community. I was pointing out that the heroin dealer does not have an inalienable right not to be searched by Customs officers. Indeed, legislation is passed to give Customs officers the power to search such a person. I am sure that members of the Opposition would not support the view that that would be an infringement of the rights of the drug dealer. Two royal commissioners have clearly stated that the fight against organised crime and, indeed, disorganised crime, would be improved by tightening up identity procedures. What will happen if nothing is done? What will happen if the Opposition rejects this legislation? The taxation system will continue to haemorrhage. Covert share dealings will continue. Hundreds of millions of dollars of interest earned will continue to go untaxed. Overseas dealings will continue unchecked. Covert real estate, mortgage agreements and transactions will continue. False and fraudulent bank accounts will flourish. Those who are ineligible will continue to receive social welfare benefits, and illegal immigrants will be facilitated in their ability to reap the benefits of this country. The deterrent effect of this card is something that people have not discussed in this debate, and I think it is important. The legislation is not perfect. Perhaps nothing else ever is. But certainly this legislation will go a long way towards improving the situation. What do we hear from the Opposition? It suggests that those who are in receipt of unemployment benefit should do compulsory work. It has already been shown in this place by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) that that proposition would cost more in operational expenses than it would save. The suggestion has been made that perhaps a tax file number would be the answer. The honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) has already pulled that down and shown it to be untidy and inefficient. What is the real position of the Opposition with respect to this Bill? I think that the editorial in the Australian newspaper yesterday put the case as succinctly as anything I can find. Indeed, the Australian is not a purveyor of socialist views. I quote from yesterday's editorial: The introduction of a national ID card, complete with photograph, will stop millions of dollars being lost either through social security fraud or through people avoiding their tax obligations. It is a proposal that deserves the support of all honest Australians. It continues: . . . there is no sacred right to refuse to identify oneself when engaging in transactions which could affect one's income tax liability. If the Opposition can point to any failings in the Government's Bill, it has procedures available to it whereby it can seek to amend the proposed law. But whatever drafting faults there may be in the legislation, they are hardly sufficient to cause the abandonment of a proposal the primary purpose of which is to limit the opportunities open to tax cheats. What we are doing is providing for a fairer system. We are providing for some accountability in the money that is raised and the money that is spent by the Government. Society has changed over the last 50 years. We have a more mobile population. A massive network of welfare payments is available to citizens. We have the technology to improve compliance in the taxation system. We have the opportunity, through this legislation, to set up a system which avoids the mistakes of previous systems in other places and takes advantage of this opportunity to identify its citizens in the best possible way. I have shown in my speech that there is a demand amongst citizens for such identification. Last year we spent $20 billion on social welfare in this country. If our system goes only a small way towards being one of the most efficient, if only 3 per cent or 4 per cent of that money goes astray, one is talking about $600m, $700m or $800m. Certainly, the Australian people deserve a government which is accountable for expenditure in social welfare. Why should the Government not conduct its affairs with at least the same efficiency as the local bank? This legislation provides for a high integrity card. A Data Protection Agency will protect the privacy of citizens. It provides for a register of births, deaths and marriages, which has been needed for some time. The spurious claims of the Opposition are without substance. This legislation provides a balanced and improved efficiency and a fairness in our administration that did not previously exist. It has my firm support and, indeed, it has the firm support of the Australian people. Mr SHACK(Tangney)(8.08) —I would not want there to be any doubt in my electorate as to where I stand and, in the nation generally, where the Liberal and National parties stand, on the Government's proposal to inflict on the Australian nation an identity card, and to inflict on the Australian people a numbering and photographing of all of them. We will vote against this proposal to introduce an ID card in the House of Representatives. We will vote against it in the Senate. If the Australian Democrats support our stance, the ID card will be consigned to the bin of socialist intentions, where it rightly and properly belongs. I would like to say something about the Hawkespeak which describes this ID card as an Australia Card. This Government and the Australian Labor Party are not entitled to debase the name, are not entitled to debase the traditions, and are not entitled to debase the liberty of this great nation by labelling this ID card an Australia Card. It is a version of Hawkespeak that would do a Minister for media in any tinpot totalitarian society proud. In light of this unambiguous stance, in the last few days I have been bemused to see that there is no shortage of so-called political experts who have fallen over themselves in the Press and on the airwaves-they are being supported by government members-to label the Opposition's stance opportunistic and expedient. Mr Robert Brown —True. Mr SHACK —I would like to examine this matter for a few moments in light of the interjection. If the polls are correct, and let us assume that they are, the majority of the Australian public presently supports the card. If the polls are correct when the card was first mooted some 74 per cent of the population supported it. Even recently, in the latest poll, some 58 per cent of the population support the card. I ask the question rhetorically: If the majority of the Australian public is in favour of the card will someone please step forward to explain to me the logic which concludes that the Opposition's stance is expedient or opportunistic? What nonsense, what rubbish and what utter humbug. Our stance has been consistent, unwavering and unambiguous since the card was first mooted. Madam Speaker, you will recognise that the more sensible question to ask would be: Why would an Opposition, which is presumably anxious for political support and presumably anxious to get into government, seemingly fly in the face of majority public opinion and oppose the ID card which allegedly will stop welfare fraud and tax evasion and wipe out illegal immigration-three big emotional issues in the Australian community? Why would an Opposition, laying claims to be a government, needing community support, majority support, to win the next election, seemingly fly in the face of that community support? There is a simple answer. The ID card is wrong and it is wrong on every account. Firstly, it is yet another bureaucratic solution to overcome bureaucratic failure. It is a solution which will soon join the ranks of failure. It is typically what we expect from this Government. It is a socialist universal solution, a universalist's solution, which tries to tackle the problems of the minority by sweeping up, gathering up, the majority. The card will not succeed even in its own terms. It will be implemented and introduced at enormous financial cost and there is even the risk that the cost of its introduction and operation will outweigh the so-called savings. Finally and fundamentally it is an assault on the rights and freedoms of all Australians and it will dramatically alter the relationship between the citizens and the Government, the State and the bureaucracy. The card is supposedly to combat three things-welfare fraud, tax evasion and illegal immigration. They all exist in the Australian community because of bureaucratic failure and even more importantly, so that the attack is directed home where it deservedly rests, because of the lack of political will and direction to attack these particular areas. I turn to welfare fraud. This ID card proposal comes from the same Government which has presided over the abandonment of the work test; it comes from the same Government which is opposed to unemployment benefit being paid in exchange for community service. It is a proposal that comes from the same Government which persists with programs and persists with taxpayers' support to provide incentives for-indeed it encourages it-abuse of the unemployment benefit system and the supporting parent benefit system. There is welfare fraud in Australia. If the Department of Social Security had the right political direction, backed up by a sense of political purpose, it would tighten up the procedures governing the supply of benefits to welfare recipients. Such improvements in the administration of our welfare arrangements do not need or entail the introduction of an ID card that will require the photographing and recording of every man and woman in Australia, even the recording of every child that lives in this country. If the Government tightened up its administration in terms of the requirement of primary documents, if it linked the payment of the unemployment benefit to community service and if it made greater use of information from employers, it would certainly stop the fraud that is occurring by those who are receiving welfare benefits and who are working. There is also tax avoidance and evasion. What is the black economy in Australia? Is it $10 billion, $20 billion, $30 billion or $40 billion? We are all part of it when we pay in cash our gardener, our lawnmowing man, our painter, our household contractor and when we barter for the supply of services from one to another. What is the estimated tax loss? It is $8 billion; yet the ID card will do nothing about the greatest area of tax avoidance and tax evasion and nor, I submit, should it. The real cause is that this nation is temporarily being presided over by the highest taxing and highest spending Government that this nation has ever known and the real solution is lower rates of taxes and better use by the Government of our money. I say `our money' because there is a fundamental concept that this Government and the Australian Labor Party cannot understand. It is not the Government's money; it does not belong to the Government; the Government gets it from the Australian nation; it gets it from the Australian people. The Government is taking too much and is spending it improperly. Australians have lost confidence in the Government's ability to take from them their money for proper and just purposes. The real solution to what we are talking about under the heading of an ID card is lower taxation and proper, more accountable and more efficient use of the nation's money. What about criminal evasion? In the last couple of days we have seen ample evidence of the failure of the Australian Taxation Office, backed up by the lack of political will, to do its job properly. It is possible to collect tax from interest dividends without the card. It is possible to ensure account identification from financial institutions without the card. I turn to illegal immigrants. What an absolute joke! If the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, supported by the political will, which is ever important because the blame lies with the Government not its servants, did its job properly there would be no need for this card. If it liaised with other departments, if it gained primary information from employers, there would be no need for this card. I turn to the cost of the Australia Card which will involve over 2,000 extra public servants and the upgrading of Medicare offices. What will be the cost to State and local government? What will be the cost to statutory authorities? What will be the cost to the private sector which all flows from the higher charges and increased costs to the Australian consumer? When we accept that this card will not work, when we accept that it will not in a month of Sundays draw in the amount of money that its proponents would have it draw in, we will not be surprised if its ultimate costs outweigh the savings and the revenue gains. Much is revealed when we see who has the major carriage of this piece of legislation. It is, indeed, the Minister for Health, (Dr Blewett), that great socialist who presides over Medicare, who presides over the health policy which, in order to fix up the minority of our community-those who did not have health insurance-mucked up the entire system for everyone. There is not an individual in Australia who does not accept that our health system, our Medicare system, is in a shambles and is failing demonstrably. There are queues of people awaiting care in hospitals. There are deaths because of delays in the system. There is fraud and overservicing under Medicare. It is the same Minister with these excellent credentials who is introducing the Australia Card. It is also this same Minister who made a very illuminating statement at the South Australian Labor Party State convention that was reported in the West Australian newspaper of Wednesday 10 June this year. The newspaper reports: Dr Blewett also said that civil-rights claims against the card were `bourgeois'. `Let me say as a socialist that it is the interest of the community that should come before the individual right,' he said. `We shouldn't get too hung up as socialists on privacy because privacy, in many ways, is a bourgeois right that is very much associated with the right to private property.' We could not have put words in the mouth of this socialist that more illustrate and that more underpin the real attitudes that lie behind this card and the attack on the fundamental freedoms and rights of every Australian. We want a government that deals with welfare fraud. We want a government that deals with tax evasion. We want a government that deals with the question of illegal immigration. But we want a government properly to use, and to instruct its Public Service to use, the appropriate administrative arrangements available to us. We are clear as to what we do not want. We do not want to change this country. We do not want to live in a society whereby our freedoms and our privacy are under assault. We do not want to be subject to the ID card, which to live and conduct ourselves normally in terms of every day transactions we will have to carry in our pocket, our purse or our wallet. There is an enormous distinction between the Australia card and the voluntary cards that I have in my wallet and which I use to make my life easier. There is a contract between me and the organisation that supplies my Bankcard, my American Express card or whatever. I enter into that contract voluntarily and I can withdraw from it any time I want to. The Australia card will be compulsory. There will be no choice. All adults in Australia will be photographed. I ask the handful of people in the gallery to imagine the prospect of turning up at one's local Medicare office when this card is introduced and queuing to have one's photograph taken. Imagine having to register every child under 18 years of age. Imagine six million adult Australians queuing so that this Government can take their photographs. The Government will not be happy until we queue for bread. The photograph will be renewed every three to seven years so that we can see how old we become. In addition, a comprehensive register will contain an entire list of one's personal details. This register will have no integrity, and that word is much used by this Government. It will have no security given that the Public Service will be involved. Not only that, the production of the card will be required for many everyday performances such as transacting business with a financial institution, investing money and selling real estate. The list goes on and on but I will truncate it because of the time available to me. Employers will require employees to produce the card. Turning to penalties, if one loses one's card and one does not report it to the authorities within 21 days, one can be fined $500. There are penalties of up to $20,000 if one fails to produce the card to the Commissioner of Taxation. I have spoken for too long already in this guillotined and truncated debate. Let me conclude by saying that this ID card proposal is part of this Government's socialist plan for our great country. It is part of the Swedenisation of Australia. I do not want to live in such a society. I do not want any part of the Australia Card, the identification, the photographing and the numbering of free citizens in a free country like Australia. I am confident that when the Australian public are informed and when they understand, as they will in the coming months, the full ramifications of the card, they will have nothing to do either with it or with the Government that had the temerity to introduce it. Mr PUNCH(Barton)(8.27) —So much really could be said in reply to my good friend the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack). However, I want to point out to this House that this is the Federal Opposition that would like to see every Australian subjected to the whim and fancy of police forces and have both open and secretive phone taps placed on us all. This is the Opposition that supports gross distorted penal provisions on the average worker in this country who belongs to a trade union. This is the Opposition that does not have the guts to stand up to the Queensland Government and its Premier in respect of all the restrictions that they have imposed on the freedom of assembly and on the freedom of trade unionism in that State, a number of which are in direct contravention of International Labour Organisation conventions. Mr Coleman —Oh, come on. Mr PUNCH —The honourable member for Wentworth says: `Hear, hear'. Yet the Opposition has the sheer audacity to come into this place and oppose the Australia Card on the grounds of civil liberties. Australians are not mugs. But the Opposition in its most blatant attempt to create a political issue, is attempting to treat every Australian as a mug. How can anyone in this country who has seen the Opposition's record in Government, much less its record since it has been on the other side of the House, possibly believe that those members opposite are concerned with civil liberties? How could anyone in this country honestly believe that those who sit in cockies corner and who support Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen have any concern or compassion for civil liberties? It is a joke; it is a farce. Indeed, all members of the Opposition could do was come in here tonight with a supposed alternative. They trotted out a mealy-mouthed solution-that 60 Minutes instant television solution-of work for the dole as though that has some long term civil liberties implications. The position taken by the Opposition is really amazing because the policy of the Liberal and National parties in this country protects social security cheats. The Opposition is protecting tax avoiders as it did when in government. It is condoning illegal immigrants. That is the fact-it is the position taken by the Opposition. Since coming to office this Government has done a great deal in a concerted and thorough campaign to stamp out taxation and social security fraud, not the least of which was our recent social security amnesty-- Mr Beale —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member for Barton has referred to the Opposition in terms that are quite unacceptable. We do not condone, and never have condoned, social security cheats, and I ask that he withdraw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —There is no point of order. Mr Kerin —What about the Greek conspiracy case? Mr PUNCH —The Minister at the table, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), reminds me of what the Opposition did to the Greek community while it was in government. Where were the civil liberties of those Greek people who were up on phoney charges? Where were the civil liberties of their families? The honourable member ought to come down to my electorate of Barton some time and have a talk to the Greek community about the Liberal Party and National Party of Australia and their concern about civil liberties. The Greek community will give the honourable member an earful, that is for sure. As I was saying, this Government recently conducted a very successful social security amnesty that saved the taxpayers of this country nearly $20m. Far from being silent in the area of social security and taxation fraud, as the honourable member for Tangney implied, our record is second to none. We now have a requirement that social security benefits must be paid into a bank, building society or credit union account. We have compulsory registration for the Commonwealth Employment Service. We have the requirement that unemployment recipients must now personally lodge the required forms each fortnight, otherwise their payments will be suspended. We have introduced self assessment for individual taxpayers which is freeing up more staff for random tax audits in the Taxation Office, which the Opposition ran down in staff numbers. We have stiffer penalties for tax avoidance and evasion, which does not sit comfortably with some of their colleagues in the Liberal Party. We have measures which will eventually force non-custodial parents to meet their maintenance obligations with the rest of the community. We have also introduced the withholding tax on certain transactions in the economy to counter the cash economy, which honourable members opposite so often talk about, yet they have damned that measure of ours as well. We also introduced the fringe benefits tax, which stopped the largest single growth of tax evasion as well. We have removed the tax deduction for entertainment allowances, which was another detour around the tax system. To make tax avoidance so much less attractive we are lowering the higher marginal rates of tax in two steps. Under this Government's Australia Card proposal it is estimated-despite what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) put out in a Press statement tonight, which is most misleading-that the annual net benefits of this card will be $880m. Halfway through the next decade the Australia Card will have saved the taxpayers $4.7 billion that otherwise would have been lost in tax evasion and avoidance and social security fraud. As opposed to that, this furphy of an issue about the tax file number system would have provided an estimated net total annual savings of about $280m only when fully operational, and by half way through the next decade it would have raised barely $1.6 billion. In other words, when we contrast what this Government is attempting to set up with the alternative, we see that the tax file number identification system would have missed out on savings, that is donations, by Australian taxpayers to fraud of an additional $3 billion compared to the Australia Card proposal. On a comparative basis that means that the Australia Card will return $5.37c for every dollar spent on it, while a tax file number system would have returned $3.69c for every dollar spent. When I first came into this House, or very soon after, I put a notice of motion on the Notice Paper condemning the New South Wales Liberal Party position which called for an identity card. That was Liberal Party policy in New South Wales. I got up in this House and I condemned the proposal. If the New South Wales Liberal Party put up the same thing today I would probably still condemn it, because I do not trust those opposite to administer any system where civil liberties are involved, or to establish any system where civil liberties are involved or to take countenance of those civil liberties, because they clearly would not. But I am prepared to say that the identity card concept is not without great merit and it has taken this Government to change that concept and turn it into a realistic and workable plan which not only protects civil liberties, as it is introduced, but establishes a system which will maintain that protection into the future. The most important ingredient is that the use of the card is on a strictly limited basis. There is no requirement in this legislation for a person to carry his card at all times, so let us not have any misleading propaganda machine exercise from those opposite, such as the great ones of the past, when the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) ran around the country saying that grandparents' gold fillings would be included in the assets test. I can just imagine the television advertisements that the Opposition will try to come up with. It will have one with grandmothers being searched by policeman for not having their identity card on them. I can see it now. I tell those opposite that we are awake to their tactics and fear campaigns which we have seen in regard to the assets test, and which they tried with the withholding tax, the capital gains tax and the fringe benefits tax. We are awake to that and we will fight this every inch of the way. The 80 per cent or so of Australians who support this concept will probably increase to 95 per cent before we are finished. Indeed the specific requirements of the Australia Card to be held in general relate to specific financial transactions, employment purposes and for the payment of Commonwealth social security benefits, allowances or pensions. Importantly, this legislation will also establish a data protection agency as an independent watchdog, which will review, establish and maintain guidelines for the operation of the Australia Card program and protect those civil liberties that I have just referred to. This agency will also administer privacy standards in relation to the protection of the personal information contained in the Government's computer banks. These safeguards will be seen to be the most broad-ranging and effective that this country has witnessed. The legislation importantly will provide for the misuse or abuse of the Australia Card, the Australia Card Register and the national births, deaths and marriages register. In particular it will apply to those individuals or organisations which, unauthorised by legislation, demand the protection of an Australia Card. The privacy legislation will also be introduced into the Parliament to support and underwrite the privacy protections provided in the Australia Card legislation. All of that will be established, with a guarantee of protection for the rights of the individuals of this nation. We have it as part of an ongoing record and movement by this Government to curtail taxation and social security fraud in particular. In reply to that, the best that those opposite can do is say: `You really have not done much in the areas of social security fraud and taxation'. I have mentioned what we have done, but for the record let us look at what those opposite did, those who have the audacity to criticise this concept, and let us look at their record. How did they meet social security and taxation fraud when they were in office? They had a novel way of countering and lessening it in 1977 and 1978. They just reduced the size of the social welfare budget. In fact the Opposition, when in government, froze the pension for a year. That made it a lot easier. It said: `Don't worry about it; just put it on ice'. It told the Department of Social Security to enforce the 85 per cent invalidity requirement. Even more so, eligible invalid pensioners lost their pensions. It created record levels of unemployment, so the unemployment outlays rose by over 400 per cent when it was in office, yet those opposite wonder why some people got through the net and cheated on the dole. They created the dole queues. They allowed the bottom of the harbour tax schemes to flourish despite the calls for action from the Commissioner of Taxation that we have seen the Treasurer (Mr Keating) outline in this House so many times. The Opposition introduced the Public Service staff freezes so that the various departments that should be policing these things were out in the cold and could not deal effectively with the problems of fraud. But most importantly the Opposition, when in government, allowed the payment of taxation in this country to become optional, and mainly, I might add, for its supporters. Let us look at the hypocrisy of those opposite on this issue, because as one newspaper editorial-the Australian, which of course is the foremost newspaper in this country, and I say this inter alia-said earlier this week, those opposite were cynically grabbing a political issue. Let us look at what has been said on this subject previously. On 8 June 1985 the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) the present shadow Minister for Social Security, said: . . . I think honest taxpayers are sick and tired of the restrictions which tax and social security fraud impose upon their liberties. `Upon their civil liberties'-did the House get that? There is now broad bipartisan support for the Government's White Paper on tax reform recommending the introduction of the ID card. He also said: It should therefore be implemented. I repeat: The honourable member for Richmond on 8 June 1985 said: It should therefore be implemented. I am not sure whether he is a dry, a wet or a semi-damp, but one thing for sure is that he has been rolled. He is probably in the same queue as the honourable member for Tangney who spoke about breadlines before. The honourable member for Richmond is probably in the same queue as the Leader of the Opposition who has been rolled this week too, has he not? The Leader of the Opposition, when asked about the Australia Card on 15 September 1985, said: I think there is some merit in giving it favourable consideration. Let me say this: The Opposition, while opposing this legislation, is still willing to run around the country implying that everyone who is unemployed is a dole bludger. It is willing to run around this country categorising all supporting parents as single, unmarried mothers, with an implication that somehow they are morally wanton. It is willing to run around suggesting that many invalid pensioners are faking their condition. At the same time it is not prepared, on a bipartisan basis-as the honourable member for Richmond said in 1985-to support this legislation so that the real needy in this country can be content at night knowing that the rest of the country is not impugning their integrity by calling them dole bludgers or other sorts of bludgers on the social welfare system. The Australia Card will sort that type of person out as quick as a flash. It will sort out those people quicker than the present Leader of the Opposition replaced the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) as Leader of the Opposition last year. The honourable member for Richmond said that he thought that honest taxpayers were sick and tired of restrictions which tax and social security fraud impose on liberties. I will tell the honourable member for Richmond and those in cockies corner gathered here tonight what Australians have had enough of. They have had enough of the social security fraud which bloomed under the previous Government. They have had enough of tax avoidance and the optional tax arrangements that are almost part of the Opposition's policy. Australians have had enough of illegal immigrants staying here and evading the law. After the hypocrisy of the Opposition on this piece of legislation in this chamber tonight and in the public utterances in the last few days, the Australian people will have had enough of it because they will see through this hypocrisy and will continue to support this legislation for what it is-a decent, proper and honest assurance for Australians who are genuinely in need and for the honest, decent taxpayers who make up 99 per cent of our population. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(8.43) —I must say that I am somewhat bemused by the performance by the honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch), who, if he is not slightly befuddled by aircraft noise, is certainly some form of muddle headed wombat. He has come in here, like so many of his colleagues during this debate, and abused the Opposition. One of the points that he and the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) made was that some of my colleagues have had the temerity to change their minds. I assure them and the people of Australia who are listening that we in the National Party of Australia and our friends and colleagues in the Liberal Party of Australia are allowed to change our minds. We are not chained to the dialectical constraints of the Australian Labor Party, the Socialist Left; we can change our minds. Frankly, this has happened. The honourable member for Barton mentioned that the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), the honourable member for Macarthur and other members on this side had changed their minds. They are not ashamed to say that they have done so. I make specific reference to the honourable member for Richmond because he was one of the members of this Parliament who sat on the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, a committee that sat for five months and after five months of intensive investigation produced a joint party report which recommended against the Australia Card, and for very good reason. In spite of the empty rhetoric coming from the Government benches, Australians-as one of those gentlemen suggested-are not mugs. I endorse that remark: They are not mugs at all; they are very sensible. They will not believe this continual stream of abuse which says that we, on this side, are in favour of organised crime or in favour of tax evasion. What a load of nonsense. No member of this Parliament, no sensible member of our society, is in favour of tax evasion-only the crooks and the criminals are. None of us-and let it be said quite clearly and unequivocably-on this side is in favour of social security fraud, but we are concerned about these things and the people we represent are concerned also. Many of them do have some doubts about whether we should have this Australia Card. I have no doubt at all, but I think it is reasonable that some of my friends have some doubts because the propaganda which has been coming forward ever since the proposition was introduced has been based on the suggestion: `Would you like an identity card to stop social security fraud? That is the basis on which it has been presented. It is a false premise because it will not stop social security fraud. That has been made quite clear by the Joint Parliamentary Committee which, I repeat, investigated this thoroughly for five months. I suggest to those on the other side and to any people in the electorate who believe that this Australia Card is a good thing that they do the sensible thing; borrow a copy from the library which will get it through the inter-library loan system. They should take the trouble to read the evidence, the recommendations and the conclusions. In other words, what I am saying to the Government and to those people, our fellow citizens, who are concerned about this and who think that it might be a good idea, is to take the view that says: `I do not want to be in a situation where people say: ``Don't confuse me with the facts; I've already made up my mind'' '. Do not make up your minds, fellow Australians, until you know the facts. The facts are totally different to the arguments which have been presented by Government members in speech after speech. In terms of organised crime, when people read the report of that Joint Parliamentary Committee they will see that Mr Costigan-of royal commission fame-appeared before the Committee and pleaded with it not to recommend the introduction of this Australia Card because it would be carte blanche for organised crime. Why? Because wherever this situation occurs forgery exists. I will come back to that point shortly. The trouble with this Australia Card, which we will see put out for every man, woman and child in this country, is that it is a case of overkill. There is a problem. We all know that. Both sides of politics have been seeking honestly for the answers. I know that the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), who are sitting at the table, are honestly seeking the answers. I am not going to abuse them in the way their colleagues have been abusing us all day. I give them credit for being men of character, men of goodwill, who are seeking to solve the problem. But they will not solve that problem by overkill. Why do I say `overkill'? Let us consider again a few facts. At the end of June the population of Australia was 15,973,900. Most reasonable people would accept it if I said that the population is 16 million. At the end of October, only a few days ago, the number of people receiving unemployment benefit in this country was 556,100. Let us say half a million people. If there is that social security fraud-which we assume is there and which we, on both sides of the House want to stop as nobody accepts it and nobody is for it-we have half a million who might be involved in unemployment benefit fraud. Why then are we saying that 32 times that number must have identity cards? Mr Cobb —It is bureaucracy gone mad. Mr NEHL —It is indeed. Half a million people receive unemployment benefits. To try to catch the very small number of people who are involved in fraud we are going to issue 16 million identity cards which will have to be updated as people age, as they grow beards or shave them off, or as they grow from children into young men and women. I just cannot understand any Minister saying: `Let us issue 16 million identity cards to try to control the possible fraud of a very small percentage of the half a million people who receive unemployment benefits'. Mr Cowan —He has been to Sweden. Mr NEHL —I suppose that there are lots of good things in Sweden, but not this. Fifty-five countries today have national identification cards. Forty-one of those countries are Third World countries under either communist regimes or single party socialist regimes. Identification cards have been used in these countries to suppress the population, as a desperate act, by denying people their freedoms and basic liberties, such as the freedom of movement. In nazi-occupied Europe a person could not go to the equivalent of the Melbourne Cup without an identity card, permission to travel and travel papers. How far down that track are we to go? Of the 55 countries which have identification cards, only two countries-Sweden and West Germany-do not force people to carry them and produce them on demand. This is one thing we have to be very careful about. I come back to the question of overkill. Only a small percentage of the half million unemployment benefit recipients are doing the wrong thing. I have no doubt that most Australians are fair dinkum. I know that the vast majority of my fellow citizens are honest and hard-working and want nothing more than to get on with the job of raising their families and doing the right thing by their country. Mr Braithwaite —It doesn't believe in trusting them. Mr NEHL —The Labor Party does not trust them, obviously. There are a few crooks among us, or among the population. Mr Kerin —In cockies corner. Mr NEHL —Among the general population, as the Minister well knows. Mr McGauran —The Minister for Primary Industry said that farmers were crooks. He said `cockies'. Mr NEHL —We have now had in this House tonight the greatest self-condemnation by any Minister in the Hawke Socialist Government. The Minister for Primary Industry has just attacked the people he is supposed to serve. He has called cockies crooks. That is disgusting and he should be ashamed of himself. I thought much better of him. Mr McGauran —Resign! Mr NEHL —He should resign, indeed. Some mention has been made by honourable members opposite about where the National Party stands on this issue. Let there be no doubt at all that the National Party has always been philosophically opposed to anything which would compromise the rights of the individual in a free enterprise society. As a party we defend the proposition that the individual is paramount because the individual is the building block of our society. As a party we see government existing solely to serve the needs of the people. The people are not there to serve the government. It is the other way round. The state is there to serve the people. What has gone wrong is that in the social engineering measures this Government has brought in it is trying to have the people as the servants of the government. One can see this very clearly in the Australian Bill of Rights Bill and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bills. Thank goodness that because of overwhelming public opinion they were thrown out, just as this proposal should be thrown out. There are many other speakers to come after me; so I must finish now. In conclusion, I would like to leave with you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the people of Australia who are listening to this broadcast a very simple thought: A free society does not need identity cards, but a repressive society cannot exist without them. Mr GEAR(Canning)(8.55) —There is nothing new about what we are talking about tonight. It has all been gone over previously. Mr Beale —Well then, sit down. Mr GEAR —If I looked like the honourable member, I would. What we are doing here tonight is putting more integrity into the tax system. The Opposition is opposing it. There is nothing new in what we are doing. Let us get that straight from the word go. This side of the House has had the gumption to make the tax system a decent system by bringing in the Australia Card. I agree with it 100 per cent. Of all the members of this chamber, I think I am one of the few members who have lived in a country which has a system similar to the one we are introducing tonight. I will come back to that later. We are continuing the task of getting for the country a decent taxation system. This is one part of that task. We had a rotten system in the past whereby a certain percentage of the population could choose whether or not it paid tax. The people in that section of the population did not vote for us. They voted for the people opposite. They always have and they always will. Those people are the Andrew Hays of this world. They go around parading themselves as people of great principle. They are also the people who have been rorting the system. Mr Beale —Will you repeat that outside the chamber? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member does not have the call. Mr GEAR —Thank you for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker. Honourable members opposite are getting a bit rowdy over there. Whenever we talk about tax rorts and about the people who are rorting the system, there is always someone opposite who will stand up for them. The honourable gentleman who interjected stood up for them. His name is on the public record because I have acknowledged him. If he wants to go around this country protecting tax cheats, let it be on his head; it is not on my head. I want to consider tonight the paper put out by the Australian Computer Society on the Australia Card. It is my contention that Mr Roger Clarke, in particular, is leading the Computer Society by the nose in a direction in which it should never have been headed. The Computer Society should have a reputation much better than the reputation which will result from the shabby paper it put out on the Australia Card. When its members discussed this issue they were not unanimous. I know that there are people of integrity in the Computer Society; but unfortunately on this issue they were outnumbered. I do not know Roger Clarke. I have heard him speak on the radio. I do not know why he wants to drag the Computer Society into disrepute by having it put out a flimsy paper which is error-ridden; but he is doing it. I remind the Computer Society and its more honourable members that their credibility is at stake. Every time it puts out a public paper the public will look at it in a meaningful way to see what it is saying. I have looked at the paper. It contains at least 19 errors. The Society claims that the Australia Card Register will contain personal details about every citizen and permanent resident. What are the facts? Nothing will be contained on the Australia Card Register other than basic identifying information, such as surname, given name, date of birth, sex, residential and postal address and the like. The only matters permitted to be entered on the Register are described in detail in Schedule 1 of the Australia Card Bill. No other information whatsoever will be able to be entered on the Register. The Society claims that a low quality photograph is not a reliable indicator of a person's current physical appearance. What a stupid statement to put one's name to. The simple facts are that the photograph to be imprinted into the card and to be contained on the Register will not be of a low quality but will be of a sufficiently high standard to facilitate reliable identification of the card holder. We use it every day on passports. We have been using it for a long time now. The Society is wrong. It has made an error. But it has made more than one error. I will give honourable members another example. The Government has under-estimated . . . the establishment and running costs of the scheme-- and the costs of compliance with the scheme . . . Members of the society can attack us on that and have a difference of opinion. There is nothing wrong with that. But they also say that the Government has overestimated the revenue savings. What would they know about it? I put my faith in the Treasury which has actual figures a lot more-- Mr Beale —Haven't you read the report on the Taxation Office? Mr GEAR —The honourable member should not get hypertensive. Your job is to protect tax cheats. My job is to rort them out. If you want to put your name on the public record, good luck to you, because I will not do so. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) — Order! The honourable member for Canning will briefly resume his seat. The Chair feels bound to remind the honourable member for Canning and other honourable members of the House that the practice is developing of members addressing directly other members in the House. This is provocative and inconsistent with the Standing Orders. Honourable members are required to address the Chair. I invite the honourable member for Canning to so do. Mr GEAR —Thank you for your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I find it a bit provocative when the honourable member for Deakin interjects so vehemently on a matter of principle that goes right to the heart of our taxation system. If he wants to jump up and defend tax evaders, good luck to him, but I will not do it. I will always defend the honest taxpayer in this place and outside it. If the honourable member really wants to he can interject. I will respond to the interjections. I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am only human. How would members of the Computer Society know that the revenue savings were overestimated? They would not have a clue. What would the computer Society know about the taxation records of this country? Yet it states that the Government has overestimated the revenue savings. That is absolute nonsense. I say to the members of the Computer Society of Australia, because I know that a lot of them are decent people: `Don't come out with this waffle. Don't get led by the nose by Roger Clarke or people of his ilk'. If that happens they will be dragged down into disrepute. Another claim by the Society is: . . . Australia does not yet have privacy protection laws or a privacy protection agency. As is clear from any reading of the legislative package introduced into the Parliament in October the Australia Card Bill will set up one of the most powerful privacy protection bodies in the world, the Data Protection Agency. I make the prediction that other countries will follow us because this country is in the vanguard of looking after people's rights in this way. Let us look at another claim by the Computer Society of Australia. It says that anyone may request production of a card and such requests would often be tantamount to demand. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl), talked about nazi Germany. Those opposite are really trying to paint a scene of Big Brother. The simple fact is that clause 167 of the Bill quite clearly prohibits, under pain of a $5,000 fine or imprisonment for two years, any person not authorised by the Bill from requiring another person to produce a card or from making to another person any statement which could reasonably be taken to mean that the person is required to produce a card. I have gone through the submission by the Australian Computer Society and I have found 19 different mistakes about this Australia Card. The Society is wrong. Its members have been led by the nose by Mr Roger Clarke. I do not know what axe he has to grind with the Australian Government. If he wants to stick up his head in political debate he deserves to have it chopped off because he is wrong. The opening statement of the public information paper says: The Society is the professional body of computing practitioners in Australia. With a membership approaching 13,000 it is the fourth largest such body in the world. I can tell honourable members that if its members keep putting out such rubbish they will be the smallest in the world because nobody will want to lend his name to that society. It is an absolute disgrace that it should put out such a publication. Let us widen the debate a little. Mr Humphreys —They are being supported by the other side. Mr GEAR —Yes, and I have made the point. There have been a few interjections from the honourable member for I do not know where-- Mr Humphreys —Deakin. Mr GEAR —Thank you. I have been told that it is the honourable member for Deakin who is defending the tax avoiders. We will never do so on this side. This Government has taken the hard decisions. It is not easy to bring in such legislation because it requires breaking new ground. But we have reached the point in our history where we cannot afford to take easy decisions. To sum up all the decisions taken by governments over time all the easy ones have been made. I remind the House of a few of the decisions that this Government has made. On the assets test, we took the pension from millionaires. It was a hard decision. We paid a political penalty for it. Mr Conquest —Ha, ha! Mr GEAR —The honourable member may laugh because he does not care if millionaires get the pension. He does not care if somebody who is living on the pension with no other form of income has to struggle every week. But honourable members on this side of the House care about it. That is why we brought in that legislation. It was the right thing to do and we paid the political penalty for it. We will defend that decision again next time because it is the right thing to do. Honourable members opposite do not cover themselves in any glory by being populist. Populist politicians are finished. If all we have to do in this House is make easy decisions we may as well all go on holidays. Australia will go down the gurgler because we have made too many easy decisions. Mr McGauran —It already is. Mr GEAR —I am glad that the honourable member agrees with me. Another decision we made was on the withholding tax-to catch the people in the cash economy. Do honourable members remember the big campaign against the withholding tax? Mr Humphreys —All the builders were going to go broke. Mr GEAR —They would go broke. House prices would skyrocket. But it did not happen. We got another 700 million bucks that we would have not have got otherwise. Mr Humphreys —We got another 50,000 who weren't paying their taxes too. Mr GEAR —The Whip just reminds me that 50,000 people are now paying tax who did not pay it before. What a great old rort was tax deductibility of meals. One could slip down to the old local restaurant, have a meal, and pay 46c in the dollar. That person would sit next to the poor old bloody electrician who takes his wife out once a year on their anniversary and who pays 100c in the dollar. What a great old rort. We got rid of that. The honourable member for Deakin is smiling. He used to do that as did all his mates. Did we hear them scream when we got rid of it. What a terrible thing is the capital gains tax! We are the last country in the world to bring in a capital gains tax to make the system a little fairer. America has had one since 1776. Australia gets one in 1986 and those opposite go off the planet. What a great old rort is the fringe benefits tax. People do not take cash; just benefits. What a great old campaign there was against the fringe benefits tax. When it comes to paying tax the Andrew Hays of this world are the real moralists. They are the same people who oppose the Australia Card and they are doing so for the same reasons. They are doing it because they do not like paying tax. They want the poor old mug, the poor old pay as you earn taxpayer to pick up the tab. He has always done so. He has never complained. They want to keep him at it. They oppose the Australia Card because by bringing it in we will pick up tax from the bludgers who have never paid it. That is why such people oppose it. All these high principles have nothing to do with morality. They are all to do with dodging tax. Why do those opposite not admit it? Why will they not be honest for once? Is that asking too much? We saw a great performance today by the Leader of the Opposition. He tried to censure this Government because the balance of payments figure was $1.7 billion. Mr Martin —The dollar went up. Mr GEAR —My friend reminds me that the dollar went up. The people who really know about what happens in the world support this Government. I remind the House that Moody's Investor Services Inc. gave this Government a AAA for its performance. They gave those opposite a ZZZ for their non-performance. The opponents of the Australia Card come from two broad groups. Mr McGauran —The Left. Mr GEAR —I agree with the honourable member that they come from the Left. The Left is more concerned with civil liberties, and I do not blame it. What the Minister has introduced in this Bill more than compensates for civil liberties. I agree with him. But the other part of society that opposes it, of course, is the ratbag Right-the people who hate paying tax, people who would like to see the PAYE taxpayer pick up the tab as he has always done. The ratbag Right is right in our sights because we know that its members never pay their fair share of tax. I can tell honourable members that we will make them pay it, and are they screaming. Andrew Hay has been racing around Australia trying to whip up opposition to what the Government is doing on taxation. The only reason he is doing so is that he hates paying tax, but we are going to make him pay it. I listened to the AM radio program this morning, on which the National Director of the Australian Taxpayers Association, Mr Eric Risstrom, made some predictions. Eric Risstrom has not always agreed with everything this Government has done. I value his integrity as I have always valued his impartiality. He has attacked us on certain issues but I will tell honourable members what he said about the Australia Card. He said that it would lead to a tax cut of up to 15 per cent. Imagine what a tax reduction of 15 per cent would do to a worker who received a low income. When talking about morality in taxation, either one believes that people should pay their fair share of tax or one does not believe it. Members on this side of the House do believe that; we know that it is about time that people who have got out of paying tax started paying it. I have lived in Canada and I have still got my Canadian social insurance card. I will not read out my number, but it starts with 711. Unlike a lot of honourable members on the other side, I can say from my experience with the social insurance card I had in Canada that for all practical purposes one may as well throw the Australia Card in the bottom drawer. Any honest person who pays all his tax can throw the card in the bottom drawer because the only time he will need it is when he gets a job or opens up a bank account. All this hype on the other side about the evils of an Australia Card is just that-hype. Honourable members opposite do not know what they are talking about. Unlike me, they have never lived in a system where there has been a card, and I can tell them from experience that they will not need it at all times. I am reminded by the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Humphreys) that up in Queensland under the National Party, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen has introduced a driving licence which has more information on it and which requires more resources to get it than the proposed Australia Card. Mr McGauran —Prove it. Mr GEAR —The honourable member should prove that it does not. He is not sitting in his correct place, but I will still answer his interjection. The simple fact is that in Queensland the National Party has introduced that particular system. Down here in Canberra National Party members are being led by the nose by Mr Howard. They should listen to Joh. If he had any decency he would agree with us that we need an Australia Card to make the tax system efficient. But of course he has not got any decency because he believes that a vote of 39 per cent in an election is a landslide. I finish my contribution by saying that this is only one more step by this Government to put integrity back into the taxation system. It does not surprise me one bit that the Opposition is opposing the Australia Card proposal because it has opposed everything we have ever done to try to make the taxation system fairer or to recoup the tax off the rip-off merchants who have benefited previously. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) — Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(9.14) —This identity card has the inspectorial invasion of the assets test, it has the authoritarianism of the Bill of Rights Bill and it has the substantial unintended consequences of the fringe benefits tax. For small business, produce merchants, real estate agents and employers it will be `knock, knock, knock,' the same as the assets test: `Have you collected the numbers from the people you are supposed to collect numbers from? Have you submitted your returns on time of the list of numbers that the Taxation Commissioner requires?' It will be the assets test all over again. It is authoritarian. There is a fine of $5,000 for an individual for the loss of a card if not reported within 21 days. For a small family company it will be a $25,000 fine for not complying. Just like the Bill of Rights it is ill-conceived, pervasive and uncertain. What about its unintentional consequences? Firstly, there is the cash economy. The card will drive illegal immigrants and the rest of the community to cash. There is no other alternative and authority after authority has said so. Businesses and people who must comply with it will not be able to keep up with the paperwork. Because it fails to take some very basic steps to control illegal immigrants, the chances of people who are unwanted coming to Australia will increase. There were high expectations on the part of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs for this legislation to control the movement of illegal immigrants. I quote from the Government's submission made to the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, which stated: The Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs lists of suspected illegal immigrants and its Citizenship Register would be made available to the HIC for matching with the Australia Card register. This would help to ensure that illegal immigrants are excluded from the Australia Card register (and hence from possible-- and I underline `possible'-- access to Commonwealth benefits and services). After saying that there was a chance of excluding people from illegally obtaining these benefits, the Government made the statement that the Department would have access to the Australia Card register, but that is not right; it will not have access to the register. There are 60,000 illegal immigrants in Australia today, so many people say. No one knows. There is an annual increase of approximately 16,000. The Government catches about 3,000 of that annual increase of approximately 16,000. What we have to do is just examine and test how effective this process will be to detect and prevent the entry of illegal immigrants. The process will be this: Cards will be issued to all visitors who stay for more than six weeks. It will be a special card for visitors and a different card for permanent residents. The card will not be issued at the airport; it will be issued some weeks later following a written application. Hence the first risk-a person gets through the front-gate and the Government will not know where he goes, what he does or who he is any more. It cannot be done at the front gate, so that is flaw number one. When that person leaves Australia there is no requirement to hand in the card. The person will take it away as a souvenir. Let me paint this picture: A person comes on a six month visit, leaves after seven weeks, and hands their Australia Card for temporary entry to a mate. Who at the airport will pick that the mate, who looks alike, has a beard and who comes from the same part of the world, is not the person whose picture appears on the card. This person carries an Australia Card, he will be in, so the illegitimate are legitimised by this process. There is no way that the Government is going to control that. Within ten years there will be hundreds of thousands of cards around the world being carried by people, and the Government will not know to whom people pass the cards or where the cards are being used. The Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs' own system for entry and exit is the only process that is really needed to justify the balancing and matching of people coming into or leaving Australia. That matching process has been at least 12 months behind and in the last few years in some instances has not been done at all. I currently understand that the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, honourable members will be delighted to find out, is currently two months behind knowing who has left Australia and who has rightfully entered Australia. The Department will invest $6m this year on a new computer system which it hopes will bring this information up to date. This is not the $31m for computers required in the first year for the ID card system. Just $6m will clarify that process and bring it up to date. All the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs needed to do for all this time was to get on with doing the job. The issuing of a special card for those staying in Australia for over six weeks lends the opportunity for forgery. It will allow people to take their cards out of this country and have them forged by the experts of the world. As I said, the possibility of fraud for exit and entry of criminal drug runners and terrorists is protected by this process because once that card is out and is passed on to a similar person, taking the same name with a bodgie passport, that person becomes legitimised in this process. He has an Australia Card, he is right, mate. What about the process of detection of illegal immigrants within Australia? The Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs will have no access to the Register; it will have to ask the director of the authority whether under clause 180 it can gain access to information held-mainly matters of the address and whereabouts of individuals. The Department will have no access to records of births, deaths and marriages. It will not be able to match people with similar names by date of birth. So there is a flaw immediately. The detection depends on information coming from departments such as Health and Social Security and the Australian Taxation Office advising the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs where people currently are staying. That information will come through, but why can it not come through now? Because departments have failed to co-operate. It is as simple as that. Social Security has only just recently started to trickle information on illegal immigrants to the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. The Tax Office will not do it. It has refused to indicate whether a person is in Australia or to give addresses. Of course the Health Department has not co-operated either. What the Government is proposing tonight to control the problems of illegal immigrants involves co-operation between government Departments which could have been going on for years. I have called for the last 12 months for this process to be adopted by the Australian Government. What happens when a person's case for an extension of his stay in Australia is reviewed? A person may want to stay with his old parents for a little longer or old parents may want to stay with their child for a little longer. Do such people have to front with their application for extension for a new Australia Card, extending the expiry date of that card? Think of bureau- cracy and trouble in that process, the delays and difficulties as people need to have that expiry date extended. In relation to cost recovery processes, as the Australia Card Committee did its work, it became clear that estimates on the number of illegal immigrants who work were based on guesswork and the estimate of the percentage of overseas visitors who work illegally came from a departmental study based on guesswork. That is what the Committee found. Officers of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs can find an illegal immigrant but they cannot ask him for his Australia Card. If they did they would suffer a penalty because they are not in one of the approved groups allowed to ask for the production of an Australia Card. If an officer of the Department does that he is liable for a $5,000 fine or two years in gaol or both. But who can ask for production of an Australian Card? Financial institutions, investment houses, certain trusts, foreign remittance agencies, land transaction people, safety deposit box operators, shareholders and share issuers of public companies, people involved with dealings on futures contracts, employers, real estate agents, produce merchants and people from the Tax Office, Medicare, hospitals and the Department of Social Security. They all must ask for the card but not the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. If officers from that Department ask for the card it is against the Bill as it now stands. What is the effect of the ID card? Will it do anything on illegals that cannot be done now? It will not do a single thing that cannot be done now. It will have the effect of driving people into the black economy. The findings of the New South Wales Privacy Committee are interesting. It reported: One remaining and obvious point needs to be made in relation to illegal immigration, and that is the significance of the so-called `black economy' for illegal immigrants. It must be assumed that many illegal immigrants stay well clear of official record keepers for fear of detection. Many would never appear on record systems, and would be employed on a cash-in-hand basis. The Australia Card system can have little direct impact on this area of illegal immigration, and indeed, the black economy generally. Its most significant effect may be to force the illegal immigrant who participates to some extent in normal community life, into an existence entirely in the `black economy'. Surely this would be an unintended, and an undesirable, consequence of the Australia Card. I agree with that Committee's findings. That Committee has studied the matter. It disagrees with the Government. The Committee is appointed by the New South Wales Government and it disagrees with the Commonwealth Government. What about the Government's own problems and uncertainties with the proposal? It was fascinating to listen to Senator Grimes answer a question in the Senate this afternoon. After describing how departments do not currently seek the production of passports or other information to prove the identity of a possible illegal immigrant, when asked whether there could be penalties for Immigration officials if they sought the production of the card, Senator Grimes admitted: I did not say it would be easier to detect. There is an admission from the Minister in the other place that illegal immigration would not be easier to detect with the Australia Card. Senate Estimates Committee B, comprising senators from all political parties, this year stated: Evidence presented by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs indicated that such a Card, while perhaps having little effect on the apprehension of illegal immigrants . . . could serve as a persuasive disincentive for illegal immigrants to stay . . . That is the best that a joint committee could do. The Minister will not agree that it would be effective or assist in detection. Many people have left countries where there is a totalitarian regime in place, where measures such as this are in place. They have realised that there is a freer and better opportunity for them and their families. They have rejected such processes in their country of origin to come to a freer country. Thank goodness that we have these freedoms. Thank goodness that we have committed oppositions which will fight for the retention of those freedoms. This is a Yes, Minister answer. Listen to Hacker. His remarks describe the Australia Card. Hacker said: . . . the three articles of Civil Service Faith: it takes longer to do things quickly-- two years to set this system up and millions of dollars to do so, and I have proved that with illegal immigrants it could be done within six months-- it's more expensive to do things cheaply-- look at the multi-million dollar cost in this process-- and it's more democratic to do things secretly. There is the Hacker answer. It is a Yes, Minister card. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! Before calling the honourable member for Prospect I acquaint the departmental ministerial advisers in the area reserved for them that they are here on tolerance by the House and their behaviour is required to be absolutely circumspect. I urge them to take note of the conditions that attach to their presence in the House. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect)(9.30) —I would like to deal with the question of the Australia Card mainly from the point of view of civil liberty aspects and the hypocrisy of a number of the people who are criticising the card on the ground of alleged interference with civil liberties. As background to my comments, I mention that I was one of the three founding members, with the late Mr Justice Sweeney and Ken Buckley, of the Council for Civil Liberties in New South Wales. I was its treasurer from the time we founded it in 1961 until about 1974 or 1975. I was a member of the committee until a fairly short time ago. I am still one of the trustees, although I must say that I resigned in disgust from the organisation abut two years ago because of its support for phone tapping on a particular issue. I will come back to that in a moment. I would be as concerned as anybody on the question of civil liberties if there was a real threat to civil liberties. My view is that most of the opposition to the Australia Card comes from people who are innumerate. They are worried about numbers. It is perfectly all right to say to people: `You have to have a card or a passport to open a bank account. You have to show your birth certificate'. A birth certificate is very difficult to get hold of. It is all right so long as it involved a series of letters. But if one changes that to numbers, it somehow becomes a threat to people, because they are worried about numbers. It is quite a ridiculous position. Most of the worries about identification are of course due to the fact that, although we have many more letters than we have individual digits, we cannot combine them in the same number of permutations and combinations as we can combine numbers. Numbers can be put in any sort of order, whereas in our language we tend to need to use vowels every so often, which limits the number of combinations of letters that can be used. Let me deal with the hypocrisy of some of the people who oppose the identity card. I mentioned the Council for Civil Liberties. I was not a member of the all-party Committee-the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card-that is generally referred to in this debate. I was a member of the Caucus committee which dealt with the proposed identity card. I listened to evidence from person representing, or claiming to represent, civil libertarians. It was depressing that they did not really have any evidence of any threats. They talked vaguely about the Government being able to keep a file on people. The Government is able to keep files on people. I am not keen on files, but the Government is able to do that now. There are quite significant files on people who are in receipt of social security benefits. I do not know whether they are accurate. I suppose most of them are accurate, but many would be inaccurate. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), in a letter published in the Sydney Morning Herald today, talked about the information which will appear on the Australia Card. He stated: The information on the Australia Card will be limited to name, signature, identifying number, expiry date and photograph. That is all that will be contained on the card. So it is really basically the current Medicare card plus a photograph. The Australia card register will contain nothing other than identifying data, such as name, date of birth, sex, address, any other name by which the person is entitled to be known and wishes to use, digitised photograph and signature, and some details for the Health Insurance Commission for the purposes of managing Medicare. I cannot see any problem in that regard. All that is to be listed in the register are names, date of birth, sex and address. Currently, all of those details are registered at the electoral office. When one fills in one's form in order to be eligible to vote in this country, one supplies exactly the same sort of information. So where is the problem? Yet the same people who claim that they are concerned about information becoming available on files about persons in the community-about everybody in the community, as they put it-are prepared to support, for example, illegal phone taps, or wish to extend the use of legal phone taps. The Council for Civil Liberties asked for an investigation of the so-called Age tapes. I think it is completely wrong that people who talk about privacy and who worry about the fact that the register will contain somebody's name and address are prepared to say that a person's phone can be tapped illegally and that the Government should investigate the contents of the phone taps. That is, of course, what the CCL did. Let me take a more crass example. The National Times has now changed its name, or it may have gone down the gurgler. I am not sure whether it still exists. Whatever it is now called, the former National Times was opposed to the Australia Card on the basis of privacy. It said that it interfered with people's privacy. It is the same newspaper which was prepared to publish any sort of slur on any person at any time. It was prepared to pay people to get information. It bought the tapes of illegal phone taps and published them. It was concerned about the Australia Card because it said it would interfere with people's privacy. What utter and complete hypocrisy on the part of that newspaper! Mr Costigan is much revered in this country, although not by me, as I have pointed out previously. But I will not go into the details. In his original report he said: Criminals seek to possess wealthy homes, land, expensive cars, yachts, and incur high living expenses . . . they may pay for much by cash, but ultimately . . . they find the normal financial institutions far more convenient and seemingly no less safe to use . . . He said that they were opening accounts under false names. He advocated the necessity for banking and similar institutions to make quite sure who owns a particular account. He supported phone tapping to find evidence about those accounts. Yet he appeared before the parliamentary Committee-I would have loved to be there to ask him questions-and opposed the question of the Australia Card on the basis of interference with civil liberties. What utter and complete hypocrisy on the part of Mr Costigan! Today the Minister for Health, who is responsible for this legislation, stated on AM-quite correctly, of course-that the card will hardly ever have to be used by ordinary persons. It will have to be used only when a person opens an account, gets a new job, applies for social security or buys a house. The Leader of the Opposition made what he considered a telling argument against the use of the card. I quote from the transcript of the AM program of this morning. Mr Harrison, the interviewer, asked: But isn't the reality also Mr Howard that the card will have to be produced on transactions such as you described only for the first time? Mr Howard replied: Yes, but there are many transactions that a person might undertake over a period of time which are unrelated to previous transactions and he might be doing it with the same broker, he might be doing it over a number of times. You take somebody who is dealing in real estate regularly. Their requirement to produce the card in relation to each transaction could become quite burdensome. My heart bleeds for people who, every time they buy or sell a house, have to produce the card. It must be a hell of a problem for them to have to do that every time! It seems a ridiculous sort of argument. From a political point of view I am extremely pleased that the Opposition opposes the card. I hope that it sticks to its opposition to the Card in the Senate and that it holds very tight in the Senate. If we could have an election on the card, currently I cannot think of a better topic from the Government's point of view. People in the community know that the card is wanted and needed. Mr Connolly —You watch the polls in the next month or so. Dr KLUGMAN —We have seen the polls during the last month. Considering the bucketing this Government has received over the last few months, for it to be within 2 per cent of the Liberal and National parties in a Morgan Gallup Poll on the question `Who would you vote for if a Federal election were held today?' is a fantastic result. I am a born pessimist on most issues, especially elections and that poll shows that the Opposition does not have a chance. I just hope that we have an election on the identity card. I draw the attention of the House to just how much money will be saved. The latest figures I have got by chance out of the Reports of the Auditor-General on Efficiency Audits for 1984-I cannot get later figures-are for 1981-82. The Opposition should not tell me that the Australian Taxation Office was an inefficient office run by this Government because at that stage it was under the previous government. If anything, I am sure the figures have increased proportionately since 1981-82. In the financial year 1981-82, dividends and interest amounted to over $10 billion-$10,125m. The amount recorded on income tax returns was $6.5 billion. There was a difference of approximately $3.6 billion-actually $3,583m-between the amount paid out and the amount which appeared in taxation returns. Some of the $3.6 billion interest would have been paid to people who did not earn enough to put in a tax return but a very large amount of it was obviously paid to people who just did not put in a return. Similarly, figures are available from the Taxation Office on persons owning real estate, letting real estate and not putting in a return for rent received. Large amounts are involved. I come back to the original point I made on numbers and letters. The Taxation Office finds it extremely difficult to match the names of people who receive interest and dividends against their taxation file. If I remember correctly the evidence that was given to us, only about 15 per cent-I am quite sure the figure is less than 20 per cent-of the recipients whose names are supplied to the Taxation Office by the corporations paying them can be matched against the tax file. There are not that many Klugmans on the tax files; there are lots of Millars on tax files and it is very difficult to be sure the right persons are being matched against the tax files. That is the reason why numbers are much more precise; they are specific. It ought to be necessary for people opening bank accounts or accounts of any kind from which they will receive some income to provide a number so that it can be put against their tax returns to see whether they are giving their correct income. I again come back to the politics of the Australia Card. The Sydney Morning Herald, which is not one of the Government's greatest supporters, made some very good points in its editorial today. It mentions both the Australia Card and the merger of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service and the Opposition's opposition to those decisions by the Government. The article stated: But both will leave the Opposition open to the accusation of opportunism . . . I think that applies more to the merger of the ABC and SBS than to the Australia Card. I fear that sufficient senators will either abstain from voting on the card or cross the floor to vote with the Government for it not to be an election issue. The Sydney Morning Herald editorial continued: Of course, the Opposition would say its decision to vote with the Democrats against the Australia Card was based firmly on principle. The card, it says, would intrude unnecessarily into people's privacy; as an issue, Mr Howard predicts it will be like the Bill of Rights- some speakers tonight took the same line- and the fringe benefits tax combined-two issues which have benefited the Opposition. Perhaps he's right, but obviously the Government will be portraying Mr Howard as weak on tax evasion. I think the same could be said about social security fraud which is a major worry in the community. Mr Connolly —But the Department of Social Security said in its report that there would be no savings. Dr KLUGMAN —With all due respect to the Department and the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), I think the Department underestimates considerably social security fraud. My view is that there is a significant amount of social security fraud. I am only aware of it on the basis of anecdotal evidence as probably is the honourable member opposite. Certainly the feeling in the community is that large numbers of people who have jobs are collecting the unemployment benefit, sickness benefit or some other benefit. From now on it will be necessary for people to provide their identity card number when they take a job and to supply that number when they apply for a social security benefit. Obviously if a person is getting wages he will not be entitled to a benefit. The Sydney Morning Herald editorial continued: And Mr Howard will be vulnerable to the accusation. The Government claims the Australia Card will ultimately stop more than $500 million a year in tax evasion and social security fraud. I believe the figure is much more than that. The editorial continued: Tax evasion is rife in certain sections of small business, such as real estate. A check by the Taxation office on the real estate industry in one State suggests that nearly half the rental income is not declared. Mr Howard, of course, has cultivated small business. I suppose the reference there is that those people represent small business; I am not sure whether that is a fair proposition. The Sydney Morning Herald editorial concluded: It should not be too difficult to persuade people that, if anything, the revenue to be saved by the Australia Card has been grossly underestimated. I agree with that. The article continued: The Taxation Office believes the savings easily could be 75 per cent above the official estimate. Similarly, it should be pretty easy to demonstrate that the Opposition's alternative to the Australia Card would be relatively ineffective. Why, the Government will ask, is the Opposition now so determined to block a measure that would crack down on tax and welfare cheats? Mr Howard might find that people don't believe his answer. I completely agree with this article and I come back to the point that there are people who are being hypocritical in their attitude to the Australia Card on the basis of civil liberties but other people are genuinely worried. The ones who are genuinely worried are really worried by the fact that we are dealing with numbers rather than letters. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) — Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr COBB(Parkes)(9.50) —If ever a piece of legislation should be totally rejected, it is this Big Brother proposal before us today. This is one of the most intrusive actions ever perpetrated by a government over its citizens. Dr Charlesworth —You don't believe this? Mr COBB —The honourable member had better believe it. It centralises and gives information and control to several large bureaucratic departments so that they will now have an increased power over the lives of all Australians. It will mean a further expansion of big government and the Public Service. It will cost an extra $1,000m to implement and an extra 2,200 public servants will have to be employed to administer it. On top of this, the cost to business to comply with the legislation has been estimated to approach $2,000m on top of the costs that I have already just mentioned. It is bureaucracy gone mad. The Government even has the hide to call it the Australia Card. If ever there was a false name it is that one. It should be called the un-Australia Card because it is simply that-un-Australian. From now on the citizens of this country who, for the last 200 years have prided themselves on their freedom, will have some of that stripped away. From now on, the citizens of this country who have regarded themselves as innocent until proven guilty will soon find that they are judged guilty until proven innocent. From now on, the citizens of this country who have regarded themselves as being the possessors of certain inalienable rights will now find that these rights are to be granted at the pleasure of the Government. It follows, of course, that what the Government gives or bestows by bureaucratic fiat it can soon take away just as easily. There is nothing in the legislation before us to prevent that. Australia, the land of the free-the land that my forebears fought for and pioneered-is soon to require every one of its citizens to procure a plastic policeman for their pockets. Everyone will be made to line up for a photograph, for an interview, for proof of identity and be forced to sign documents before he or she will be further allowed to participate in what we now regard as normal daily business activities. One wonders how long it will be before we are required to queue to get a tattoo on our forearm or forehead. I can easily envisage Government members arguing the merits of this as it would cut down on identification fraud and allow proper central records to be kept. The totalitarian fascists around the world would be proud of their Australian comrades for this move. Let us just look at the bureaucracy that goes with this Bill. The Bill is made up of 130 pages and is littered with a myriad of rules and regulations designed to make citizens beholden to the state and to enmesh business in a turgidity of non-productive activity. Hundreds of pages of explanations and details go with it. It is a veritable bureaucrats paradise. Who is to run the show? It is none other than the Health Insurance Commission which is to be expanded into a juggernaut by itself establishing an administrative authority. On top of this we will have a data protection agency which will be set up to administer the privacy safeguards of the card. An Australia Card register will also be formed to contain all the central information. As well, a data protection agency advisory committee-what a mouthful that is-will also be formed. If that is not confusing enough, a national births, deaths and marriages register is to be set up too. The Public Service must be going wild with delight at the thought of all this. Naturally, some of these bodies will consist of presidents, commissioners, assistant commissioners and a whole host of new government employees with fancy titles and salaries to match. The register will accumulate a whole conglomerate of information on every citizen in this country. Some of this information will include the name, the recognised name, the date of birth, the sex, the current residential and postal address, the title, the status as an Australian citizen, eligibility or not for Medicare benefit, the record of right to obtain employment, previous names, previous addresses-- Mr McVeigh —How many pages is that going to take? Mr COBB —Goodness knows-we will be awash with computers and paper. The information will also include the Australia Card number, documents used to establish identity and all the information that is needed on a person by the Australian Taxation Office and the departments of Social Security, Veterans' Affairs, Education, Immigration and, of course, the Health Insurance Commission. The list goes on ad infinitum. Mr Hicks —You will need a PhD. Mr COBB —One would. But it is interesting that they do not want to know whether one is married or not. Mr McVeigh —The Labor Party doesn't like the family. Mr COBB —That is quite possible. However, when we come to the sections in the legislation where the Government will force people to use the card before they can partake in normal day to day activities the horror of this whole thing starts to sink in. Farmers in my electorate of Parkes will be alarmed to hear that from now on their stock and station agent will not be permitted to pay them any money at all such as that from the proceeds of the sale of sheep, cattle or wool-- Mr McVeigh —That couldn't be true. Mr COBB —Yes, it is. They will not be able to do this unless the farmer has first produced his card in person to the agent. A farmer cannot ring up, even though he might live 50 or 100 kilometres away or even further, and give the number over the telephone. Oh, no-that is not allowed. The agent must check the card in person and the photograph to ascertain whether or not it belongs to the farmer. Then he has to record the number and then he has to tell the relevant government department-the Australian Taxation Office, of course-about the sale. If the stock and station agent does not do this-for example, if he refuses to do it on principle or if he forgets to do it-he will be fined $20,000. Mr Hicks —Is this Russia? Mr COBB —One would think so. The trust that every other Federal government in this nation's history has had for its citizens, its businessmen and its traders is now gone. Each is now required by law to inform on everyone else. A real estate agent cannot even do something so simple as remit a rent payment to a client until the Australia Card-the un-Australia Card-has been produced in person, the numbers recorded and the Tax Office informed. All Australians will also have to produce an Australia Card before they can transact business with a bank, and that would include such simple things as interest being paid on a savings bank account. They have to produce a card before they can place an investment anywhere or withdraw money, before they can buy or sell shares, before they can deal in futures contracts, before they can even get a job, for heaven's sake, and before-honourable members will not believe this-they can even use a safety deposit box. Mr McVeigh —What about the Prime Minister at the Boulevard? Would he have to produce one? Mr COBB —That would be a most interesting exercise. The failure of a business to insist on its clients producing their ID card will cost them fines of $20,000 every time. I notice that provision is made on page 23 of the Bill-this is one of the 130 pages that make up this legislation-for a penalty of $1,000. If one does not cough up the $1,000 one will be subject to six months imprisonment. So real estate agents or stock and station agents who cannot pay a fine of $20,000 will probably have to go to prison for 10 years. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) — Order! I know that the honourable member for Parkes has been carried away a little by the enthusiastic support of his colleagues. However, I remind him that it is appropriate for him to address the Chair. Mr COBB —I thank you for your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. Even if one loses one's card and does not report the loss, as many will do, the Government will impose a fine of $500. If one does not pay up one will go to gaol. I do not know how a person will be admitted to gaol because apparently one has to have an ID card before one can even be let into a gaol cell. That produces an interesting situation. Australian citizens will not even be admitted into a hospital unless they produce an ID card. The Taxation Office can demand that a person produce his card at any time. Mr McVeigh —The Minister ought to be ashamed of himself. Mr COBB —I think he should. A whole host of government departments will be linked up by computer for the first time in this country, swapping information on citizens and opening opportunities unparalleled in this country for private details to be released. Do not let us kid ourselves that this will not happen. Confidential Medicare information relating to doctors' incomes was leaked to the Press during the New South Wales doctors' dispute. Mr Martin —Do you support them? Mr COBB —Of course I support them. Of course, the most damaging aspect about the Australia Card is that it will not work-at least not in a cost effective way. Most people in the community are disturbed by social security fraud. For this reason, a number of people who have not yet had a chance to study the legislation support it because they have been led to believe that an Australia Card will stop this fraud. But once these people come to realise that social security fraud will hardly be stopped by this Bill, their support for it will cease. The major source of overpayment and fraud in the Department of Social Security is not false identification as such but changed economic circumstances not being properly notified. The overpayments file of the Department shows that only 0.6 per cent, which is less than 1 per cent, of this is attributable to identity, and 61 per cent is due to income variation, so how will the ID card help there? The coalition will stop this loss by making these people produce birth and marriage certificates before enrolling them and also by making them work for the dole. The huge expense and trauma of an Australia Card are clearly not necessary here. What the Australia Card is really about is not social security fraud, as most believe, as that is only a smoke screen. The Australia Card is about reaping in more tax to pay for the Government's excess spending. But again, even tax fraud can be rectified without this horrific Australia Card. It has just been shown in a recent report that the Australian Taxation Office is missing out on income through its gross inefficiency. It has been getting a mass of information to attack tax evasion but it has not been using it. As well, only 18 to 20 per cent of total interest paid is now reported to the Australian Taxation Office because it does not enforce this provision. The Auditor-General made many criticisms of the ineptness of the Australian Taxation Office that could simply be rectified without any need for an Australia Card. Let us not forget too that an ID card will have no direct impact on the biggest area of tax evasion-the cash economy. This Government now wants all Australians to be licensed before they can undertake their normal day to day activities which they could once do with the utmost freedom and privacy. Only in countries such as the Soviet Union do people have to carry internal passports. Even South Africa-the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) might like to listen to this-has abolished its pass law for blacks at the same time as we are proposing to introduce them here. This Government in effect is treating all Australians like cheats and criminals. It is perpetrating a bureaucratic fraud on this country, and when we inform the voters of it there will be mass protests against this communistic idea. The Government will then be forced to back off, as it was forced to over the evil Bill of Rights. I am looking forward to the battle of debate over whether we need an ID card because it is one that the coalition is clearly going to win. Mr LEE(Dobell)(10.03) —I rise tonight to congratulate the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) for introducing this legislation into the House. I reject the puny arguments that have been put forward by the Opposition in seeking to deny the Australian people the Australia Card system. Several years ago I think there would have been a considerable degree of community opposition to any proposals to bring in an identity card. But I believe that since we have had the exposure of the massive tax rorts and evasion and avoidance schemes, and since we have had an increasing examination of the levels of welfare fraud under competent and excellent Ministers for Social Security, such as the present Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), we are starting to see a crackdown on the levels of fraud in the social security system. If we examine the views held by people in the community at large these days I believe we will find that there is overwhelming public support for the introduction of the Australia Card system. In fact in March this year a poll appeared in the Bulletin which showed that 68 per cent of Australians favoured the introduction of the Australia Card and only 25 per cent were opposed to it. Earlier tonight in this chamber the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) totally misquoted an opinion poll which had been conducted by the Roy Morgan Research Centre, and he claimed that that poll demonstrated that only 58 per cent of Australians supported the Australia Card system. He therefore claimed that there was a falling number of Australians who supported the proposal. What the honourable member for Moreton forgot to mention was that the same poll conducted by the Morgan Research Centre demonstrated that 88.5 per cent of Australians now support the introduction of some kind of secure identification card system. So there is certainly not a decreasing number of Australians who are supporting the Australia Card system. I think there is total and overwhelming public support for this measure. I support the introduction of the Australia Card system because it will allow us to reduce the levels of welfare fraud. It will help us to catch those who are dodging paying their fair share of tax and it will allow us to prevent illegal immigrants from ripping off Australia's welfare and legal aid systems. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a table demonstrating the costs and benefits of the Australia Card proposal. This was shown to the shadow Minister who was at the table earlier. Leave granted. The table read as follows- AUSTRALIA CARD: COSTS AND BENEFITS Total for first ten, year period After first 10 Years $m $m Cost to Government... 759 55.6/year Cost to banking sector... 60.6 4.6/year Benefit from reduction in tax evasion... 4,100 724/year Total net benefit from all uses... 4,700 877/year Source: Office of Minister for Health. Mr LEE —I thank the House. The table demonstrates that the total cost for the introduction of the Australia Card system over its first 10 years will be $759m. The net gain from the introduction of the card will be $4,700m, which is certainly a great deal more than the cost of introducing the system. The table demonstrates that the great majority of that gain comes from the elimination of these tax evasion schemes. The Opposition in this House today sought to suggest that, while the Australia Card system might not cost the Government a great deal, private enterprise will be forced to carry a great deal of the burden. I would have thought that one of the groups which would have faced a very large proportion of the cost to private enterprise would have been the banking sector. Yet, as that table demonstrates, the total costs over the first 10 years to the banking system, from the introduction of the Australia card, are less than $6m per year. I do not know where the Opposition is coming up with these dodgy figures which it produced today but I am certain it is wrong. I would like to address a few comments on the extent of welfare fraud. I know, and I am sure many honourable members are aware of this, that the vast majority of those who receive social security benefits are fair dinkum, and they are certainly entitled to their rights under Australia's social security Act. However, there is a small percentage of Australians, and those who are not Australians but who are living in this country, who are abusing our social security system and leeching off the honest Australians who pay their fair share of tax and do not abuse the social security system, as the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) pointed out earlier today. Mr Martin —And did it very well. Mr LEE —And as the honourable member for Macarthur has said, he did an excellent job, as usual. There has been quite a deal of media coverage in the last year or so which shows that several people have been convicted for claiming unemployment benefit under many different names, often having drivers licences and bank accounts under many different names. There was one famous case where a fellow had almost 39 different drivers licences and 39 different bank accounts, and he ripped off the system for more than a quarter of a million dollars. I know that under this Minister for Social Security in this Government we are cracking down on those people who are seeking to defraud the welfare system. I get sick and tired of the comments of the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) when he attacks lone parents and people who are battlers and in real need, and I get sick and tired of the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown), who attacks the long term unemployed, when the great majority of those people are in real and desperate need and are fully entitled to the protection of the social security Act. Those very same people who are attacking the lone parents and the long term unemployed are the ones who claim we are not doing enough to eliminate welfare fraud and the people who are seeking to deny to this Government the very tools which will make the welfare and social security systems a great deal fairer. The honourable member for Richmond told an untruth when he claimed that the savings and benefits from the introduction of the Australia Card system would be only $1.65 billion. I suspect that the honourable member came to this conclusion because, during the hearing of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, an officer from the Department of Social Security made the comment that the benefits resulting to the Department from the introduction of the Australia Card would be at least equal to the cost. The honourable member for Richmond has concluded from that remark that, if the costs are $1.65 billion, the benefits therefore must be equal to $1.65 billion. If the honourable member for Richmond had studied R. J. Brown's Student Economics he would have realised that that was not the conclusion to draw from that statement. The correct conclusion is that the benefits from the elimination of welfare fraud which will result from the introduction of the Australia Card will be greater than $1.65 billion. Mr Robert Brown —He knew that as well. Mr LEE —As the honourable member for Charlton suggests, he knew that as well. He was a member of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card. I will quote from the report of the Joint Select Committee on page 33. It states: During the inquiry the Committee became aware of a number of unsourced estimates of social security fraud ranging between $200m-$500 million per annum. These figures gain further support for a recent internal paper prepared by the Department of the Special Minister of State . . . which was reported to indicate that fraud in the social security area alone could be in the order of $300 million per annum. If we have fraud at that level I believe there will be a saving in this area of a great deal more than $1.65 billion as was suggested by the honourable member for Richmond. It is very interesting to quote a couple of other comments made by the honourable member for Richmond. On 8 June 1985 he seemed to have a different attitude to the Australia Card proposal. He said: The introduction of a national identification system, using ID cards, offered benefits to the Australian people, which outweighed any civil liberty considerations . . . The use of plastic cards as a means of identification would streamline the collection of tax revenue, imposing greater accountability on that small minority who seek to evade their responsibilities in the community by not paying taxes. He goes on to say: With the Government's White Paper on tax reform recommending the introduction of an ID card, there is now broad bipartisan support for this measure. It should therefore be implemented. I wonder what has happened to the honourable member for Richmond to cause him to change his mind. Other honourable members of the Opposition have made interesting comments on the introduction of an Australia Card. The former shadow Minister for Social Security, the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), made this comment: Mr Braithwaite said-- Mr McGauran —The honourable member for Dawson, not Braithwaite. Mr LEE —If the honourable member for Gippsland wishes to be informed I am quoting from a report in the Courier-Mail on 16 May. It read: Mr Braithwaite said then, [in 1982] in Parliament: `What we need in Australia to effectively fight all forms of abuse is a proper identification of each Australian with a number, photograph and even a fingerprint. I would like to nominate the honourable member for Gippsland to be the first person to have to provide a fingerprint. Mr Howe —A very murky print it would be, too. Mr LEE —It would be a murky print, as the Minister for Social Security suggested. To top off the quotes relating to the Opposition support for the Australia Card last year I will quote from an interview with the current Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). On 15 September he was asked by Laurie Oakes: . . . where do you stand on the proposed ID card? The Leader of the Opposition replied: I personally see some merit in having an ID card providing the civil liberties concerns that people have voiced can be looked after and provided the Government can satisfy the community that there is some cost benefit in it. Mr McGauran —Yes, and there is none in your proposal. Mr LEE —Let me go on to quote what the Leader of the Opposition said. He said: I don't think there is any inconsistency, I mean the United States has had a social security card for generations and yet the United States economy is the most deregulated economy in the world. I don't think there is any conflict at all. So we have the current Leader of the Opposition now saying that he is opposed to the introduction of the Australia Card. Some would say that he has lost his Honest John reputation which he seeks to use at appropriate moments. I was very interested in an interview that the same gentleman, the current Leader of the Opposition, had on AM this morning. In that interview he was asked how the Australia Card constitutes an invasion of privacy. The Leader of the Opposition replied: Well it will be required to be used to deposit or withdraw money from a bank, to get a job, to buy or sell property, to deal with investments, to make foreign remittances, to use safety deposit boxes . . . I would like to pick up this point of the Leader of the Opposition. It has never been suggested that the Australia Card will have to be produced to deposit or withdraw money from a bank account. That is simply an untruth. The Leader of the Opposition has sought to mislead ordinary Australians by suggesting that every time they deposit or withdraw money from a bank account they have to produce their Australia Card. That is just plain wrong. I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition would have known what the true position was, yet he was seeking to mislead ordinary Australians. I believe that the Leader of the Opposition in his comments this morning was simply continuing with a great tradition which has been established by the Liberal and National parties. They sought to scare elderly Australians by suggesting that the assets test would require them to have the gold in their teeth valued. Do we all remember the scare stories that went around during the debate on the assets test? We had many members of the Liberal and National parties seeking to terrify ordinary Australians about the Australian Bill of Rights Bill by providing misleading information to Australians. One of the bodgie stories which the Opposition is spreading in this debate is that people who seek to purchase real estate interstate, or buy or sell shares if they live in a remote area, will have to travel great distances to show their stockbroker or their real estate agent their Australia Card to prove that the person buying the asset is the person in whose name the asset is to be registered. In fact, the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) made great play of this by saying that it would create a lot of inconvenience for people who purchase property interstate and for people who live in remote areas. That is simply not true. Members of the Opposition have not read the legislation or, again, they are seeking to scare ordinary Australians by providing misleading and incorrect information. The legislation introduced by the Minister for Health has provision for certificates of identity. These certificates of identity can be issued by any person who I understand can currently sign a passport photograph such as teachers, public servants, ministers of religion and even members of parliament. Mr McGauran —It goes from bad to worse-more bureaucracy, more identification. Mr LEE —If the honourable member for Gippsland follows me in this debate and suggests that his constituents living in rural areas will have to travel great distances every time they wish to open a bank account, he will again simply be following the Opposition's tradition in misleading ordinary Australians. The person who signs the certificate of identity verifies that the person looks like the person whose photograph appears on the card and that the person's signature is the same as that on the card. So the person purchasing that property or purchasing shares, or someone who lives in a remote area, will not be inconvenienced by having to travel great distances. That is just incorrect. When the Australia Card was initially announced at the National Taxation Summit in July last year I wrote to the Minister for Health as a member of this House suggesting that the date of birth should be included on the Australia Card for people who are under 18 years of age. I wrote to the Minister because there is a great problem in our community which involves young people who drink before they are legally entitled to purchase alcohol. I commend the Minister for Health for including a provision in the Bill for the date of birth to be included. I understand that the date of birth has not been included as an assault on under-age drinking, but nevertheless I think this measure will allow staff employed at hotels, clubs and bottle shops to ask young people to volunteer to show their Australia Card to clear up any confusion which might arise. To demonstrate the extent of the problem which I believe should be attacked, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a second table. They were shown to the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) earlier tonight. Leave granted. The table read as follows- PERCENTAGE USING ALCOHOL WEEKLY 12 years 13 Years 14 Years 15 Years 16 years 17 years Male... 14.3 20.9 31.8 44.8 58.6 57.4 Female... 11.8 18.0 35.0 41.5 53.4 59.2 PERCENTAGE DRINKING FIVE OR MORE DRINKS IN A ROW IN THE PAST TWO WEEKS 12 years 13 years 14 years 15 years 16 years 17 years Male... 10.5 16.8 25.6 33.6 45.6 47.3 Female... 8.6 10.4 25.0 30.1 45.2 43.1 Source: N.S.W. Drug and Alcohol Authority 1983 Survey of Drug Use by Secondary School Students. Mr LEE —The tables I have provided have been taken from the 1983 survey of the New South Wales Drug and Alcohol Authority on drug use by secondary school students in New South Wales. The survey found that there were very disturbing levels of secondary students in New South Wales who were purchasing and consuming alcohol. It states: Considering the 16 year olds as a reference group it appears that about 90 per cent of them have drunk alcohol at least once in their lifetime. We are talking about 16-year-olds here. The minimum drinking age is 18. Mr Beddall —Disgraceful! Mr LEE —It is disgraceful. The report continues: More than half (59% boys; 53% girls) are estimated to be drinking at least weekly. Mr Donald Cameron —He has been drinking since he was 12. Mr LEE —I do not think that this matter should be treated lightly or that jokes should be made about it. It is a serious problem which could have very significant social ramifications in the years to come. The report continues: Furthermore, a sizable proportion . . . of this age group reported drinking at a rate (20 or more times in the last month) which probably meant that they were drinking alcohol nearly every day. These figures are of concern when one considers that almost half . . . of the 16 year old students reported having drunk five or more drinks in a row at least once in the previous two weeks, and about half claimed that they had been `very drunk' to the point that they were physically sick at least once in their life. We should be getting bipartisan support on this matter. I believe that the extent of under age drinking in this country is a matter of very great concern. As the second youngest member of this House, I believe that I have a special responsibility to raise this matter. Any honourable member who has been in a hotel or club where a rock group has been playing or where young people congregate would know that we have a very serious problem and that the minimum drinking age is simply not being enforced. In my view, police crackdowns are quite ineffective. We have to take some action on this matter through the co-operation of State and Federal governments. As I have stated, the Government's decision to include on the Australia Card the date of birth of persons under 18 years of age will allow young people to volunteer their Australia Card, which in turn will allow publicans and club staffs to clarify whether those young people are legally entitled to purchase alcohol. Mr Donald Cameron —Yes; but if the hotel demands it, it will be fined $2,000. Mr LEE —The honourable member for Moreton has been interjecting. I emphasise the point that young people will not be compelled to produce their Australia Card. They can simply volunteer it. The Australia Card will be a great improvement on the current system under which young people are asked whether they have a driver's licence on them. People being asked to produce a driver's licence in New South Wales is a bit of a joke in that young people often borrow their elder brother's or sister's driving licence because there is no photograph on it. I support this legislation. It will allow us to attack the people who are defrauding the tax system and the welfare system. It has my wholehearted support. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(10.24) —Before I begin my general remarks I might say that in the debate on the identity card which has been proposed by the Australian Labor Party the Opposition members have limited themselves to speeches of 10 minutes duration, but Government speakers have taken the full 20 minutes. The reason for this basically is that a large proportion of Government members oppose the identity card. This is well known from statements that a number of them have made. Senator Bolkus and various other members of the Labor Party have opposed the card very strongly. Only one or two honourable members on the Labor Party's speakers list have been permitted possibly to express any dissident views on this matter. The Labor Party Whips have ensured that Government members, by speaking for the full 20 minutes, will be able to restrict the number of speakers on the Labor Party side to those who support this measure, whereas the Opposition parties have restricted their speakers to 10 minutes each, thereby ensuring that many more speakers are available on this side of the House. Tonight we are discussing a measure which is of fundamental importance to the liberty of all Australian citizens. No measure put before the Parliament this century has had more impact on the basic liberty of Australian citizens than the ID card proposal of the Labor Party. This proposal is the greatest intrusion into individual privacy ever contemplated by any government in Australia's history. This proposal is autocratic in concept and in execution. It strips Australians of their citizenship rights. It claims that henceforth we can exercise our rights only if we hold the state's permit to do so-the incongruously named Australia Card. Any Australian who continues to exercise his inborn rights without this permit will be treated as a criminal. Anyone who helps him will be treated as his accomplice. Yet those who use the card will be stripped of their privacy. If the Australia Card Bill were to pass through this Parliament it would mean that citizens of Australia would have to be licensed by the state to carry out their rights as ordinary citizens. This proposal is an historic attack on the basic rights of the liberty of ordinary Australians. If this proposal were to pass through this Parliament it would change the fundamental relationship between the citizen and the state. Whereas previously the citizen had inalienable rights to carry out various basic procedures, to do things which he wished to do, without the permission of the state, if this proposal were to pass through this Parliament citizens would require a licence from the state to carry out those basic functions. We are told in the opinion polls that 56 per cent of the people of Australia support the idea. This number has diminished over a period. Previously 75 per cent of the people were said to support the idea. I think that is because they have been told by the Government that large sums will be recovered in lost taxes or in proper social security payments if we all have ID cards and that as a result we will pay less tax. `I am from the Government. I am here to help you. Just slip your head into this noose and I will relieve the pressure on your feet.' This proposal must be killed stone dead. Quite apart from the evidence from around the world that the system simply would not achieve its stated result, it would put into the hands of bureaucrats, and public and private organisations eventually, a power over individuals that cannot be tolerated in a free society. ID cards are a major step towards a single, national computerised dossier on each individual citizen which could be used by a variety of bodies or agencies for a wide variety of purposes without the consent of the individuals concerned. Decisions vitally affecting individuals could be made on the basis of information collected over a long period. The information could be dated; it could be inaccurate; it could be misleading; it could be out of context; it would most often have been collected for a purpose other than that for which it was being used. For example, youthful misdemeanours or irrelevant episodes of bad health could jeopardise a person's current position, or even livelihood, without any possibility of redress. There need be no record that such irrelevant information influenced current decisions. The decision-maker could deny that such information was taken into account. My experience in dealing with large organisations, public or private, is that once a mistake has been made there is a tendency for those in the organisation concerned to become defensive and to cover up. Such considerations can easily outweigh what should be the prime concern-justice for the individual. Let me say deliberately, as a former Minister of the Crown with some detailed knowledge of the internal operations of departments and instrumentalities, that I do not trust the system as a whole to act justly in relation to individuals. I know of too many cases where individuals have been unjustly treated to be prepared to surrender more power to the system. The safeguards are simply insufficient. Apologists for ID cards acknowledge that privacy is an issue. They say that safeguards would be written into the system to ensure that the balance between the rights to privacy on the one hand and the rights of the community to have their money protected on the other is maintained. I regard such assurances as worthless. No government can give a guarantee that binds succeeding governments. Promises today are forgotten tomorrow. Powerful forces are at work. Human experience tells us that those responsible for the system will seek constantly to extend the coverage and uses of the system over time. Ninety-five per cent of Cabinet submissions I saw during my time as a Minister called for extensions of the power and influence of the bureaucracy and, as a necessary consequence, for the progressive reduction of individual choice or personal liberty. I see no reason why this would not apply to a national identification system. Its very existence would tempt the bureaucratic mind to devise and recommend extensions to its use and, over time, further encroachment of privacy would inevitably occur. Apologists for the system also say that we already have a variety of identification systems for tax, for social security, for credit and for medical insurance and that an ID system would merely tidy what is already there. I say that we have already gone too far with the Medicare system of nationalised medical insurance. I regard the centralised computerisation of personal medical records as extremely dangerous. We were assured when the system was introduced that there were safeguards, yet there has already been a leak of information on doctors' payments. The very Minister who gave us the assurances about Medicare, the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) who is in the chamber, is in charge of the introduction of ID cards. Many people, in response to these arguments, say: `I have nothing to hide. I do not care what people know about me if it stops other people cheating'. This is what I call the honest German syndrome. It is the kind of thinking that enabled Hitler to set up systems that led to slavery and destruction. In any case, on reflection, everyone has things that they would not want known about themselves and eventually they would be caught up in the net. Finally, would such a system achieve the stated objective? This is only a secondary question, as the earlier question of privacy and individual liberty is the one of overwhelming importance and is sufficient in itself as an argument for the proposal to be abandoned. However, would the system work in the sense that it would stop cheating? It is quite clear that the system would have no effect on the $8 billion or so in the cash economy. If things are not recorded, the identity system can have no effect. It would drive more transactions into the black economy. The concept of fraudulent cards would give a superiority, indeed a sense of security, to those who wish to defraud the system. They could be seen as being honest. Having defrauded the system they would be accepted as being honest whereas their dishonesty had been secured by the fraudulent card. We also know that the Tax Office is so inefficient that it does not use most of the information it obtains. It is now asking for a veritable avalanche of information under this system. There is no possible guarantee that it would use that information to advantage. Therefore, it is necessary to tighten up existing tax systems, to tighten the eligibility for social security benefits, particularly unemployment benefits, and the work for benefits scheme which the Opposition has suggested would be a major ingredient in this approach. We must expose this ID card proposal for what it is. It is yet another glib political promise to deliver a benefit yet contains the seeds of serious erosion of our privacy, self-respect and personal freedom. Mr BEDDALL(Rankin)(10.35) —The debate tonight marks the turning point in the fight against tax evasion and also is a continuation in the downfall of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). The Leader of the Opposition can no longer claim any credibility in the taxation debate in this country. He has, with his front bench, been exposed as being totally incapable of having his Party adopt any sensible measure to clamp down on the worst features of tax evasion. In every measure this Government has introduced to stop tax evasion the Leader of the Opposition has sought to frustrate the Government and therefore frustrate honest taxpayers. As pathetic as the Leader of the Opposition has been in this debate, the actions of the National Party have been even worse. Coming from Queensland, I have just about given up hope of ever seeing decency emerge from the National Party on any issue-let alone on taxation. The Queensland Premier and his minders in country areas run around the State imploring the introduction of a flat rate of tax which will result in higher taxation rates for the poorest sections of our community. Poor farmers, pensioners and the fellow trying to raise a family on average earnings will be affected by the Queensland Premiers' flat tax proposals. In turn, we have seen National Party members and politicians continually berate the poorest sections in our community for being dole bludgers and layabouts. The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) was in the poorest section on my electorate berating single mothers for receiving a pension unfairly. Yet, in the Australia Card, we have a system which will stop the very things which the National Party say it objects to, namely, the supervision of social security payments to ensure that only those eligible receive social security benefits. How can people like the honourable member for Maranoa go back to their electorate and defend their opposition to this measure? Yet it is not only the honourable member for Maranoa who is being totally inconsistent on this issue. The honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) when he was shadow Minister for Social Security said that a proper identification of each Australian is needed with a number, photograph and even a fingerprint. Where is the honourable member for Dawson now that the time has arrived for putting these views into practice? The Deputy Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), on 5 June 1985 came out strongly in support of a national identification system. Where is the Deputy Leader of the National Party now that the time to vote is here? However, the Queensland members of the National Party, who are no doubt awaiting the arrival of the Queensland Premier in this place, should reflect on the attitude of their own National Party Government and Premier in Queensland. As every Queenslander knows, when people receive their drivers licence, or renew a drivers licence in Queensland it is now compulsory to have a photograph taken. That was a measure introduced by the Queensland Premier and is similar to the recommendations for an Australia Card. The Attorney-General in Queensland, Mr Harper, on 13 January 1985 called for the introduction of an electoral identification card with a photograph so that the incidence of under-age drinking would be reduced. None of these measures would have been introduced in Queensland without the permission of the Queensland Premier. We can only hope that he will arrive in Federal Parliament very soon to at least keep the Queensland Nationals in this place on the same track as the legislation they have no difficulty supporting in Queensland. Stripped of all its rhetoric, the National Party is totally bereft of any reason why it should oppose this measure. The members simply have not consulted with their constituencies about it. Even in hard line National Party areas within my electorate, there is widespread support for the Australia Card concept. Opinion polls taken over the past 12 months have confirmed this view. Every one of them shows an overwhelming majority in favour of the plan. Having demolished the political inconsistency of our opponents on this issue, I would now like to focus on the other arguments advanced against the Australia Card. The first argument deals with the fact that the tax file number is cheaper and more effective. Unlike the Australia Card, the tax file number is not based on a secure document system. The Australian Taxation Office claims that the tax file number was never intended as a unique identification system. There is simply a lack of evidence tying a particular individual to a particular number without the Australia Card. Bank accounts and investment accounts can easily be opened or closed using false names and numbers. Tax evaders can simply pocket the interest with little fear of detection. People can continue to work and evade tax by using false names. To avoid detection, all they need do is change their job each year. If there is a common view on both sides in this debate it is that there is an enormous amount of money in the black economy which is never taxed. In the Government's White Paper that amount was estimated at $2,000m. The Federal Opposition's spokesman on finance and taxation, Senator Messner, estimated the tax avoidance to be $21 billion. The report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure revealed that in undisclosed dividends and interest income an amount of $308m to $512m is forgone. The report went on to say that the Taxation Office faced two fundamental problems within the reporting system-a lack of information and inadequate matching facilities. The Commissioner of Taxation, in answering a question from the Chairman of the Committee, said that the optimum system is that which is proposed to be brought in in conjunction with the Australia Card. Everybody knows that those features are not present in the arrangements that we have now. The Committee recommended that the Taxation Office takes the necessary steps to establish a high integrity identification system which would ensure maximum taxpayer compliance. In essence, the Opposition and a joint standing committee have cited instances of tax evasion. The Taxation Commissioner has said that the Tax Office lacks the technological resources to come to terms with the problem. The Taxation Office has said that the tax file number alone is inadequate to deal with the problem. The logical answer-the only answer-recognised months ago by members of the National Party and outlined last year by the Government is the Australia Card. Another feature of this debate is that the Australia Card will be a massive invasion of privacy. The fact is that in this society there is already a great deal of information known about people. When completing an enrolment card, people give details of their name, address and date of birth. When opening a bank account or taking out a new credit card, a person is required to give full details of all financial dealings he is involved in. As well, all Australians have a Medicare card. The Australian Taxation Office has a record of a person's income and tax deductible expenditure. The Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs knows whether a person has a passport and when and where that person has travelled overseas. No citizen has anything to fear from a card which requires a photograph and an address when in all other fields of activity he has freely given more information about himself. The Australia Card is designed to provide a unique identifier of the highest integrity to every individual. It will answer the problems of the Tax Office and draw together financial information about individuals to ensure proper taxation assessment. It will stop people from double dipping from the Department of Social Security and obtaining benefits under false identities. It will radically address the tax evasion occurring under the black economy. The concerns of civil liberty groups are addressed in the proposal. A Data Protection Agency will be established to protect the rights and privacy of individuals by controlling the collection and use of personal data by the Australia Card authority. The Data Protection Agency will be one of the most significant law reforms to be introduced into the Australian Government system. It will act to protect the human rights and personal liberties of all Australians. It will monitor developments in computer technology and its effects on individual privacy. It will issue guidelines and directions to ensure that data kept by Government agencies is accurate and confidential. It will investigate breaches of these guidelines and will undertake educational programs to promote the protection of individual privacy. The use of the Australia Card will be limited to tax related matters, social welfare and Medicare. Its use for tax related matters and social welfare will reduce the massive revenue losses through tax evasion and reduce the level of social security and welfare fraud. I stress that the Australia Card is not an internal security card. It is simply a further means of putting honesty back into the system. I fail to see why the honest pay as you earn taxpayer who tries to raise a family on an overburdened tax system has any fears of this measure. This measure is about restoring honesty so that all Australians will meet their tax obligations. Frankly, it is appalling to me that someone like Brian Maher should pay $30,000 in tax in 10 years. it is galling that the richest companies in this country have been paying as little as 5c in the dollar tax. At the same time, I have no praise either for the tax bludgers who take jobs under an assumed name to shirk their tax responsibilities. An incident at Brisbane Rocklea markets is a case in point. The Queensland Chamber of Fruit and Vegetable Industries Co-op Ltd asked its market night unloading staff to produce positive personal identification. The result was that about 80 per cent of the permanent casual staff decided to leave. The chamber took this step in anticipation of the introduction of the Australia Card. The Opposition then is arguing against hard working honest Australian taxpayers. The Liberal Party of Australia is merely continuing to protect the people who support it. The National Party of Australia is of course as usual showing no consistency and no decency. Only this Government is prepared to stand up for honesty, decency and fairness for all taxpayers. The Australia Card deserves full support. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(10.47) —I come before the House tonight to explain to the people of Australia and the people of the Macquarie electorate in particular why I am opposing what many of them have come to see as a common sense and harmless measure, a measure the Government says will tackle welfare fraud and tax evasion. It is a difficult task. It is difficult because every Australian's gut level reaction to any proposal intended to stamp out tax frauds and welfare cheating is to say `it is about time' or `go for it' or some other colloquialism. He is usually very sincere about it. My difficulty in opposing the Australia Card is compounded, firstly, by the Government's deliberate efforts to ensure that public debate on this issue remains at that simple gut reaction level. Secondly, it is compounded by the Government's successful strategy of planting the suspicion in the mind of the average Australian that anyone who criticises such a proposal must have something to hide. I want to say to the people who have been persuaded thus far that this scheme will work without bothering the average person that initially I shared gut level attraction to the concept of a tax and social security identification system. I also want to tell them that I have changed my mind and I want to tell them why. Firstly, they should not believe the Government when it suggests that the only people who would object to an ID system must have something to hide. Do they remember how regularly the Government seeks to discredit critics by personal smear tactics. Do they remember, for example, how it treated critics of the Bill of Rights-we cannot deny that-how it criticised and dealt with unproductive work practices or people who criticised them and people who criticise, and still do, the fringe benefits tax and other measures brought in by the Government? We must also consider the qualifications, expertise and standing of those who oppose this system. I do not have a great deal of time, so I list only some of them: The Australian Computer Society; the President of the International Federation of Information Processing; the founding director of the Australian Federal Police Scientific Research Directorate; the former Royal Commissioner, Frank Costigan, QC, a person who has done more than any other to uncover tax and organised crime; Mr Justice Kirby of the New South Wales Court of Appeal; the Most Reverend Sir John Grindrod, head of the Anglican Church; the Confederation of Australian Industry; the Company Directors Association of Australia; the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia; the Law Council of Australia; the Real Estate Institute of Australia and the Australian Associated Stock Exchanges, just to name a few. I have considered what these people have said in opposition to the ID card. Let me give the main reasons why I have now come to oppose the ID card or Australia Card. Once upon a time we all expected that government and law enforcement agencies had no right to get involved in our lives unless we had committed crimes. Even then, the onus of proof resided with the government. Under the ID system the Government will involve itself in every aspect of our lives, whether we have a criminal record or not, whether we are receiving welfare or not and whether we invite it or not. The average Australian should be aware that where he objects to provision of any relevant information under this system he will be in trouble. Where there is a computer mistake or bureaucratic bungle it will be up to him to prove the computer or the bureaucrat wrong. That cannot be denied. Next I think we should all remember how much of our lives is linked to computers nowadays. Let me list a range of examples: Schools records; employment history; tax history; health history; banking, credit and investment history; retail purchasing records; telephone records; legal records; travel records and even subscriptions records. Consider what kind of profile someone could develop if he wished to discredit a person and could link computer records-and centralising computer records is what the Australia Card is all about. Imagine if the records and identities were inaccurate. They could suggest that the person had an undisciplined mind as a student, changed jobs too regularly, took too many sick days and had on occasions embarrassing illnesses. For example, the records may indicate that the person needed tranquillisers or saw a psychologist. These things could be revealed. It could be discovered that the person had once subscribed to certain political journals. Remember that this Government has already used personal wage and mental illness records to discredit critics of its policies in the last 12 months. The problem I find in dealing with this kind of scenario is that the majority of Australians will still, justifiably, conclude that we have no embarrassing information to be used, that we are not involved in politics and we do not rely on welfare. The majority will conclude that the new card will affect only a minority and abuse will be minimal. This is the crux of the whole problem. Madam Speaker, deep down you and I, average Australians, are apathetic. We do not care too much how bad the system is for others unless it involves us, our friends or our family. The Government knows this. It is hoping that we will not be overly concerned for the minority who have their privacy invaded by bureaucrats. It is trusting that we will not pay much attention to the minority who have their lives disrupted by computer or bureaucratic blunders. It is hoping that we accept that the number of innocent people who are wrongly dealt with by the Government will be balanced by the few cheats that it catches. It is also hoping that we will come to laugh off the inevitable schemes developed by the real criminals to get around the system. It believes the majority will not accept or appreciate the problem of government power and modern information technologies and subsequently will ignore references to totalitarian societies. I am hoping that over the next few months average Australians will wake up to the potential dangers which we face in the form of the Australia Card-a bureaucrat's vision of control and monitoring of Australians which has been sold to lazy politicians who cannot control, and now fear, the monster that government has become. I hope to convince average Australians to reject the scheme as being out of keeping with their idea of an Australian way of life. I believe that Australians will eventually see through the Government's slick public relations. They will realise that the carrying of an identification tag to buy a home, to do business, to do banking, to travel, to get health care, to get education assistance and so on is a way of life foreign to Australia and which we can do without. They will realise that one day they could be part of the minority who will suffer bureaucratic abuse. They will realise that we should not just go along with technological developments to make bureaucratic existence easier but which as a result will decrease the power of individuals and the community over the Government. In King's Hall, adjacent to this chamber, is one of the original copies of the Magna Carta which was written in 1215. That very document was designed and written so many years ago to protect the people of the day from too much government by the King. I am sure that, with reasoned debate, they will opt for other less drastic but just as effective measures to combat fraud and tax evasion which are being proposed by the Opposition and others. Other schemes may be brought forward that the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) may find very effective as research continues. I have this confidence in average Australians and I believe that their discernment in the case of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill justifies my confidence. But I am not so confident that this Parliament is as alert as it should be to what constitutes the good of the community and what preserves or endangers our basic freedoms. We are guardians of the political and philosophical tradition and wisdom of the West. Let me remind my parliamentary colleagues of just two relevant examples of that wisdom. The first comes from the mouth of the American President Woodrow Wilson. He warned us: The history of liberty is a history of the limitation of governmental power, not the increase of it. That is worth listening to and thinking about. The second example comes from a speech of one of our greatest parliamentary predecessors, Edmund Burke. He told us: The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion. If the Government persists with its present approach to this Australia Card and the public relations that we are seeing so much of, the people may be in some danger of accepting this scheme. If they do, they will certainly be deluded. This identification system will diminish freedom. It is a mechanism whereby government and bureaucrats increase their powers. It is our duty in this House to ensure that we do not delude ourselves or contribute to the delusion of our constituents. The Australia Card Bill has nothing to do with covering up or aiding tax avoidance or welfare fraud. We must tell the people that this Bill involves us in the creation of powers which will allow bureaucrats to co-ordinate, control and monitor them individually and collectively. We must tell them that it goes to the heart of our political principles and practices. Having told them these truths, I believe that we must then throw out this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Cunningham) adjourned. House adjourned at 10.58 p.m. The following paper was deemed to have been presented on 13 November 1986: States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendments of the schedules to the subsidy schemes in relation to the States, dated 6 November 1986. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 3339) Mr Donald Cameron asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 13 March 1986: Further to the answer to questions Nos. 3216 to 3243, what (a) was the stated purpose of each overseas trip made by employees of the Minister's Department and of all statutory authorities that report to the Minister in 1984-85, (b) was the classification or job description of each officer making each trip, (c) was the duration of each trip, (d) were the countries visited during each trip and (e) was the estimated cost of each trip, with the air fare component identified separately. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The following tables provide details on overseas trips in respect of my Department, the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, the Australian Trade Union Training Authority and the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The tables include trips which were funded in total or in part from the International Conference Vote administered by the Department of Foreign Affairs, and by other organisations. DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Overseas Visits 1984-85 Purpose Classification Duration Countries visited Cost Air fare component days $ $ To attend an OECD Manpower and Social Affairs Committee meeting. Discussions with UK Department of Employment. SES 11 France, UK 2,856 2,455 To attend an OECD Local Initiatives for Employment Committee meeting. Visit Local Employment Initiatives. SES 15 Spain, UK 225 . . To attend an OECD Manpower and Social Affairs Committee meeting. Meetings with Government officials on ILO matters. SES 15 France, Switzerland, Sweden Norway, UK 6,614 4,610 To attend an OECD Manpower and Social Affairs Committee meeting. Discussions with UK Department of Labour. SES 17 France, UK 6,990 4,588 To attend an OECD Local Initiatives for Employment Committee meeting. Study visit to Job Creation Schemes. SES 29 France, Denmark, West Germany, UK, USA, Canada 9,952 5,159 To attend an OECD Manpower and Social Affairs Committee meeting. Discussions with Singapore Ministry of Labour. SES 16 Ireland, Singapore 380 . . To attend an OECD Manpower and Social Affairs Committee meeting. Examination of overseas developments in labour force planning. SES 28 France, UK, Canada 10,433 5,661 To attend an OECD meeting on Women and Local Employment Initiatives. Associated meetings, with officials. SES 14 France, UK, Belgium 8,577 6,239 To attend an OECD Manpower and Social Affairs Committee Session. Discussion with UK Department of Employment officials. SES 12 France, UK . . . . To attend an OECD Manpower and Social Affairs Committee Session. Discussions with ILO and UK officials. SES 15 France, Switzerland, UK . . . . To attend an OECD Manpower Panel meeting of the long term unemployed. Discussions with UK and OECD officials. SES 12 France, UK . . . . To attend an OECD Manpower Panel meeting on occupational training programs. Discussions with West German and UK officials. SES 9 France, West Germany, UK 378 . . To attend an OECD Manpower and Social Affairs Working Party meeting. Discussions with OECD and French officials. SES 12 France . . . . To attend an International Industrial Relations Association Conference. Meetings with OECD and ILO officials and various labour/economic bodies and appropriate Ministers. SES 44 Austria, France, Switzerland, West Germany, Sweden, Holland, Belgium UK 13,386 5,845 To attend an ILO Inland Transport Committee meeting. Discussions with UK Department of Employment. SES 21 Switzerland, West Germany, UK 571 . . To attend an ILO Food and Drink Industries Committee meeting. Discussions with UK officials. SES 19 Switzerland, UK . . . . To attend an ILO Advisory Salaried Employees and Professional Workers' Committee meeting. Meetings with UK Department of Employment. SES 24 Switzerland, UK 1,287 . . To attend the 71st Session of the International Labour Conference Cl Ad 10 29 Switzerland . . . . - plus discussions on Industrial Democracy Secretary 19 Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, France, UK 8,720 7,008 - plus discussions with ILO Bangkok Office SES 35 Switzerland, Thailand . . . . Tripartite Mission on Industrial Relations Secretary 12 Japan, Korea 7,378 3,962 Tripartite Mission on Trades Recognition Technical Adviser (preparatory visit) 119 Austria, Italy, Yugoslavia . . . . - plus subsequent consultations SES plus wife 52 as above, plus Switzerland, USA, UK 17,132 10,570 - plus subsequent consultations CL Ad 10 57 as above, plus Switzerland, West Germany France, UK 10,296 5,417 Tripartite Mission on Trades Recognition-preparatory visit Technical Adviser 20 Singapore 5,191 2,088 To attend a meeting of the Technical Committee of the Asian and Pacific Skill Development Program SES 8 Thailand, Indonesia 1,058 . . To attend a New Zealand Vocational Training Council Conference Cl Ad 10 5 New Zealand 1,214 720 To attend a Conference of Commonwealth and State Labour Ministers Secretary plus wife SES Cl Ad 9 Cl Ad 8 3 2 4 4 New Zealand 8,107 5,721 - plus subsequent discussions with NZ Department of Labour SES 8 To attend the Belmont Conference on Labour Market Issues Secretary SES SES Cl Ad 11 5 3 6 4 New Zealand 4,289 3,495 To attend an International Conference of Labour Market Administrators Cl Ad 10 3 New Zealand 1,053 909 To attend an American Social Science Research Council (ASSRC) meeting. Meetings with Bureau of Labour Statistics, USA and Bank of England SES 20 USA, UK 4,003 2,759 To attend a Job Seeker Computer System meeting SES CSO 5 9 8 USA 15,020 10,778 Study visit: labour-related structural adjustment programs SES 26 Sweden, UK Canada 9,799 4,950 Study visit: longitudinal surveys Cl Ad 11 24 USA, UK, Yugoslavia 8,801 5,391 Study visit: employment and labour market program developments SES plus wife 29 Canada, UK, Denmark, West Germany 15,578 10,302 Study visit: Personnel Management SES x 2 23 USA, Canada UK, Japan 23,233 11,950 Study visit: Industrial Democracy Cl Ad 11 27 UK, Sweden, Denmark, France, West Germany, Singapore 9,177 4,972 Examination of UK Youth Training Scheme Cl Ad 11 18 UK 7,029 4,239 Australian Mines and Metals Association 1985 Study Tour SES 28 USA, Canada, UK 8,395 5,941 NATIONAL OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY COMMISSION Overseas Visits 1984-85 Purpose Classification Duration Countries visited Cost Air Fare component days $ $ Study visit and meeting of International Congress on Occupational Health SES 14 Ireland 6,031 4,678 For discussions on co-operative programs between USA and Australia, and developments in North America. SES 43 Canada, USA 7,508 2,299 To attend the 71st Session of the International Labour Conference SES 28 Switzerland . . . . AUSTRALIAN TRADE UNION TRAINING AUTHORITY Overseas Visits 1984-85 Purpose Classifications Duration Countries visited Cost Air Fare component days $ $ To attend a meeting of a Panel of Consultants on Workers Education for the ILO. SES 9 Switzerland . . . . To participate in the Danida Project of the ILO. SES 8 Fiji 2,414 1,056 - plus study and participation in training activities, techniques and achievements of the Project, and to survey future training needs. C1 Ad 8 97 Fiji, Solomon Islands, Nauru, Marshall Islands, Kiribati, Vanuatu, Tonga, Western Samoa 10,108 1,285 To attend a Democratic National Convention, San Francisco. Young Leaders Section of the Political Exchange Program. C1 Ad 11 21 USA . . . . To study Trade Union Education Programs in USA under International Visitors Program of the US Information Agency. C1 Ad 7 30 USA 300 . . AUSTRALIAN CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION COMMISSION Overseas Visits 1984-85 Purpose Classifications Duration Countries visited Cost Air Fare component days $ $ To attend an Industrial Relations Convention. Commissioner 4 New Zealand 324 . . To attend a LAWASIA Committee Conference. Deputy President 6 Singapore 3,815 2,604 Commission business. Commissioner and Clerk 7 Christmas Island (via Singapore) 7,470 5,630 Commission business. Commissioner and Clerk 8 Christmas Island (via Singapore) 6,920 5,630 To attend the 71st Session of the International Labour Conference. Commissioner 31 Switzerland . . . . (Question No. 3345) Mr Donald Cameron asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 13 March 1986: Further to the answer to questions Nos. 3216 to 3243, what (a) was the stated purpose of each overseas trip made by employees of the Minister's Department and of all statutory authorities that report to the Minister in 1984-85, (b) was the classification or job description of each officer making each trip, (c) was the duration of each trip, (d) were the countries visited during each trip, (e) was the estimated cost of each trip, with the airfare component identified separately. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) to (e) The following table sets out details of overseas trips made by employees of the Minister's portfolio during the period 1 July 1984 to 30 June 1985. (a) Stated purpose (b) Classification (c) Duration (d) Countries visited (e) Estimated costs Other Fares $ $ Department of Resources and Energy To attend United Nations Conference on Disarmament and to visit National Defence Research Institute (Stockholm). (Costs met by the Department of Foreign Affairs) Science 4 Bureau of Mineral Resources (BMR) 22 days Switzerland, Sweden 2,134 5,515 To participate in annual consultations with Japanese officials on co-operation in energy research and development. Senior Executive Level 3 Central Office (CO) 7 days Japan 730 2,616 To participate in annual consultations with Japanese officials on co-operation in energy research and development. Senior Executive Level 1 CO 11 days Japan 1,408 2,616 To chair meeting of the Governing Board of the International Energy Agency (IEA). To attend consultations with Japanese officials on energy research and development. Secretary of the Department 16 days France, Japan 2,544 6,551 To attend the Sixth International Palynological Conference. Principal Research Scientist BMR 18 days Canada 1,284 3,893 To study developments at overseas research institutes in Hot Dry Rock (HDR) geothermal energy. Research Scientist BMR 37 days FRG and USA 2,270 2,519 To attend Sixth Oxford Energy Seminar. Senior Executive Level 3 CO 18 days U.K. 4,565 4,479 To represent the Australian Government at the ``Burgenstock'' conference-a major annual conference focusing on the outlook for the commodity industries. To attend Uranium Institute Symposium in London. Deputy Secretary Senior Executive Level 6 CO 16 days Switzerland, France and U.K. 1,545 4,479 To participate in the seventh annual meeting of the Asia-Pacific Energy Studies Consultative Group. Clerical Administrative Class 11 CO 10 days U.S.A. 1,727 3,640 To lead Regional Geophysical mission to China under the Memorandum of Understanding for geoscientific co-operation. (Expenses in China met by Chinese government) Principal Research Scientist BMR 23 days China 1,655 5,266 To attend the Indian Ocean Panel meeting of the Ocean Drilling Program. (Costs met by the Joint Oceanographic Institutions for Deep Earth Sampling (JOIDES)) Head of Division Research Scientist BMR 8 days France 965 4,572 To attend and present a paper at a Petroleum symposium in Beijing. Senior Principal Research Scientist BMR 9 days China 1,693 3,136 To make investigations into underground coal mining technologies and to attend meeting of the International Committee for Coal Research. Senior Executive Level 1 CO 22 days Europe* 2,455 5,000 To attend meeting of the International Association for Water Research and Control. To hold discussions with a range of relevant organisations in the U.K. on research needs for the water industry. Senior Executive Level 1 CO 16 days Holland, U.K. 1,536 5,988 To attend meetings of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governor's and General Conference, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference and the Nuclear Energy Agency Steering Committee. (Costs met by the Department of Foreign Affairs) Senior Executive Level 1 CO 33 days Europe, U.K. 3,382 4,770 To attend IAEA Safeguards Workshop Seminar. (Costs met by the IAEA) Clerical Administrative Class 11 Australian Safeguards Office (ASO) 7 days Europe 720 4,159 To attend meetings of, (1) Association of Tin Producing Countries (2) International Lead and Zinc Study Group (and) (3) Intergovernmental Nickel Discussion Group. Senior Executive Level 1 CO 27 days Europe and Bolivia 3,883 5,666 To hold discussions with officials of mapping organisations and to attend mapping and survey symposia Assistant Director (Survey) Division of National Mapping (DNM) 23 days UK, Canada, USA, and Fiji 2,412 3,136 To attend meetings of the IAEA. (Cost shared between IAEA and the Department of Resources and Energy) Director Senior Executive Level 3 ASO 25 days Austria, France 2,783 4,402 To attend meetings of OECD, on economics of water conservation project and a workshop on natural resources management (Costs met by the Department of Foreign Affairs) Clerical Administrative Class 11 CO 9 days France 1,144 4,572 To attend meetings of the International Energy Agency (IEA) on Enhanced Oil Recovery Project and to participate in an associated workshop study. Senior Executive Level 1 CO 11 days UK, Norway 1,453 4,687 To participate in a marine geoscience cruise in the region of the Tongan Trench and undertaken under the Japan-Australia Science and Technology Agreement. (Costs met by the Department of Science and Technology) Research Scientist BMR 36 days Suva 3,310 1,156 To attend conference on Energy Law and Policy in Asia and the Western Pacific. Senior Executive Level 2 CO 7 days Singapore 805 3,816 To conduct a photogeological interpretation course for Indonesian geologists as part of the Indonesian-Australian Geological Mapping Project. (Costs charged to funds provided by the Australian Development Assistance Bureau (ADAB) ) Senior Research Scientist BMR 15 days Indonesia 1,321 1,846 To represent the Department as an advisor to the High Level Mission to Japan for discussions on coal and steel raw materials. Clerical Administrative Class 11 CO 5 days Japan 815 2,658 To attend annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. (All costs met by the Society) Supervising Scientist BMR 10 days USA 1,620 2,850 To attend annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. To participate in conference and associated field study on Extension Tectonics. (Costs shared with Society-BMR contribution $1,000) Principal Research Scientist BMR 33 days USA 3,346 3,750 To attend the annual Landsat Ground Station Working Group meetings. To hold discussions with government and industry agencies on Landsat program activities. Station Director Australian Landsat Station (ALS) Engineer Class 4 35 days Brazil, USA, Canada 4,485 7,908 To attend annual meeting of the Committee for Coordination of Joint Prospecting for Mineral Resources in South Pacific offshore areas (ESCAP). (Costs met by ADAB) Principal Research Scientist BMR 13 days Samoa 522 1,684 To chair meeting of the Governing Board of the International Energy Agency. Secretary of the Department 6 days France 1,121 5,239 To accompany the Minister for Resources and Energy. Senior Executive Level 4 CO 13 days China, Japan 1,081 3,346 To accompany the Minister for Resources and Energy and to attend Lawasia conference in Singapore. Senior Executive Level 4 CO 13 days China, Japan, Singapore 1,119 3,346 To undertake research work at the office of the Pacific Marine Geology Branch of the United States Geological Survey Science 3 BMR 37 days USA 3,648 2,894 To attend an IAEA Consultants meeting on the development of Alternate Safeguards Assessment Methods. Clerical Administrative Class 11 ASO 20 days Austria, Sweden 1,912 4,560 To attend meetings of (1) American Geophysical Union (2) Indian Ocean Panel Meeting-Ocean Drilling Program. (Costs shared between JOIDES and BMR) Head of Division Research Scientist BMR 14 days USA 900 3,050 To advise officials in discussions on Australia/Indonesia maritime boundaries Science 5 BMR 4 days Indonesia 486 2,378 To hold discussions on Australia/Indonesia maritime boundaries issues. (1) Director Division of National Mapping (DNM) Senior Executive Level 4 (2) Senior Executive Level 4 CO 4 days each Indonesia 943 4,756 To attend an Economic and Service Commission Asian and Pacific Region meeting. Senior Executive Level 1 CO 11 days Thailand 1,050 2,750 (Costs met by the Department of Foreign Affairs) To attend a meeting of the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) on Hydrology. Clerical Administrative Class 11 CO 7 days Philippines 612 2,514 (Costs shared between WMO and Department of Resources and Energy) To join research vessel `RV SONNE' to take part in BMR/FRG co-operative survey of the Northern Lord Howe Rise. (1) Research Scientist (2) Science 1 BMR 28 days (each) Fiji 427 2,308 (Costs met by the Department of Science and Technology) To attend as Australian Technical Adviser meeting of CCOP, a UN Committee of ESCAP. Science 4 BMR 15 days Indonesia 1,651 2,378 (Costs met by ADAB) To attend meetings of (1) UNCTAD Committee on Tungsten (2) The International Tin Council. Clerical Administrative Class 11 CO 16 days Switzerland 2,250 4,500 (Costs met by the Department of Foreign Affairs) To attend meeting of the NEA/IAEA Uranium Group and to engage in discussions with officials in USA and Canada. Head of Uranium Resources Evaluation Unit BMR 13 days France, USA 1,560 4,532 (Costs shared with the Department of Foreign Affairs) To attend IAEA Regional Training Course on State Systems of Accounting for and Control of Nuclear Material. Clerical Administrative Class 6 ASO 18 days Japan 1,057 2,270 (Costs met by IAEA) To attend hearings in the UK of the Royal Commission into British Nuclear Tests. Clerical Administrative Class 11 CO 6 days UK 582 4,770 To participate in the first session of the IOC/UN guiding group of experts on the program of ocean science. (Costs met by UNESCO) Research Scientist Head of Division BMR 11 days France 1,067 4,425 To hold consultations with officials in the USA and Canada on the operation of their bilateral nuclear safeguards agreements. Senior Executive Level 1 ASO 17 days USA and Canada 2,000 4,880 To attend scientific meeting of the Precambrian Paleobiology Research Group. (Costs met by NASA) Supervising Scientist BMR 8 days USA 1,300 2,265 To attend scientific meeting of the Precambrian Paleobiology Research Group and to visit laboratories and scientific research institutions in the UK and FRG. (Costs shared between NASA and BMR) Senior Research Scientist BMR 20 days USA, UK and FRG 2,100 2,828 At invitation of the Geological Survey of Japan (GSSJ) take part in a joint interpretation of seismic reflection data. (Costs met by Geological Survey of Japan) Science 2 BMR 45 days Japan 2,270 3,011 To attend meeting of the Lunar Laser Ranging Operations Working Group and meetings convened by NASA for co-ordinating activities of the LLR network. Engineer Class 4 DNM 5 days USA 480 2,993 To attend International conferences and to visit overseas mapping and geodetic organisations. Clerical Administrative Class 10 DNM 25 days USA 3,800 4,700 To attend international mapping symposium and to work with US National Geodetic Survey. Surveyor Class 1 DNM 61 days USA 7,143 4,375 To attend International Geological Correlation Program (IGGP) Scientific Committee and Board meeting. (Costs met by IGCP) Director Senior Executive Level 6 BMR 11 days France 1,320 4,520 To participate in the ASPEN Institute Workshop `Energy Fuels Trade on the Pacific Rim'. (Costs met by ASPEN Institute) Senior Executive Level 1 CO 5 days USA 350 2,900 To attend a Seminar on Joint Development Zones. (Costs met by the Department of Foreign Affairs) Clerical Administrative Class 11 CO 6 days Thailand 1,200 2,325 To attend Un Conference on Disarmament Scientific Experts Meeting and to participate in Working Group meeting on International Science data exchange. (Costs shared with the Department of Foreign Affairs) Science 4 BMR 24 days USA, Switzerland 2,700 4,680 To assist with the installing of a new laser system at the McDonald Laser Ranging Facility. (All costs met by NASA) Technical Officer Grade 2 (Engineering) DNM 23 days USA 1,600 2,200 To attend the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) annual convention. Principal Research Scientist BMR 16 days USA 1,864 4,495 To attend meeting of the Indonesia-Australia geological Mapping Project Advisory Board. (1) Director Senior Executive Level 6 BMR 8 days (each) Indonesia 1,880 2,226 (Costs met from ADAB project funds) (2) Senior Executive Level 2 BMR To attend several scientific conferences. Senior Principal Research Scientist BMR 28 days Europe and UK 2,285 4,514 To visit Nuclear Safeguards organisations for consultations and reconciliations of inventories of Australian origin nuclear material. Clerical Administrative Class 9 ASO 24 days USA and Europe 2,988 5,203 To attend IAEA Introductory Course on Agency Safeguards. (Costs met by IAEA) Clerical Administrative Class 9 ASO 6 days Austria 895 4,405 To attend Symposium of Pacific Energy Co-operation. (Travel costs met by symposium organisers) Secretary of the Department 6 days Japan 1,067 3,600 To attend meetings of the IAEA. (Cost shared between IAEA and the Department of Resources and Energy) Director Senior Executive Level 3 ASO 14 days Europe 1,457 4,124 To participate as a guest speaker in a training course on the accounting and control of nuclear material at the institution of the Science and Technology Agency of Japan. (Costs met by the Science and Technology Agency of Japan) Director Senior Executive Level 3 ASO 5 days Japan 536 2,486 To attend as alternate representative on the Australian Delegation to the Preparatory Commission on the Law of the Sea. (Costs met by the Department of Foreign Affairs) Chief Mining Engineer Engineer Class 5 BMR 30 days USA and Jamaica 5,332 5,215 To participate in collaborative geoscience cruises on the FRG research vessel RV SONNE. (Costs met by the Department of Science and Technology) (1) Principal Re- search Scientist (2) Principal Re- search Scientist (3) Science Class 2 BMR 42 days (each) Fiji 1,491 4,452 To accompany Minister for Resources and Energy. (1) Secretary of the Department (2) Senior Executive Level 4 CO 10 days (each) Switzerland, UK 4,653 12,734 To attend international meetings on Tungsten, Iron Ore and Tin. Clerical Administrative Class 11 CO 22 days Thailand, UK and Switzerland 2,557 4,722 To attend the inaugural meeting of the Japan/Australian High Level Group on energy forecasting and energy research and development. (1) Deputy Secre- tary Senior Ex- ecutive Level 6 (2) Senior Execu- tive Level 3 CO 6 days (each) Japan 2,378 5,248 To chair IEA Board of Governor's meeting. Secretary of the Department 5 days France 1,250 6,368 To lead Australian delegation of companies to a coal preparation seminar and to hold discussions with Chinese officials on coal matters. Clerical Administrative Class 11 CO 15 days China 1,512 3,130 To conduct first order magnetic observations Senior Research Scientist BMR 49 days Pacific Islands 4,416 2,037 To participate in an IEA in-depth review of FRG energy research. (Costs met by the Department of Foreign Affairs) Senior Executive Level 1 CO 10 days FRG 1,250 4,650 To attend Intergovernmental Nickel Discussions group meeting and to hold discussions with officials of the International Tin Council. (Costs met by the Department of Foreign Affairs) Clerical Administrative Class 11 CO 13 days Switzerland 1,592 4,536 To attend the annual Pacific Energy Program (PEP) Review Meeting. To hold discussions with agencies (SPEC, PEDP and Fijian energy authorities). (Costs shared with the Department of Foreign Affairs) Clerical Administrative Class 11 CO 18 days West Samoa 2,150 1,800 To hold discussions with Japanese officials on the Co-operative Project on Remote Area Power Supply Systems (1) Senior Execu- tive Level 1 (2) Clerical Admin- istrative Class 11 (3) Three technical advisors 13 days (each) Tokyo 11,725 13,878 To attend Phosphate Field Workshop and Symposium. (Costs met by the Department of Science and Technology) (1) Chief of Division (2) Principal Re- search Scientist (3) Research Scien- tist BMR 18 days (each) USA 4,500 6,000 To accompany Trade Mission on Coal Services and Equipment. Senior Executive Level 2 CO 17 days China 1,045 3,402 To attend meetings and conferences associated with satellite remote sensing programs. (Costs shared with the Department of Foreign Affairs) (1) Director Senior Executive Level 4 (2) Engineer Class 4 DNM 9 days (each) South East Asian countries 3,913 6,090 To accompany delegation to USSR under the Science and Technology Agreement. To hold discussions with officials of the British Geological Survey. (Costs shared with the Department of Science and Technology) Science 5 BMR 22 days USSR and UK 1,379 5,053 To lead natural gas geological mission to China. Assistant Director Senior Executive Level 2 BMR 22 days China 716 3,545 (Expenses in China met by Chinese Ministry of Geology and Mineral Resources) To visit facilities of the US Air Force Technical Applications Centre and to hold discussions with officials on the operation of the Joint Australia/USA Seismological Station at Alice Springs. (1) Principal Research Scientist (2) Science 5 BMR 8 days (each) USA 2,400 4,100 (Costs shared with US Government-US Government-$5,290 (estimate) BMR-$1,210) To present a course on the origins and methods of the exploration for phosphate. Research Scientist BMR 15 days Burma 1,702 2,960 (Costs met Australian Mineral Development Laboratories from aid-project funds provided by ADAB) To participate in the Australian delegation attending the Norwegian Workshop on Seismological (Comprehensive Test Ban) Verification. Science 4 BMR 7 days Switzerland 550 4,720 (Costs met by the Department of Foreign Affairs) To attend the 5th International Coral Reef Congress. (1) Senior Research Scientist (2) Principal Research Scientist BMR 13 days (each) Tahiti 2,439 3,992 (External contributions $1000) To chair meeting of the IEA Governing Board and to attend Australian-Japan Ministerial Council meeting. Secretary of the Department 10 days France, Japan 2,652 6,822 To attend OECD Environment Committee meeting and to attend 5th World Congress on Water Resources. Senior Executive Level 1 CO 17 days Europe 3,233 4,987 (Costs met by the Department of Foreign Affairs) To attend annual panel of Chairman's meeting on the Circum-Pacific Map Project. Science 5 BMR 6 days Honolulu 300 1,846 (Costs met by the Circum-Pacific Mapping Project) To attend IEA and CRD committee meeting on ERD & D, to attend seminar on synfuels with UK officials on coal utilisation, research and development. Science 3 CO 9 days UK and Europe 1,486 4,786 (Costs shared with the Department of Foreign Affairs) To accompany the Minister for Resources and Energy. Senior Executive Level 1 CO 9 days Indonesia, Hong Kong and Japan 1,705 4,607 To attend Nuclear Energy Agency, Uranium Group meeting. Head Uranium Evaluation Unit BMR 7 days France 1,130 4,871 To attend Planning Committee meeting of the Circum-Pacific Council for Energy and Mineral Resources and the Council's annual meeting. To attend Advisory Board for Research and Development of the International Union of Geological Services. Director Senior Executive Level 6 BMR 5 days USA 1,000 3,202 (No cost to BMR-all costs met by relevant organisations) To attend the water research `stream' of the Annual Conference of the American Water Works Association. To hold discussions with US and Canadian officials on the management and assessment of water research programs. Senior Executive Level 1 CO 17 days USA and Canada 2,879 5,839 To attend (1) Commonwealth Committee on Mineral Resources and Geology in London (2) the 27th International Geological Congress (IGC) in Moscow. Director Senior Executive Level 6 BMR 30 days UK and USSR 2,209 2,795 (Costs associated with attendance at IGC met by congress organisers) To attend the 27th International Geological Congress in Moscow. (Contribution of $2,500 towards costs made by UNESCO-IGCP) Principal Research Scientist BMR 22 days USSR 1,490 2,220 To attend the 27th International Geological Congress in Moscow. Research Scientist BMR 42 days USSR 1,340 1,750 (Costs shared between Academy of Science, UNESCO-IGCP and BMR) (1) To participate in and co-ordinate kimberlite diamond mission to China. (2) To attend 27th International Geological Congress in Moscow. Chief of Division BMR 45 days China, USSR 6,002 3,061 (Costs in China met by Chinese government) (1) To attend 27th International Geological Congress in Moscow. (2) To visit British Geological Survey. Chief of Division BMR 35 days USSR and UK 3,560 2,770 Australian Atomic Energy Commission To hold discussions on Australia/ Malaysia bilateral nuclear technical assistance program. (Costs met by Australian Development Assistance Bureau (ADAB) Professional Officer 22 days Malaysia 3,015 2,121 To hold discussions on Australia/Malaysia bilateral nuclear technical assistance program. (Costs met by ADAB) Technical Officer 15 days Malaysia 1,780 2,121 To attend Meetings and to hold discussions on SYNROC. Senior Executive Service Officer (SES) Officer Equivalent 21 days Japan, Europe 2,700 5,484 To hold discussions on Australia/Malaysia bilateral nuclear and director, Research technical assistance program; and on Establishment SYNROC collaboration with Japan. (Costs shared with ADAB) Chief Executive Officer 14 days Malaysia and Japan 1,997 3,986 To attend IAEA Advisory Group Meeting on Management of Wastes from Mining and Milling of Uranium and Thorium Ores. (Costs met by IAEA) SES Officer Equivalent 11 days Austria 728 4,000 To attend IAEA International Conference on Radiopharmaceuticals and Labelled Compounds. Professional Officer 10 days Japan 1,233 2,330 To attend IAEA International Conference on Radiopharmaceuticals and Labelled compounds. To hold discussions on nuclear medicine and cyclotron facilities. (Cost shared between Japan Radioisotope Association and AAEC) SES Officer Equivalent 12 days Japan 1,200 2,162 To participate in IAEA technical assistance mission to assess potential application and utilization of small research reactor. (Costs met by IAEA) Professional Officer 17 days Sri Lanka 1,409 1,428 To hold discussions on radioisotope methods for determination of sediment transport rates and effluent dispersal characteristics. Professional Officer 35 days USA, Europe 4,118 5,393 To hold discussions on plasma physics, controller nuclear fusion, accelerator physics and neutron scattering research. SES Officer Equivalent 38 days Japan, USA, Europe 5,435 5,811 To hold discussions on nuclear medicine research and applications; food irradiation research and regulation; AAEC/USNRC nuclear waste management project. SES Officer Equivalent 34 days USA and Europe 4,333 5,728 To hold discussions on nuclear engineering developments; isotope separation; reactor safety studies. SES Officer Equivalent 39 days Europe, Canada, USA 4,587 5,378 To attend OECD-NEA Radioactive Waste Management Committee meeting. (Costs met by the Department of Foreign Affairs) SES Officer Equivalent 9 days France 1,330 4,800 To hold discussions on nuclear emergency planning and procedures; safety arrangements for berthing of nuclear powered warships. Professional Officer 21 days UK, USA 4,371 5,433 To hold discussions on IAEA Regional Co-operative Agreement programme on isotope hydrology and sedimentology. (Costs met by IAEA) Professional Officer 11 days Malaysia 1,410 1,919 To attend IAEA Research Co-ordination meeting on Development of New Radio-pharmaceuticals. (Costs met by IAEA) Professional Officer 7 days Japan 1,234 2,270 To hold discussions on operational aspects of DIDO class reactors. Professional Officer 26 days Europe, Canada and USA 3,554 5,285 To attend International workshop and symposium on Fundamental Questions and Critical Experiments on Materials Fatigue. To attend Conference on Advance in Materials Technology for Process Industries Needs. (Costs shared between Department of Science and Technology and AAEC) SES Officer Equivalent 19 days USA 2,861 5,512 To hold discussions on radionuclide migration around a final repository for high level radioactive waste under the AAEC/USNRC nuclear waste management program. (Costs met USNRC) SES Officer Equivalent 22 days USA 3,189 4,260 To attend IAEA-CRP meeting on Nuclear Based Techniques in Occupational Health. (Costs shared between IAEA and AAEC) Professional Officer 13 days Europe 1,459 3,134 IAEA expert in field of waste management. (Costs met by IAEA) Professional Officer 30 days Malaysia 6,784 1,936 To hold discussions on reduced enrichment program for research and test reactors SES Officer Equivalent 20 days USA 2,494 4,787 To attend IAEA Research Coordination Meeting on calibration of counting facilities for assessment of plutonium and other actinides deposited in the lungs. (Costs met by IAEA) Professional Officer 10 days India 720 2,378 To attend IAEA Safeguards Support Program Coordinators' Meeting. (Costs met by the Department of Foreign Affairs) SES Officer Equivalent 10 days Austria 900 4,404 To attend IAEA Research Coordination Meeting on Utilization of Food Irradiation Processes. Meeting on radiation processing. (Costs shared between IAEA and AAEC) SES Officer Equivalent 16 days USA 1,937 2,195 To participate in IAEA-RCE Program on Isotope Hydrology and Sedimentology. (Costs met by IAEA) Professional Officer 34 days Asia 3,332 2,154 To participate in IAEA-RCA Program on Isotope Hydrology and Sedimentology. (Costs met by IAEA) Professional Officer (two) 20 days (each) Malaysia 3,998 3,036 To attend IAEA advisory group meetings on Evaluation of Quality of Safeguards Non-Destructive Assay Measurements Data, and Neutron Standard Reference Data. (Costs shared between IAEA and AAEC) SES Officer Equivalent 16 days Europe 1,250 4,002 To participate in Advanced materials expert group mission. (Costs met by the Department of Science and Technology) SES Officer Equivalent 14 days Japan 2,204 2,498 To hold discussions on Uranium mill tailings and mine reclamation. Professional Officer 28 days Europe and USA 3,575 6,946 Consultant to IAEA on Environmental Migration of Radium. (Costs met by IAEA) Professional Officer 15 days Austria 1,248 4,000 To attend ESCAP Regional Expert Group meeting. (Costs met by the Department of Foreign Affairs) SES Officer Equivalent 8 days Thailand 1,280 3,130 IAEA expert on use of Caesium-137 to study erosion and sedimentation problems. (Costs met by IAEA) Professional Officer 30 days Sri Lanka 1,930 1,300 To hold discussions on regulatory aspects of uranium mill tailings and low level waste management. Professional Officer 21 days USA 2,907 5,242 To hold discussions on iterative techniques for large systems of linear equations, and advance in scientific computing. Professional Officer 26 days UK, USA 2,955 1,000 To hold discussions on reliability and probabilistic risk analysis. Professional Officer 24 days USA 2,764 4,217 To attend OECD/NEA Radioactive Waste Management Committee Meeting. (Costs met by the Department of Foreign Affairs) SES Officer Equivalent 9 days Europe 805 4,269 To attend FAO/IAEA International Symposium on Food Irradiation Processing. SES Officer Equivalent 10 days USA 1,524 4,844 To attend Japan Atomic Industrial Forum Meeting. To hold discussions on SYNROC collaboration with Japan. (Costs met by Japanese institutions) Chief Executive Officer and Director, Research Establishment 17 days Japan 2,800 3,900 To attend IAEA 7th Working Group Meeting of RCA Meeting States. To hold discussions re possible Bilateral Nuclear Technical Assistance Program with Thailand. (Costs met by the Department of Foreign Affairs) SES Officer Equivalent 11 days Asia 687 3,194 To hold discussions on Australia/Indonesia Bilateral Nuclear Technical Assistance Program. (Costs met by ADAB) (1) Senior Executive Equivalent (2) Professional Officer 15 days (each) Indonesia 4,647 4,419 To attend British Occupational Hygiene Society Meeting. To hold discussions on Occupational Health and Hygiene matters. Professional Officer 30 days UK and USA 4,496 3,135 To hold discussions on Australia/Malaysia bilateral nuclear technical assistance program. (Costs met by ADAB) Chief Executive Officer and Director, Research Establishment 3 days Malaysia 259 2,724 To participate in IAEA Inter-Regional Training Course on Conversion of Research Reactors to Low Enrichment fuel. (Costs met by IAEA) SES Officer Equivalent 20 days Venezuela 4,176 3,728 To conduct inspections of equipment for SYNROC Project. Professional Officer 32 days Europe, USA 4,138 6,305 To hold discussions on aspects of SYNROC powder preparation, fabrication and radiation damage. Professional Officer 17 days Europe 2,145 5,036 To attend (1) OECD-NEA Seminar on Interface Questions in Nuclear Health and Safety. (2) IAEA Consultants Meeting on Management of Wastes from Mining and Milling of Uranium and Thorium Ores. (Costs shared between the Department of Foreign Affairs and IAEA) SES Officer Equivalent 16 days Europe 1,060 5,451 To hold discussions on Australia/Indonesia Bilateral Nuclear Technical Assistance Program. (Costs met by ADAB) (1) Commissioner (2) SES Officer Equivalent 15 days (each) Indonesia 4,976 4,276 To attend IAEA Tripartite Review Meeting for IAEA RCA/UNDP Project on Industrial Applications of Isotopes and Radiation Technology. SES Officer Equivalent 3 days Indonesia 495 1,938 (Costs met by the Department of Foreign Affairs) To attend symposium on Disposal of Long Lived and Highly Radioactive Wastes. UKAEA/AAEC Collaborative agreement on SYNROC. (Costs shared between Royal Society and AAEC) SES Officer Equivalent 9 days UK 1,870 2,666 To hold discussions on Australia/Indonesia and Australia/Malaysia bilateral nuclear technical assistance programs. To attend 5th Pacific Basin Conference. (Costs shared between ADAB and AAEC) Chief Executive Officer and Director, Research Establishment. 17 days Asia 3,846 3,620 To participate in IAEA Safeguards Support Program. (Costs met from grant provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs) (1) SES Officer Equivalent (2) Professional Officer 21 days 15 days USA, Europe Europe 3,001 1,801 3,233 3,336 To attend conference and discussions on ion beam analysis applications in archeology and biology. Professional Officer 29 days USA, Europe 3,877 5,447 HIFAR Refurbishing Program. Professional Officer 31 days Europe 3,942 5,270 To attend OECD-NEA Workshop on effects of micro-organisms on radionuclide transport. To participate in NEA Fuel Cycle Committee expanded work program on high level waste. (Costs shared between the Department of Foreign Affairs and AAEC) Professional Officer 13 days Europe 1,917 5,058 To attend Conference on gnotobiotics. To hold discussions on laboratory rodent breeding facilities, and radiation medicine programs. (Costs met by Laboratory Animal Resources Group) Technical Officer 25 days USA 3,440 5,521 Joint Coal Board Study tour to investigate methods developed to combat the problems of methane and spontaneous combustion on longwall operations. Mining Engineer 38 days USA, UK and Europe 8,440 4,684 To visit fluidised bed combustion facilities. Project Scientist 14 days USA 3,674 5,114 The Pipeline Authority To attend a meeting of the Supervisory Committee of the Pipeline Research Committee and visit pipeline companies to discuss supervisory control systems. Senior Executive Level 1 19 days USA 3,384 5,509 To inspect computer and display equipment associated with the acquisition of new pipeline supervisory control system. Professional Engineer 17 days Europe 1,632 4,912 Discuss developments in computer control and data acquisition systems associated with new pipeline supervisory control system. Professional Engineer 27 days USA and Canada 4,050 6,044 To attend a meeting of the American Gas Association Pipeline Research Committee Executive Member 7 days USA 901 6,462 Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority In-service training course. Electrical Engineer Division 3 90 days USA 18,000 4,343 Factory Tests of Flow Measuring Equipment. Electrical Engineer Division 3 15 days USA 3,000 4,270 In-Service Training Course. Mechanical Engineer Division 3 233 days USA, Canada and Europe 46,600 5,563 To hold insurance discussions with Lloyds of London. Chief Administrative Officer 18 days UK 3,600 4,206 To attend International Commission on Large Dams. To hold discussions with Lloyds of London. Commissioner 23 days Switzerland and UK 4,600 8,206 * In some instances and for convenience Europe has been used in this table to indicate a visit which includes a number of European countries. (Question No. 3655) Mr Jacobi asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) In view of the findings of the Costigan Commission, will the Government take action to make bankers and bank officers more socially accountable for the (a) vast sums of money they are handling for other persons and (b) legality of the projects that they may be financing; if not, why not. (2) Does the Government intend to accept the Costigan proposal for (a) licensing promoters of tax schemes and (b) requiring clearance for any such schemes for the diminution of tax from the National Companies and Securities Commission and from the Commissioner for Taxation. (3) What action will be taken by the Government to implement Costigan's proposals for a tightening of exchange controls. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) On 28 September 1986 the Deputy Prime Minister and the Attorney-General, the Special Minister of State and the Acting Treasurer announced that the Government would proceed with legislation to make possible the tracing, freezing and forfeiture of the proceeds of crime, and to make the laundering of money an offence. These measures incorporate a number of the recommendations arising from the Costigan Royal Commission concerning controls on the operation of accounts with financial institutions and related matters. Specifically, the legislation proposed by the Government would: permit, after conviction, the forfeiture of property used in, or obtained as a result of, the commission of an indictable offence against the law of the Commonwealth; require for more serious offences the automatic forfeiture of the offender's assets 6 months after conviction (subject to the offender establishing that they were legitimately acquired); permit, prior to conviction, the tracing and freezing of property that may be subject to forfeiture; create new offences of `money laundering' (the pro-cess by which profits of crime are disguised in order to make them appear legitimate); require keeping of certain financial records by financial institutions and permit, subject to safeguards, access to such records; and provide for proper identification of all persons and corporations opening bank accounts. The Government has also agreed to examine the practicalities of introducing legislation requiring financial institutions to report currency transactions above a specified amount. (2) The National Companies and Securities Commission already requires that verification from the Australian Taxation Office or a registered tax agent of any claimed taxation advantages be set out in a prospectus before it is registered. The Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities, when considering the recommendations made by Mr Costigan, directed the National Companies and Securities Commission to require full disclosure in prospectuses of relevant details of any correspondence that the promoters have had with the Australian Taxation Office concerning the investment scheme. The question of licensing promoters of tax schemes and other aspects of Mr Costigan's recommendations regarding tax controls are currently being considered by the Government and its decisions on these matters will be announced in due course. (3) The exchange controls existing at the time the Costigan Royal Commission formulated its recommendations in this area were very largely abolished at the time of the Government's decision to float the Australian dollar with effect from 12 December 1983. Consequently, and as mentioned in the Special Minister of State's Ministerial Statement of 21 May 1985 on the Government's response to the recommendations of the Costigan Royal Commission, implementation of those recommendations is not considered to be a practical option, a point, I should mention, that was acknowledged by Mr Costigan in his Final Report. (Question No. 3789) Mr Ewen Cameron asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 15 April 1986: (1) Have the unconscionability aspects of Building Association contracts relating to (a) New South Wales, (b) Victoria and (c) South Australia been submitted to the Trade Practices Commission (TPC) in the last 10 years. (2) Is he able to say whether the 1976 NSW Law Reform Commission's Report on Commercial Arbitration recommended that contracts containing adhesive terms and ``Scott v Avery'' arbitration clauses be declared void. (3) Is he able to say whether the Law Reform Commissions of the other States and the ACT broadly supported the findings of the NSW Law Reform Commission. (4) Has the TPC authorised Building Association contracts containing adhesive and ``Scott v Avery'' arbitration clauses subsequent to the published findings of NSW and other Law Reform Commissions' Reports. (5) Has the TPC authorised Building Association contracts that appear to breach the Trade Practices Act. (6) Has the TPC been advised of Commonwealth Savings Bank administration endorsement of NSW Building Association contracts that are unconscionable and appear to breach the Trade Practices Act. (7) What action has the TPC taken concerning (a) unconscionable Building Association contracts authorised by the TPC and (b) bringing to the attention of other Commonwealth and State agencies the endorsement of unconscionable Building Association contracts that also appear to breach the Trade Practices Act. (8) Have any South Australian consumers been defrauded by Building Association contracts that were brought to the attention of the TPC before the contracts had claimed any victims. (9) What action did the TPC take to negate these contracts and did the contracts appear to breach the Trade Practices Act. (10) Is he able to say whether the President of the SA Building Association, when interviewed on the ABC television show ``The Investigators'', admitted the contracts were defective. (11) Has the TPC investigated any Building Association contracts that appear to be unconscionable and to breach the Trade Practices Act. (12) Has the TPC refused to investigate Building Association contracts that appear to breach the Trade Practices Act. (13) Is he able to say how many consumers have been defrauded in the last 10 years due to the unconscionable terms of Building Association contracts. (14) Did the TPC advise in late 1984 that new standard form Victorian Building Association contracts would be submitted by the TPC for comment by interested consumer groups; if so, has this occurred. (15) How many complaints concerning unconscion-able Building Association contracts have been registered by the TPC in the last 10 years. (16) Has the TPC consulted other Commonwealth or State agencies concerning unconscionable Building Association contracts; if so, what other agencies were consulted. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am informed that the Trade Practices Commission (TPC) is aware of the inclusion in some Building Association contracts of `Scott v Avery' clauses to which the honourable member may be referring. Those clauses provide for the arbitration of future differences and stipulate that the obtaining of an award shall be a condition precedent to a cause of action in respect of a matter to which the arbitration agreement applies. Most of the instances of inclusion of `Scott v Avery' clauses of which the TPC is aware relate to Victoria, which is the only State in respect of which the TPC was required to consider granting authorisation for Building Association contracts. (2) The NSW Law Reform Commission's 1976 Report on Commercial Arbitration recommended the enactment of legislation which would avoid a contractual stipulation whereby an award or other step in an arbitration is a condition of a cause of action or a defence. (3) The findings of the law reform bodies of the other States and the Australian Capital Territory were in similar terms to the findings of the New South Wales Law Reform Commission. (4) I am informed that the only standard form contracts containing this kind of clause which have been authorised by the TPC were those lodged by the Master Builders Association of Victoria (MBAV) in 1978. On 1 December 1978 the TPC issued a draft determination proposing to grant authorisation to the relevant standard form contracts of the MBAV. This draft was circulated to interested parties including government consumer bodies around Australia. These parties were invited, pursuant to s. 90A of the Trade Practices Act, to require the TPC to call a conference to discuss the draft, prior to its issuing a final determination. No such conference was requested, and authorisation was granted in 1979. (5) The only Building Association contracts authorised by the TPC are those referred to in the answer to (4) above. Authorisation relates to arrangements which would or might breach certain of the restrictive practices provisions of Part IV of the Act. Authorisation confers no immunity for breaches of the consumer protection provisions of Part V of the Act. (6) I am informed that an allegation to that effect has been made to the TPC. (7) (a) I am informed that two of the forms, GCC2 (General Conditions of Contract) and HC/2 (Housing Contract) have, according to the MBAV, been replaced by forms not containing `Scott and Avery' clauses. The authorisations covering GCC3 and HC/2 were revoked on 6 September 1985. With regard to the remaining forms in question, LEI (labour and equipment/labour and materials; between builder and contractor), SC6 (builder/sub-contractor), LO/2 (labour only sub-contract) and HS/3 (purchaser and vendor of land), the TPC is awaiting a response from the MBAV to ascertain whether the forms still contain the `Scott v Avery' type clause. (7) (b) In addition to the specific procedure outlined in the answer to question (4) the TPC has continuing contact with government consumer bodies around Australia, informing them of TPC action and seeking their comments. (8) The TPC has received no complaints regarding any consumers who may have been defrauded by Building Association contracts in South Australia. (9) Since authorisation has not been sought for any South Australian contracts, and no complaints have been made to the TPC about any such contracts, the TPC has had no reason to take any action to `negate' such contracts. (10) I am unaware of the particular comments made by the President of the SA Building Association. However, the Standards Association of Australia, following a request from the Standing Committee of Consumer Affairs Ministers, has constituted a technical committee to formulate a standard building contract for domestic homes and extensions or alterations to existing domestic buildings. The committee includes representatives from the housing, finance and construction industries, State and Commonwealth consumer affairs authorities, and I anticipate that it will formulate a standard contract which adequately protects the interests of all parties. (11) Investigation of contracts followed the application for authorisation by the Victorian Master Builders Association of the standard form contracts. Further investigations were undertaken when the problems associated with `Scott v Avery' type clauses became apparent. Investigation of standard form contracts proposed by other Master Builders Associations was undertaken when authorisations were applied for. These Associations subsequently withdrew their applications and did not pursue `Scott v Avery' type clauses. As unconscionable conduct did not constitute a contravention of the Trade Practices Act until 1 June 1986 it is only since that date that the TPC can investigate contracts for the purpose of determining if breaches of the unconscionable conduct provisions may have occurred. (12) I am informed that the TPC has never refused to undertake such investigations. (13) No; see answer to question (11) above. (14) In late 1984 the TPC anticipated that the MBAV would lodge revised standard form contracts for authorisation. In the event, authorisations granted in 1979 to forms GCC3 and HC/2 were revoked in September 1985 and interested consumer groups were kept informed of this process. No fresh application for authorisation has been lodged by the MBAV. (15) I am informed that 10 such complaints have been received by the TPC. (16) The TPC has communicated with government consumer bodies around Australia and is being kept abreast of developments in the SAA committee referred to in the answer to question (10) above. (Question No. 3817) Mr Hunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 30 April 1986: (1) When was the National Aboriginal Education Committee (NAEC) established. (2) What was the (a) name of, (b) length of service of, (c) sitting fees paid to and (d) travel costs paid for, each member of the NAEC since it was established. (3) What sums have been allocated to the NAEC for its administration and operations since 1980. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The establishment of the National Aboriginal Education Committee was announced on 17 March 1977. (2) (a) and (b)- Membership of National Aboriginal Education Committee Name Period of appointment From To Length of service to June 1986 T. Adamson... April 1986 April 1989 2 months S. Albert... March 1977 April 1980 8 years February 1981 February 1983 April 1983 April 1986 M. Atkinson... August 1981 December 1984 3 years 5 months W. Baird... April 1986 April 1989 2 months A. Bamblett... March 1978 July 1980 2 years 4 months E. Barker... February 1984 July 1984 6 months E. Bavan... March 1978 July 1980 2 years 4 months J. Billy... February 1985 February 1988 1 year 3 months C. Bourke... March 1977 July 1979 2 years 4 months E. Bourke... August 1979 July 1981 3 years 2 months February 1985 February 1988 P. Buckskin... August 1981 December 1984 4 years 10 months February 1986 February 1988 J. Budby... March 1977 March 1978 6 years March 1978 April 1980 April 1980 April 1983 V. Budby... March 1977 March 1978 3 years 4 months March 1978 July 1980 P. Cameron... March 1977 July 1979 2 years 4 months W. Clinch... April 1983 April 1986 3 years E. Cargie... March 1977 January 1979 2 years J. Crawshaw... February 1985 May 1986 1 year 2 months L. Crocker... February 1985 February 1988 1 year 3 months C. Dixon... April 1983 November 1983 5 months E. Fesl... August 1981 December 1984 3 years 5 months V. Forrest... August 1981 April 1983 1 year 9 months R. Garlett... November 1983 December 1984 2 years 7 months February 1985 February 1988 K. Gilbert... March 1977 July 1979 2 years 4 months Rex Granites... April 1983 December 1984 1 year 8 months Robin Granites... August 1978 July 1980 2 years O. Green... April 1983 April 1986 3 years 2 months April 1986 April 1989 H. Gulash... April 1983 April 1986 3 years J. Hamilton... March 1977 March 1978 1 year E. Hampton... August 1980 February 1983 2 years 6 months J. Heath... February 1985 February 1988 1 year 5 months L. Holt... February 1985 February 1988 1 year 3 months R. Hudson... August 1980 February 1983 2 years 6 months P. Hughes... March 1977 July 1979 6 years 7 months August 1979 July 1981 April 1983 December 1985 B. Kennedy... March 1977 March 1978 1 year J. Koolmatrie... April 1986 April 1989 2 months E. Law... April 1983 April 1986 3 years 1 month April 1986 April 1989 J. Lester... August 1980 February 1983 2 years 6 months W. Ludwig... April 1983 April 1986 3 years E. Mabo... August 1979 July 1981 2 years E. McCann... August 1979 July 1980 1 year H. McKellar... August 1979 July 1981 3 years N. McNamara... March 1977 March 1978 1 year L. Malone... March 1977 July 1979 2 years 4 months G. Miller... August 1981 September 1982 1 year 2 months R. Morgan... August 1979 July 1981 7 years 9 months August 1981 December 1984 February 1985 February 1988 E. Munn... April 1983 April 1986 3 years 1 month April 1986 April 1989 O. Murphy... August 1980 February 1983 2 years 6 months W. Ngakyunkwokka... March 1978 June 1979 1 year 3 months I. Norville... March 1977 March 1978 1 year M. O'Brien... March 1977 July 1979 4 years 4 months August 1979 July 1981 L. Padmore... August 1981 December 1984 3 years 4 months G. Passi... March 1977 July 1979 2 years 4 months K. Price... August 1979 July 1981 2 years K. Rodgers... March 1977 July 1979 2 years 4 months D. Rosas... February 1985 August 1985 5 months M. Ryan... August 1980 February 1983 2 years 6 months A. Stackhouse... February 1985 February 1988 1 year 3 months P. Stewart... March 1977 March 1978 3 years 4 months March 1978 July 1980 J. Thomas... March 1978 July 1980 2 years 4 months T. Thomas... January 1979 July 1980 4 years August 1980 February 1983 G. Tangerie... August 1979 July 1981 M. Torres... April 1986 April 1989 3 months L. Tucker... March 1977 March 1978 1 year D. Tyrrell... April 1983 April 1986 3 years 2 months April 1986 April 1989 D. Uibo... August 1980 July 1981 4 years 4 months August 1981 December 1984 M. Valadian... March 1977 July 1979 2 years 4 months E. West... April 1983 December 1985 2 years 7 months December 1985 December 1988 D. White... March 1977 March 1978 1 year P. Williams... February 1981 February 1982 1 year P. Williamson... February 1981 February 1983 2 years S. Woosup... August 1981 December 1984 3 years 4 months K. Wyatt... April 1986 April 1989 2 months (2) (c) and (d) To provide a breakdown of the sitting fees and travel allowance paid to each member since the National Aboriginal Education Committee (NAEC) was established would impose a considerable and unreasonable workload on Department of Education and NAEC secretariat staff. Instead I have provided the total annual expenditure on sitting fees, fares and travel allowance for members for each financial year for the period in question. Breakdown of Expenditure on Fares, Travelling Allowance and Sitting Fees Fares Travelling allowance Sitting fees $ $ $ 1976-77... 8,658 6,180 3,582 1977-78... 26,271 19,734 13,747 1978-79... 79,932 57,046 33,070 1979-80... 78,559 56,022 32,502 1980-81... 95,556 68,197 39,534 1981-82... 107,694 76,752 44,494 1982-83... 127,707 85,217 49,401 1983-84... 136,403 89,665 53,491 1984-85... 181,845 116,124 67,313 1985-86... 196,982 92,243 79,330 (3)- ALLOCATIONS TO THE NAEC FOR ADMINISTRATION AND OPERATION SINCE 1980 1980-81... $224,629 1981-82... $252,810 1982-83... $280,689 1983-84... $366,065 1984-85... $415,252 1985-86... $462,500 1986-87... $473,300 (Question Nos. 4035 and 4037) Mr Milton asked identical questions of the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy and the Ministers for Arts, Heritage and Environment, and Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 21 May 1986: What responsibility does the Minister's Department have in regard to the transportation of radioactive materials from Lucas Heights, N.S.W. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's questions, with the concurrence of the Ministers concerned: The Department of Resources and Energy has no responsibility for the transportation of radioactive materials from Lucas Heights. The Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment has no responsibility for the transportation of radioactive material from Lucas Heights. The Department administers the Environment Protection (Nuclear Codes) Act 1978 under which the Code of Practice for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Substances was approved and published in 1982. The Code is implemented under relevant State and Territory legislation as those Governments have responsibility for road and rail transport within their area of jurisdiction. The Department of Local Government and Administrative Services' (DOLGAS) responsibility for transportation of radioactive materials is restricted to deliveries on behalf of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission in the Melbourne metropolitan area. DOLGAS delivers radioactive materials either direct to hospitals in this area or to Met Rail for delivery to outer urban areas. (Question No. 4181) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 3 June 1986: Will he request his Department to investigate and discuss with the Ethiopian Government the prolonged detention without charge or trial of some hundreds of church members and the disappearances of other church members? Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I am aware of allegations of detention without charge or trial and of the disappearance of members of various faiths and churches in Ethiopia. I understand that the Ethiopian Evangelical Mekane Yesus Church, which the Ethiopian Government accuses of supporting the separatist Oromo Liberation Front, has been particularly affected by repressive action. Members of the Meseret Christos Church and of the Falasha community have also been persecuted. Officials from my Department have had discussions in Ethiopia with various church leaders and representatives to determine the current situation. They have been advised that although some detainees were released earlier this year (including over 60 members of the Mekane Yesus Church in May 1986) a number of church leaders remain in detention. Our Embassy continues to monitor the situation closely. If the honourable member has any specific human rights cases he wishes my Department to pursue with the Ethiopian Government, he is welcome to raise them with me. (Question No. 4182) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 3 June 1986: Is he able to say which countries have established diplomatic relations with Libya. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: According to information available to my Department, Libya has diplomatic relations with the following 130 countries: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Benin Republic, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon Republic, Canada, Cape Verde Islands, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Djibouti Republic, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, The Gambia, Germany-The Democratic Republic, Germany-The Federal Republic, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea Republic, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Korea-Democratic Republic, Korea-Republic, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives Republic, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Sao Tome & Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somali Republic, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Surinam, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tanzania, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad & Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, U.S.S.R., Vanuatu, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yemen Arab Republic (SANAA), Yemen (P.D.R.) Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe. (Question No. 4210) Mr Andrew asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 4 June 1986: What has been the average world price for each major Australian rural export commodity in each quarter since the January-March quarter in 1983 in (a) the traded currency and (b) Australian dollars. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I refer the honourable member to the details provided in the following Table: RURAL EXPORT COMMODITY PRICES (9) Beef (1) (2) USc per kg Ac per kg Wheat (3) US$ per tonne A$ per tonne Feed Barley (4) US$ per metric tonne A$ per metric tonne Sugar (5) USc per lb Ac per lb Cotton (6) USc per lb Ac per lb Wool (7) Ac per kg clean 1983 March quarter... 227.1 200.0 166 176 125 132 6.19 6.55 76.03 80.47 443 June quarter... 239.9 236.8 167 191 126 144 8.91 10.19 69.74 79.76 471(8) September quarter... 232.1 225.8 165 187 118 134 10.18 11.56 74.67 84.79 481 December quarter... 218.1 204.0 162 178 136 150 8.66 9.52 82.68 90.88 477 1984 March quarter... 222.9 206.3 160 172 132 142 6.64 7.14 87.83 94.38 488 June quarter... 225.1 215.4 163 180 126 139 5.66 6.26 87.60 96.90 496 September quarter... 211.6 218.6 157 187 124 148 4.19 5.00 75.90 90.57 492 December quarter... 204.5 207.0 158 187 117 138 4.13 4.88 72.73 86.00 507 1985 March quarter... 216.6 250.2 157 209 109 145 3.67 4.88 69.30 92.94 535 June quarter... 195.4 250.4 152 228 102 153 2.96 4.44 64.70 97.05 573 September quarter... 193.3 235.4 142 204 88 126 4.21 6.03 57.17 81.92 541 December quarter... 205.2 257.1 154 224 88 128 5.30 7.71 48.41 70.44 525 1986 March quarter... 198.7 242.8 154 221 83 119 5.83 8.37 52.96 76.00 529 June quarter... 181.8 216.2 139 196 67 119 7.46 10.51 44.97 62.08 544 Notes- (1) Average cif prices for Australian frozen boneless manufacturing cow beef sold to the USA (85 CL); derived from figures supplied by Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation; US price is regarded as an indicative world price for foot and mouth free regions. There is no reliable indicator price for beef in foot and mouth disease countries. These prices are currently 1/3 to 1/2 of the US price. (2) Average FAS price for Australian frozen boneless manufacturing cow beef sold to the USA (85 CL); prices are FAS equivalents of cif prices at which Australian exporters and US importers negotiated sales. No rejection insurance allowed. Derived from figures supplied by Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation. (3) Wheat Indicator price based on a basket of the fob export prices of seven widely traded wheats expressed in US dollars; ASW, Eastern States; ICWRS 13.5%, St Lawrence; ICWRS 13.5%, Vancouver; 2 Hard Red Winter ordinary, Gulf; 2 Soft Red Winter, Gulf; 2 Dark Northern Spring 14%, Lakes; 2 Western White Pacific. Source: derived from figures supplied by International Wheat Council. (4) Nominal traded prices fob for feed barley-final destination Saudi Arabia; derived from Trade reported prices. (5) New York contract No. 11 spot price fob and stowed Caribbean port in bulk. Source: derived from figures supplied by the International Sugar Organisation. (6) World Cotton Outlook ``A'' Index-Prices of Cotton; cif North Europe medium staple 13/32''. Source: Liverpool Cotton Services through Bureau of Agricultural Economics (Index is average of 5 lowest prices of following descriptions Memphis Terr; Calif.-Anz; Mexico Sin-Son; Guatemala; Syria; Turkey Izmir IRG; Greece; USSR; Vtori; Tanzania AR; Mwanza No. 1. (7) Monthly auction prices for raw wool, market indicator price-weighted average. Source: derived from figures supplied by Australian Wool Corporation to Commonwealth Secretariat (Wool Quarterly). (8) Commencing with the start of continuous wool sales for 1983-84 the weightings used as the basis for calculating the Market Indicator and the category quotations were updated to take account of changes in the type composition of offerings since 1973-74 to 1975-76 the previous base period. (9) Commonwealth Bank Daily Exchange Rates (averaged) used to convert figures as appropriate. (Question No. 4293) Mr Langmore asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 5 June 1986: (1) What is (a) the volume and (b) commodities traded between Australia and Namibia? (2) Is any of this trade in violation of UN Council for Namibia Decree No. 1 for the Protection of the Natural Resources of Namibia? Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The following table sets out the quantity and value of Australia's trade with Namibia 1985/86 AICC Description Qty Value Imports 277.10.01 Industrial diamonds sorted (Metric carats)... 300 8,071 659.30.00 Kalem schumacks, Karamanie rugs etc (59. metres)... 7 519 Total... 8,590 Exports 287.40.00 Lead ores and concentrates (tonnes)... 10,116 3,378,044 784.90.19 Parts and accessories for vehicles NES... 1,926 TOTAL... 3,379.970 (2) Decree No. 1 for the Protection of Natural Resources of Namibia prohibits, among other things, the export of Namibia's natural resources without the consent and permission of the United Nations Council for Namibia. The Decree is not binding. The Government has not introduced legislation to give effect to the decree in Australia. The Australian Government itself does not import any goods or services from Namibia, and Australia's total imports from Namibia in 1985/86 were negligible. (Question No. 4319) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the actions of the International Tin Council (ITC) entering into a commercial transaction which resulted in financial obligations to bankers and brokers associated with the London Metal Exchange; if so, does he support this action. (2) Has any person or organisation ever suggested the Government has or had (a) an obligation or (b) a legal liability, either on its own or jointly with the ITC, to meet the financial liabilities the ITC is unable to discharge; if so, what steps is the Government (i) taking or (ii) planning to take to meet promptly any liability. (3) Is the Government unconcerned by any suggestion of liability; if so, why. (4) Will the Government (a) agree to and (b) initiate action to refer the question of any obligation it has for the debts to an impartial, arbitral or judicial determination. (5) Has his attention been drawn to a statement made by the Executive Chairman of the ITC on 28 October 1985 that the amounts involved may mean that some brokers who have continued to do business with the ITC may go out of business if the ITC does not meet its commitments; if so, does he agree with this statement. (6) Has the Government a moral obligation to pay its share of the ITC indebtedness; if not, why not. (7) Will the Government initiate or participate in discussions with ITC creditors in an attempt to resolve the matter. (8) Is he aware of the urgency of the problem, not only in terms of the need to improve the climate of commodity trading, but also to reduce exposure to interest payments on the debt presently accruing at an estimated rate of approximately $A1.5 million per week. (9) Did he instruct that action be taken to limit Australia's liability for purchases by the ITC in excess of member country contributions; if so; what were his instructions. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) It is well known that the International Tin Council (ITC) entered into borrowing arrangements with a number of banks to help finance buffer stock operations under the Sixth International Tin Agreement which also involved the purchase and sale of tin through brokers associated with the London Metal Exchange. (2) Yes. The banks and brokers that are creditors of the ITC, for example, have claimed that ITC member countries, including Australia, have obligations and/or legal liabilities to either contribute to or meet the debts of the ITC. One broker has commenced legal proceedings against member countries. The Government does not accept that it has any obligation or liability for the debts of the ITC. This is also the position of other members of the ITC. Nevertheless, the Government was prepared, without any admission of liability, to accept a proposal, known as the Tinco proposal, and to contribute Australia's share of the funds required to implement the proposal provided it was accepted by all the other parties involved. In the event, the Tinco proposal was not accepted by all the parties and it lapsed. The Government does not intend to take any further action in that regard. (3) No. (4) Legal proceedings are in train. See (2) above. (5) Any question of what information might have been made available within the proceedings of the ITC is one on which I cannot comment because member countries have an obligation to keep such information confidential. I am not aware of any relevant public statement by the Executive Chairman of the ITC. (6) and (7) See (2) above. (8) An improvement in the climate of commodity trading depends on a wide range of factors unrelated to the ITC situation. See also (2) above. (9) The question of specific instructions to limit Australia's liability to the ITC did not arise because member countries are not considered to have any liability beyond the financial contributions made in accordance with the provisions of the Sixth International Tin Agreement. (Question No. 4347) Mr Langmore asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: (1) Is he able to say what the recent developments in the political situation in Chile have been; if so, has there been any change in the level of dissent or the degree of repression. (2) What actions has the Australian Government taken to protest against repression and encourage full resumption of democracy. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The discovery of substantial caches of arms in Chile during August was followed by an unsuccessful attempt to assassinate President Pinochet on 7 September. The communist-controlled `Frente Patriotico Manuel Rodriguez' later claimed responsibility for the attempted assassination which killed a number of the President's guards. The Chilean Government's response to the attempt was to reimpose a State of Siege under which civil rights were severely restricted. On 8 September several political opponents of the Government, including the moderate socialist Leader Ricardo Lagos, were detained without charge. Six opposition newspapers, and Reuters and the Italian newsagency Ansa were closed down and three French priests were expelled from the country. Many of those detained, including two American priests, were later released and the restrictions on the Italian newsagency lifted. The State of Siege has since been removed from the 11th region of Chile but remains in force elsewhere. In the period immediately following the assassination attempt, four opponents of the regime were found dead. The Pinochet Government has denied responsibility for the murder of these people, one of whom was the editor of the opposition newspaper `Analisis'. Judicial enquiries into the killings are continuing. However past experience of such enquiries does not generate optimism for expeditions or conclusive resolutions. The level of political dissent in Chile has clearly increased over the past few years as a consequence of the continuing repression of the Pinochet regime. The escalation of violent opposition to Pinochet, while not to be condoned, has been fuelled by the denial of human rights and the frustration of popular aspirations for a return to democracy. This has, in turn, provoked increasingly repressive measures from the regime and from right-wing extremists. The events described above are the latest manifestation of this cycle of violence. The clear danger in this situation is that the political process in Chile could become increasingly polarized. Therefore, President Pinochet's statement on 11 September, that the law to legalize political parties would be ready for promulgation in early 1987, is mildly encouraging. However it will need to be accompanied by steps to allow a non-violent political opposition to operate without fear or prejudice if it is to have any hope of restoring legitimate democracy in Chile and to remove the causes of violence and repression. (2) In a public statement on 9 September I described the re-imposition of the State of Siege as a Draconian measure that was more likely to provoke further violence than ease tensions in Chile. I also stated that the sooner the military regime in Chile introduced genuinely democratic processes and allowed freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and political plurality, the sooner that nation would regain political stability and international respectability. Soon after, our Ambassador in Santiago also conveyed Australia's views directly to the Chilean authorities. He urged an early end to the State of Siege, the release of political prisoners, an end to censorship and a transition to democracy. These views have also been made known to the Chilean Government through their representatives in Canberra. (Question No. 4394) Dr Klugman asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) How many issues of the Human Rights Commission newsletter have appeared each year since its inception. (2) What was the cost of (a) production and (b) distribution of each issue. (3) Who was the editor of each issue. (4) What is the salary of the editor. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question, compiled from information furnished by the Human Rights Commission, is as follows: (1) Two in 1982, five in 1983, four in 1984, four in 1985 and three in 1986. (2) and (3)- (2) (a) (2) (b) (3) Newsletter Production Distribution Editor $ $ 1. 1,640 n/a J. D. T. Wood 2. 3,100 n/a J. D. T. Wood 3. 2,720 285 J. D. T. Wood 4. 3,305 1,152 J. D. T. Wood 5. 4,079 1,152 J. D. T. Wood 6. 1,746.38 1,710 N. C. Curtis 7. 2,313.03 2,226.35 N. C. Curtis 8. 1,979.09 2,547 N. C. Curtis 9. 1,980.04 2,650 N. C. Curtis 10. 2,257.91 3,150 N. C. Curtis 11. 2,301.07 3,350 N. C. Curtis 12. 2,564 4,277.78 N. C. Curtis 13. 4,231 3,550 N. C. Curtis 14. 3,228 5,875.36 N. C. Curtis 15. 4,231 5,896.04 V. V. I. Green 16. 3,533 5,842.05 V. V. I. Green 17. 3,657 6,269.37 V. V. I. Green 18. - 7,103.46 V. V. I. Green I am advised that no distribution costs were incurred for Newsletters Nos 1 and 2 because these were mainly for internal use. The production cost of Newsletter No. 18 is not available as the printing and typesetting bill has not yet been presented. (4) The editing of the Human Rights Commission Newsletter is one part of the duties of a Journalist Grade A1 (Salary Range $32602-33832). (Question No. 4413) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) Is he able to say how many Australian citizens have participated in the Australian Work Brigades or Southern Cross Work Brigades in Central American and Caribbean nations in each year since 1 January 1980. (2) Which nations in Central America and the Caribbean have received assistance from these Australian Work Brigades or Southern Cross Work Brigades. (3) Is the Minister able to say whether the Australian organisers of the Australian Work Brigades or Southern Cross Work Brigades are linked with any political party or movement in Australia. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Work Brigades to which the question refers are privately organised. While the Department of Foreign Affairs in Canberra and the Australian Embassy in Mexico City have had contact with members of these brigades and are always willing to receive advice of participants in case of a need for consular assistance, complete records are not held by either. (2) The Department understands that members of the brigades have worked in Cuba and in Nicaragua. It has no awareness of organised groups working in any other countries of the Central American and Caribbean regions in recent times. (3) The political affiliations, if any, of the Australian organisers of the Work Brigades are not known to the Department or the Embassy. The honourable member may be interested to know that people participating in these brigades do not violate any of the laws of this country by doing so. (Question No. 4415) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) Is he able to say whether approximately 10,000 Miskito Indians fled Nicaragua for refugee camps in Honduras during March and April 1986. (2) Is he able to say whether the total number of Miskito Indians currently living in Honduran refugee camps administered by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees now exceeds 20,000. (3) Is he able to say what the reasons are for this exodus of Miskito Indians from Nicaragua. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The number of Miskito Indians who crossed the border from Nicaragua to Honduras in March and April 1986 is estimated to total about 14,000. (2) The total number of Miskito Indians currently living in Honduran refugee camps administered by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees almost certainly exceeds 20,000. (3) The movement of Miskito Indians from Nicaragua to Honduras in March and April 1986 was caused by the renewed fighting between the Miskito contra organisation, Kisan, and Nicaraguan security forces. There is undoubtedly tension between the Miskito Indian communities as a whole and the Sandinista Government. In part this is due to the Miskitos resisting the national government's attempts to bring them under its administration, whereas under the Somoza Government they were largely neglected and left to fend for themselves. There is, however, disaffection of a political nature which a number of reconciliation initiatives have not overcome. Clearly the Sandinistas have had some, but far from universal, success in gaining co-operation and support from minority groups in Nicaragua, but similarly the Contra movement has been able to attract some of the minorities to its side. (Question No. 4416) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) Is he able to say whether 19 members of the Nicaraguan Confederation for United Labor were recently gaoled by the Sandinista regime. (2) Is he able to say what offences these Nicaraguan trade union members are alleged to have committed. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Nicaraguan Confederation for United Labour claims that 17 members of its organisation were detained on 18 February and another member was arrested in June. Of those detained in February 12 have since been released. (2) The remaining 5 members of the Confederation arrested in February have been charged with cattle stealing. The member detained in June is allegedly held on a charge of involvement with the Contras. (Question No. 4417) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) Is he able to say whether the Nicaraguan radio station Radio Catolica owned by the Catholic Church has been closed by the Sandinista regime. (2) If so, is he aware of any reasons given for this closure. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Nicaraguan radio station Radio Catolica was closed by the Sandinista Government on 2 January 1986. (2) The reason given for the closure was the radio station's failure to broadcast the New Year message of President Ortega. Undoubtedly the closure is a reflection of the tensions which exist between the Sandinista Government and the Catholic Church in Nicaragua. The measure is one of a number of repressive steps taken by that Government in recent times which it says have been forced upon it by the United States backing the Contra armed opposition. (Question No. 4418) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) Is he able to say whether the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua has closed the independent newspaper La Prensa. (2) Is he able to say whether the leader of the Sandinista regime, Mr D. Ortega, has stated that the owners of La Prensa and some opposition leaders should receive gaol sentences of at least 30 years (the maximum allowable under Nicaraguan law). (3) What representations has he made to the Sandinista regime on these matters. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Nicaraguan Government closed the newspaper `La Prensa' on 27 June. (2) At the celebration of the seventh anniversary of the Sandinista Revolution on 19 July, President Ortego stated that the directors of La Prensa and two clerics recently expelled from Nicaragua, Bishop Vega and Monsignor Carballo, had been treated with leniency. President Ortega said that they should have been judged by the anti-Somocista Peoples Courts where they could have been sentenced to thirty years' gaol. (3) In a public statement on 2 July I expressed my regret at the closure of La Prensa. On 7 July at the ALP Conference in Hobart, I publicly endorsed a resolution which stated it was a matter of serious concern that erosions of pluralism and civil liberties in Nicaragua had continued and intensified. The resolution also deplored the decisions by the Nicaraguan Government to close down La Prensa, to impose further restrictions on the development of a free trade union movement and to interfere with religious freedom. I added a personal comment at the Conference that the Sandinista Revolution had received widespread international support, but there was now concern about the erosion of human rights in Nicaragua. (Question No. 4419) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: Is he able to confirm reports from the New York based International League for Human Rights that since the Sandinista regime came to power in Nicaragua there have been between 3,500 and 6,500 political opponents imprisoned at any one time. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Amnesty International Annual Report of 1985 stated that, in addition to the estimated 500 short-term detainees held without charge in Nicaragua's State Security Service (DGSE) facilities, about 1,200 political prisoners charged or sentenced under the Public Order Law were being detained at the end of 1984. Amnesty has also stated that 2,200 prisoners, most of them former National Guards, who had been sentenced for crimes committed under the authority of the previous government, were still being detained, but that it had not identified any as prisoners of conscience. An Americas Watch Committee report of May 1986 estimated that the number of all prisoners, including former guardsmen, captured Contra combatants, common prisoners and former Sandinista soldiers and police in Nicaragua totalled about 7,500. From the information available to the Australian Government, it is not possible to determine how many of the former National Guardsmen currently imprisoned in Nicaragua should be classified simply as ``political opponents'' of the Nicaraguan Government. The National Guard was President Somoza's private police force and was responsible for atrocities perpetrated against the Nicaraguan people over a period of several years. (Question No. 4423) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) What is the total membership of the ACT Council of the Australian Bicentennial Authority (ABA). (2) What is the annual budget of the ACT Council. (3) How many (a) full-time and (b) part-time staff are employed by the Council. (4) Does the Council have an office. (5) If so, (a) where is it and (b) what is the annual rent. (6) What is the role of the Council in respect of the ACT's participation in the ABA's responsibilities for the 1988 celebrations. (7) Is he able to say whether the Council also has responsibility for Island Territories, administered by the Department of Territories, for the 1988 celebrations. (8) How many staff or members of the Council have visited each of the Island Territories, since the establishment of the Council. (9) How long did each of these persons stay in the territories. (10) What was the cost of the visits in each case. (11) Did the finance for visits to the Island Territories by staff or members of the Council come from the annual budget of the Council; if not, where was the finance obtained. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) 16. (2) The Council receives no funding through my portfolio. (3) None-the Council is serviced by the Australian Bicentenary Authority's ACT and Island Territories Office (ACTIT), which has five full-time staff. (4) and (5) As necessary it uses the Authority's ACTIT Office at Construction House, 217 Northbourne Avenue, Turner. The Annual rent is $32,000. (6) The ACT and Island Territories Council advises the Authority's National Board of Directors on the appropriateness of projects funded through the Commonwealth Government's National Program which impact upon the ACT. The Council is also required from time to time to comment upon a broad range of national Bicentennial strategies and policies not concerned with specific projects e.g. marketing, endorsement, community involvement. The Council decides on the allocation of local and regional program funds made available through the Authority's National Program funded by the Commonwealth Government. (7) Yes. (8) Since the Council assumed responsibility for the Island Territories in 1984 the only Council member to have visited the Island Territories has been the officer nominated by the Department of Territories, who was not travelling on Council business. One ACTIT office staff member visited Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands in 1985. (9) The ACTIT office staff member stayed 2 nights on Christmas Island and 2 nights on Cocos (Keeling) Islands. (10) The cost to the Authority was limited to: Christmas Island-$86.00; Cocos (Keeling) Islands-$92.85. The officer travelled with His Excellency the Governor General on a Special Purpose Aircraft. (11) The visit was financed from the ACTIT Office Budget. (Question No. 4444) Mr Conquest asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 21 August 1986: (1) Is it a fact that a student, resident in Perth, can be accepted for a course at the University of Queensland, even if the same course is available in Perth, and receive 3 return air fares between Perth and Brisbane per year under the travel allowance provisions of the Tertiary Education Allowance Scheme (TEAS). (2) If so, (a) why and (b) on what authority are these arrangements based. (3) Does his Department propose to review this aspect of TEAS. (4) How many recipients of TEAS (a) receive travel allowance for interstate travel and (b) what was the cost of such travel for the last year. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Provided that a student is enrolled in the University of Queensland and that the student is eligible for TEAS he or she may be eligible for fares assistance. In the example given air travel would be the least costly mode of transport. (2) (a) Given that there is a certain degree of specialisation in courses and between institutions, it is both normal and desirable that some students will choose particular courses and institutions that require them to leave home. This will involve periodic travel to and from their homes. (b) These factors have been accepted, and the associated policy supported, by successive governments since the inception of TEAS. (3) There is no proposal at present to review this aspect of the fares allowance. (4) (a) There are no records kept of total numbers of claims for fares assistance. (b) Total expenditure on fares assistance in 1985 was $3,122,895 and in 1985-86 $2,993,622. (Departmental records do not distinguish between inter- and intra-State travel). (Question No. 4460) Mr Reith asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 22 August 1986: (1) Has the Government made monetary grants to any of the following types of clubs in the years 1983-84, 1984-85, and 1985-86 (a) aerobatics, (b) auto cycle driving, (c) equestrian, (d) karting, (e) motor sports, (f) polo, (g) polocrosse, (h) pony clubs, (i) power boats and (j) rodeos; (2) If so, to which clubs were the grants made and for what amounts; (3) Were those clubs liable for income tax on the amounts so granted; if so, was income tax paid in each case. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Government does not provide monetary assistance to individual clubs. The Government does, however, provide grants to recognised national sporting organisations through the Sports Development Program. (2) Not applicable. (3) Not applicable. (Question No. 4489) Mr McArthur asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 16 September 1986: (1) Were irregularities identified by the Auditor- General in his 1986 Annual Report concerning the apportionment of expenses and rental of assets between Medicare and Medibank Private. (2) Did the Australia-wide audit fees of $28,000 charged to Medibank Private by the Auditor-General's Office in 1984-85, as opposed to the $171,000 charged to Medicare, accurately reflect the true costs involved. (3) Were the Australia-wide directors' fees of $10,730 allocated to Medibank Private in 1984-85 realistic, bearing in mind the amount of time and effort devoted by the directors to the affairs of Medibank Private and the $74,461 in directors' fees charged to Medicare. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The audit of the Commission's 1985-86 financial statements is not yet complete. I assume the honourable member is referring to the Auditor-General's 1984-85 report on the Commission's activities in which he stated that the Commission had breached its legislation by applying, in 1984-85, principles of apportionment which were not approved until November 1985. In other words, it applied principles retrospectively and its legislation does not allow such action. This is very much a technical breach as the Auditor-General also stated that the principles which were applied were more equitable in the 1984-85 circumstances than those previously approved. The Auditor-General also stated that he was unable to form an opinion on the reasonableness of the actual apportionment. This arose because, although he accepted the principle of applying weights, he was unable to satisfy himself that the weights used were correct. The Chairman of the Commission, Mr F. W. Millar CBE, advised me on 6 December 1985 in his 1984-85 report that the Auditor-General suggested to management that the use of unweighted transactions would allow him to report that the Commission's statements were correct. The use of unweighted transactions is, of course, taking the view that the weights are equal. Such a course would have transferred further costs of $7.588 million from Medibank Private to Medicare. Neither I nor the Commission were able to accept that such a course would be equitable. The full text of the Chairman's letter to me was tabled in Parliament on 12 February 1986 as part of the Health Insurance Commission's Eleventh Annual Report. (2) The audit fees charged to Medibank Private by the Auditor-General's Office were apportioned between Medibank Private and Medicare in accordance with the principles which I have explained in answer to Parliamentary Question 4490. In 1984-85 Medibank Private bore, in general terms, 14.4% of the joint costs of the Commission. Given that in terms of raw volumes, i.e. actual transactions processed, the volume of work generated by Medibank Private is only 5% of the Commission's total it is quite evident that Medibank Private receives no particular advantage. (3) The figures quoted in the Question concerning fees paid to Commissioners are incorrect. Insofar as fees paid to the Commissioners are concerned Medibank Private paid $10,730 out of a total of $74,461 thus the Medicare share was $63,731. These fees are also apportioned between Medibank and Medicare in accordance with the principles explained in answer to Parliamentary Question 4490 and I am satisfied that the apportionment is reasonable. One has only to compare the expense ratio of Medibank Private with that of the other funds both in 1984 and in previous years to see that there has been no abnormal movement which would certainly occur if equity were not being served. (Question No. 4490) Mr McArthur asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 16 September 1986: (1) What financial advantages does Medibank Private enjoy over its private health fund competitors when sharing Health Insurance Commission costs in the following specified areas (a) municipal rates and taxes, (b) State taxes and stamp duties including payroll tax, (c) Federal taxes including customs duty and sales tax, (d) employers' superannuation contributions and (e) audit fees. (2) In respect of the 1984-85 audit of Medibank Private (a) how many hours were charged for, (b) what was the hourly rate charged, (c) how did this rate compare with charges made by major national auditing firms. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Medibank Private enjoys no financial advantage over other health benefit funds in regard to any item of expense. This applies equally to the areas specified in the honourable member's question: Section 39 of the Health Insurance Commission Act requires the Commission to pay all rates and taxes etc. These costs are classified as joint costs as they are incurred for the benefit of both Medicare and Medibank Private. Section 34c of the Act requires that joint costs be apportioned between the two functions of the Commission in accordance with principles determined by me. The determination made under section 34c requires that the Commission apportion its joint costs on the basis of relative work load volumes after those volumes have been weighted to reflect the processing time of the various transactions. A copy of the determination appears at page 69 of the Commission's annual report for 1984/85 which was tabled in Parliament on 12 February 1986. In global terms it is possible to assess whether Medibank Private gains any advantage over other funds by comparing management expense ratios over time. In 1983/84 the Medibank Private ratio was 10.8% compared with the industry figure of 11.1%. In 1984/85 the expense rate of Medibank Private increased to 13.8% while the industry average increased to 14.8%. Clearly, Medibank Private obtains no advantage over the other funds. (2) (a) Audit fees charged by the Australian Audit Office are calculated on a basis determined by the Minister for Finance. The fee covers the direct cost of salaries for actual time spent on the audit with a loading to cover administrative overheads. The fee charged to the Commission therefore depends on the level of staff applied to the audit of the Commission for the period. (b) Hourly rates have not been advised to the Commission. It is not the policy of the Audit Office to provide auditees with a detailed breakdown of audit costs. (c) The Commission is subject to audit by the Auditor-General pursuant to the legislative requirements under the Commission's governing legislation. The Commission has not sought audit fee quotes for the audit of the Commission from any national auditing firms and therefore is not in a position to make such a comparison. (Question No. 4492) Mr Downer asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 16 September 1986: How does he account for the rise in the Australian dollar during the week before the Budget. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Under the floating exchange rate system introduced in December 1983, the value of the Australian dollar is determined essentially by forces of supply and demand in the foreign exchange market. The exchange rate is thus determined by the interaction of many factors and their relative importance is difficult to determine at any point in time. The $A firmed during the first half of August, rising by 5.1 per cent against the $US and 4.9 per cent on a TWI basis between end-July and 19 August. (Question No. 4543) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 16 September 1986: (1) What has been the decline in (a) absolute and (b) percentage terms in the number of cheque issues by his Department since the introduction of the direct credit system. (2) How many cases of misrepresentations of the Social Security Act have been (a) detected and (b) prosecuted under the (i) Social Security Act and (ii) Crimes Act in each of the years 1983 to 1985. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) 54 million (approx.) (b) 84 per cent (approx.) (2) (a) A proportion of overpayments raised each year and recorded on the overpayments file involve misrepresentation. When an individual overpayment is fully recovered, details relating to that overpayment are deleted from the file. Accordingly, it is not possible to state the number of cases involving misrepresentations which gave rise to an overpayment in each of the years in question. (b) Cases involving offences against either the Social Security Act or the Crimes Act which were prosecuted in each of the relevant years are as follows: Social Security Act Crimes Act 1982/83 ... 1,466 200 1983/84 ... 1,885 178 1984/85 ... 2,025 161 Almost all of these cases would have involved misrepresentations. (Question No. 4559) Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 17 September 1986: (1) Was the National Acoustic Laboratories Hearing Centre in Toowoomba, Qld, opened (a) by him on 14 August 1986 and (b) earlier in the year by his Department's Regional Director for Queensland, Dr P. Ulrich; if so, will this practice be repeated for all health centres. (2) Will any centres be opened a third time. (3) What was the cost of his opening of the Toowoomba Centre. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Yes. (b) No. An open day was held on Thursday, 20 February 1986, to thank the individuals and Departments who had been involved in building and design of the Centre and to inform various local organisations of NAL facilities and services. The Regional Director of Health in Queensland made a speech and officiated at this. (2) No. (3) The cost of the Minister's official opening of the Toowoomba Hearing Centre on 14 August 1986 was $975.15, which included the cost of the plaque, invitation cards, programme, name badges, and catering. (Question No. 4567) Mr Donald Cameron asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 18 September 1986: Further to question No. 3345 placed on the notice Paper on 13 March 1986, (a) have more than 6 months passed since the question was first placed on the Notice Paper, (b) have 19 Ministers already replied to a similar question, (c) when can I expect an answer to the question and (d) what does this delay say about the efficiency of the internal reporting system in his department. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question. (a) Yes. (b) Yes. (c) An answer has been provided. (d) The reporting systems used within the Department of Resources and Energy and the authorities within the Resources and Energy portfolio do not provide a means of obtaining readily the information in the detail asked in the question. (Question No. 4571) Mr Hollis asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 18 September 1986. What (a) quantity and (b) value of peat was imported into Australia during 1985-86. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: According to official figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (a) the quantity of peat imported into Australia in 1985-86 was 22,057 tonnes and (b) the value of this import into Australia in 1985-86 was $1,913,625. (Question No. 4574) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 18 September 1986: (1) Does the River Murray Commission (RMC) perform any bacteriological monitoring along the Murrumbidgee River or its tributaries; if so, (a) where and (b) when did each monitoring unit begin operation? (2) What was the Escherichia coli count each month for the period 1980 to 30 June 1985 from the bacteriological monitoring stations at (a) Tailem Bend, (b) Lock 9 and (c) downstream from Yarrawonga Weir? (3) Since 1 January 1984 has a Contracting Government or its authority, agency or tribunal (a) refused its consent under Section 25 (2) of the River Murray Waters Agreement for the RMC to carry out Waters Surveys, investigations or studies, (b) refused its consent under Section 25 (2) of the River Murray Waters Agreement for the RMC to carry out Waters Surveys, investigations or studies, (b) refused its consent under Section 26 (2) of the Agreement for the RMC to establish, maintain or operate measuring and monitoring equipment, (c) refused to comply with recommendations made by the RMC under Section 28 of the Agreement and (d) failed to inform the RMC of a new proposal coming within the requirements of Section 29 (1) of the Agreement? (4) If so, what were the circumstances in each case. (5) Since 1 January 1984 what were the locations at which the RMC has (a) successfully and (b) unsuccessfully intervened to achieve improvements in waste treatment and disposal. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) No. (2) The following table provides the bacteriological information available from 1980 to 30 June 1985 for the stations at Tailem Bend and Lock 9. No bacteriological monitoring is carried out by the River Murray Commission upstream of Lock 9 including in the vicinity of Yarrawonga Weir; however, the table includes the results of bacteriological monitoring at the intake to the Cobram urban water supply located downstream of Yarrawonga, undertaken by Victoria and New South Wales. E. COLI-MEAN MONTHLY VALUES (NO/100 ML) JAN 1980-JUNE 1985 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec (a) Tailem Bend 1980... - - - - - - 18 2 34 40 24 201 1981... 193 100 65 42 41 65 32 14 65 31 38 80 1982... 66 41 - - - - - - - - - - 1983... 21 60 173 85 61 26 48 80 90 50 50 443 1984... 135 150 104 61 95 35 58 8 45 205 44 247 1985... 220 94 51 65 57 36 (b) Lock 9 1980... - - - 80 80 - 80 - 2 18 2 22 1981... 2 2 2 2 3 3 80 30 48 - - 2 1982... 1 4 - - - - - - - - - - 1983... - 2 2 - - 1 - 35 30 20 12 6 1984... 14 10 12 2 4 8 - 2 20 40 18 4 1985... 14 2 - 4 3 4 (c) Cobram 1980... 26 4 6 8 10 44 30 33 30 35 - 4 1981... 10 - 10 50 18 22 19 50 10 10 10 - 1982... 10 10 10 6 6 4 2 2 10 10 10 20 1983... 10 4 10 30 10 10 40 90 90 10 10 30 1984... 120 10 10 10 - - - 24 10 80 10 10 1985... - - 8 10 10 16 (3) (a) No. (b) No. (c) No. (d) Not as far as the RMC is aware. (4) Not applicable. (5) (a) Since 1 January 1986, the RMC has successfully intervened with respect to the following: Wodonga-Elimination of effluent from tannery Tallangatta-Location of domestic garbage tip Wodonga-Reduction in EPA specified limit of phosphorus in effluent from sewerage treatment plant Broken Hill-Location of toxic waste incinerator. The Commission is currently negotiating on the following matters related to waste treatment: Albury-River gravel extraction and subsequent rehabilitation of site Myers Creek (near Bendigo)-Discharge of mine dewatering effluent to a tributary of the River Murray Albury-Augmentation of sewage treatment works Wodonga-Development of ``Old Macs Farm''. (b) There have been no unsuccessful interventions. (Question No. 4578) Mr Mildren asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 18 September 1986: (1) How many applications for Domiciliary Nursing Care Benefit have been approved in each year since 1982/83 in the electoral division of Ballarat. (2) What has been the cost of these approvals for each year. Mr Howe —The Minister for Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) and (2) My Department does not maintain the precise information sought and it would require significant resources to extract it from source documents. It is estimated that the average number of beneficiaries in the Ballarat Electorate in each year since 1982/83 and the Domiciliary Nursing Care Benefit (DNCB) that would have been paid, based on those numbers, is as follows: Average Number of Beneficiaries DNCB Paid (based on average number of recipients) $'000 1982-83 ... 328 358 1983-84 ... 340 371 1984-85 ... 345 377 1985-86 ... 311 340 (Question No. 4579) Mr Mildren asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 18 September 1986: (1) What nursing homes and aged and disabled persons hostels received a Commonwealth subsidy for each year from 1979-80 to 1985-86 in the electoral division of Ballarat. (2) What was the value of the subsidy for each year. (3) What capital and upgrading projects have been approved for funding and what funds have been provided for each project. Mr Howe —The Minister for Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question. (1) and (2) Hostels Recurrent Funding: Information concerning subsidies paid for the financial years preceding 1982-83 was not maintained in a readily accessible form. Subsidies paid to hostels in the electoral division of Ballarat for the financial year 1982-83 to 1985-86 inclusive are detailed below: Gorrin House 1982-83...$15,120 1983-84...$40,960 1984-85...$40,388 1985-86...$63,251 Emmaus 1982-83...$9,000 1983-84...$10,940 1984-85...$9,300 1985-86...$9,852 St. Elizabeths 1982-83...$19,560 1983-84...$11,880 1984-85...$16,376 1985-86...$10,634 Nazareth House 1982-83...$179,520 1983-84...$189,760 1984-85...$233,368 1985-86...$303,125 Midlands 1982-83...$54,080 1983-84...$37,400 1984-85...$51,420 1985-86...$49,545 Balmoral 1982-83...$10,040 1983-84...$4,520 1984-85...$8,800 *1985-86...$ - Pleasant House 1982-83...$25,920 1983-84...$42,740 1984-85...$65,964 1985-86...$51,229 Eyres House 1982-83...$29,600 1983-84...$25,480 1984-85...$38,344 1985-86...$35,754 Ascot House 1982-83...$9,600 1983-84...$10,040 1984-85...$9,120 *1985-86...$ - Queen Elizabeth Geriatric Centre 1982-83...$20,040 1983-84...$34,520 1984-85...$65,556 1985-86...$76,187 Kelaston 1982-83...$14,280 1983-84...$24,360 1984-85...$45,404 1985-86...$45,228 Brim Bram 1982-83...$3,240 *1983-84...$ - *1984-85...$ - *1985-86...$ - Note: All payments for financial years marked with an asterisk were made direct to the Queen Elizabeth Geriatric Centre. Nursing Homes Recurrent Funding: Information concerning payments made for the financial years preceding 1982-83 is not available in a readily accessible form. Payments made to nursing homes in the electoral division of Ballarat for the financial years 1982-83 (where available) to 1985-86 inclusive are detailed below for (a) Nursing Homes Approved under the National Health Act: Begonia Nursing Home 1983-84...$1,140,492 1984-85...$1,300,312 1985-86...$1,291,864 John Pickford House 1983-84...$585,547 1984-85...$559,641 1985-86...$606,712 Kelaston Nursing Home 1983-84...$340,475 1984-85...$385,262 1985-86...$381,205 Queen Elizabeth Nursing Home 1983-84...$6,742,932 1984-85...$6,349,622 1985-86...$6,947,292 Nazareth House Nursing Home 1983-84...$629,269 1984-85...$699,279 1985-86...$694,544; and (b) Nursing Homes approved under the Nursing Homes Assistance Act Loreto Abbey Nursing Home 1982-83...$108,154 1983-84...$141,859 1984-85...$181,028 1985-86...$226,754 Rosary Nursing Home 1982-83...$79,076 1983-84...$186,152 1984-85...$199,943 1985-86...$209,370 (3) Capital and Upgrading projects approved for funding and expenditure by these projects for the financial years 1979-80 to 1985-86: Capital Projects Trustees of the Poor Sisters of Nazareth Project: 12 hostel beds Location: Ballarat Date of approval: Feb. 1980 Amount approved: $217,800 Funding Year: 80-81 Expenditure: $106,767 Old Colonists Association of Ballarat Project: 4 self-contained units Location: Wendouree Date of approval: Feb. 1980 Amount approved: $56,000 Funding Year: 81-82 Expenditure: $58,257 Sisters of Mercy Project: 10 nursing home bedss Location: Ballarat East Date of approval: Oct. 1980 Amount approved: $181,500 Funding Year: 82-83 Expenditure: $175,832 Maryborough Benevolent Society Project: 4 self-contained units Location: Maryborough (a) Date of approval: Feb. 1980 Amount approved: $48,400 Funding Year: 81-82 Expenditure: $53,400 Ray M. Begg Project: 14 hostel beds Location: Kyneton (b) Date of approval: Oct. 1980 Amount approved: $183,400 Funding Year: 82-83 Expenditure: $184,502 Ray M. Begg Project: 6 self-contained units Location: Kyneton (b) Date of approval: Oct. 1980 Amount approved: $78,600 Funding Year: 82-83 Expenditure: $99,068 Carry On Project: 8 self-contained units Location: Wendouree Date of approval: Oct. 1980 Amount approved: $108,800 Funding Year: 82-83 Expenditure: $130,655 Queen Elizabeth Geriatric Centre Project: 33 and 37 hostel beds Location: Sebastopol Date of approval: Feb and Oct 1980 Amount approved: $1,270,500 Funding Years: 81-82, 82-83 Expenditure: $1,749,500 Daylesford and District Hospital Project: Day Centre Centre and 14 hostel beds Location: Daylesford (b) Date of approval: Feb. and Oct. 1980 Amount approved: $222,000 Funding Year: 81-82 and 82-83 Expenditure: $247,700 Kyneton District Hospital Project: Day Care Centre Location: Kyneton (b) Date of approval: Oct. 1980 Amount approved: $40,000 Funding Year: Not funded as project Expenditure: was withdrawn Queen Elizabeth Geriatric Centre Project: Day Care Centre Location: Sebastopol Date of approval: Feb. 1983 Amount approved: $300,000 Funding Year: 83-84 Expenditure: $149,900 Avoca and District Bush Nursing Hospital Project: 14 nursing home beds Location: Avoca Date of approval: Jan. 1983 Amount approved: $196,000 Funding Year: 83-84 Expenditure: $237,160 Society of St Vincent de Paul Project: 6 self-contained units Location: Maryborough Date of approval: Jan. 1983 Amount approved: $84,000 Funding Year: 83-84 Expenditure: $101,640 Ararat and District Nursing Home Society Project: 40 nursing home beds Location: Ararat (c) Date of approval: Feb. 1983 Amount approved: $560,000 Funding Year: 83-84 Expenditure: $605,800 Ararat Retirement Village Project: 12 hostel beds Location: Ararat (c) Date of approval: Jan. 1983 Amount approved: $140,000 Funding Year: 83-84 Expenditure: $176,333 John Curtin Elderly Peoples Home Society Project: 37 hostel beds Location: Creswick Date of approval: Aug. 1984 Amount approved: $630,000 Funding Year: 85-86 Expenditure: $648,983 Uniting Church of Australia ``Sunways'' Project: 11 self-contained units Location: Wendouree Date of approval: May 1985 Amount approved: $190,000 Funding Year: 86-87 Expenditure: None as yet Upgrading Projects Association for the Blind, ``Kelaston'' Project: Call bell system Location: Wendouree Date of approval: May 1985 Amount approved: $1,700 Funding Year: 86-87 Expenditure: None as yet Note (a) Was in Ballarat electorate when approved for funding. Now in bendigo electorate due to redistribution of boundaries. (b) As for (a), but now in Bourke electorate (c) Previously in Wannon electorate. Totals Capital projects Amount approved: $4,507,000 Expenditure: $4,725,496 Upgrading projects Amount approved: $1,700 Expenditure: None as yet (Question No. 4582) Mr Mildren asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 18 September 1986: What projects have been approved for funding under the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Program and the Australian Land Transport Program in the Electoral Division of Ballarat. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is contained in the following tables. Projects are set out in road categories under each Program. These tables cover total approvals since the inception of the ABRD Program. AUSTRALIAN BICENTENNIAL ROAD PROGRAM APPROVED LOCAL ROADS PROJECTS FOR FEDERAL ELECTORATE OF BALLARAT (VIC) Project Name Description ABRD Cost $ Sharps Road Construct bridge over Burrumbeet Creek tributary on Sharps Road, Ballarat 121,000 Tourello School Road Repairs to bridge on Tourello School Road, Ballarat 6,000 Ascot-Coghills Creek Repair Beckworth Creek Bridge, Ballarat 10,000 Snake Valley-Mortchup Road Construct a 4.0 km section west of Snake Valley 20,000 Carnham-Streatham Road Reconstruct a 5.0 km section north of Glenelg Highway 10,000 Lowe Street Reconstruct Lowe Street from Basham Street to Warratah Avenue, Ararat City 60,000 Rossbridge-Streatham Reconstruct and widen section of Rossbridge-Streatham Road, 12.2-25.1 km, Ararat 475,000 North Suburbs Bypass-Ballarat City Construct northern suburbs bypass from Chisholm Street to Hopwill Street 273,000 Springs Road Reconstruct Springs Road from Long Hills Road, Bungaree 166,000 Gear Avenue Construct from Ballarat CAE to Yankee Flat Road, Buninyong 160,000 Brittain Street Reconstruction 0.3 km southerly from Tinworth Avenue, Buninyong 47,000 Sutton Park Road Construct culvert at Pinch Gut Creek on Sutton Park Road, Creswick 146,000 Werona-Kingston, Creswick Reconstruction 13 km to 14.5 km 31,000 Greenhalgh Road Reconstruct West from Wiltshire Lane 93,000 Wiltshire Lane Reconstruct South from Glenelg Highway 43,000 Craddocks Road Construction (South of Haddon-Preston Road) 29,000 Geelong Road Construct West from Morleys Road 32,000 Dooleys Road Construction of Bridge 3.5 km East of Skipton Road 21,000 Beaufort-Carranballad Road, Ripon Construction from Mt William Road southerly 71,000 Carngham-Streatham Road, Ripon Widening Mena Park Road, westerly 26,000 Snake Valley, Chepstone, Ripon Repairs to bridge 32,000 Sayle Street Reconstruct from Colac/Ballarat Road to Orion Street 50,000 Learmonth Road Reconstruct South from Victoria Street 87,000 Porteous Road Reconstruct West from Natte Yallock Road 122,000 Foxhow Road Reconstruct and sealing of road section 38,000 Foxhow Road Reconstruction and sealing of Foxhow Road from 35.2 to 35.8 km 301,000 Grevillea Road, Gillies Street to Wattle Avenue Reconstruction Ballarat Shire 100,000 Northern Suburbs Bypass, Bungaree Land acquisition and fencing part of Abrd Construction project for Ballarat City 23,000 Total-Local Roads 2,493,000 AUSTRALIAN BICENTENNIAL ROAD PROGRAM APPROVED RURAL ARTERIAL ROADS PROJECTS FOR FEDERAL ELECTORATE OF BALLARAT (VIC) Project name Description ABRD cost ($) Colac-Ballarat Rd Construct bridge over Winter Ck 215,000 Total-rural arterial roads 215,000 AUSTRALIAN BICENTENNIAL ROAD PROGRAM APPROVED NATIONAL HIGHWAY PROJECTS FOR FEDERAL ELECTORATE OF BALLARAT (VIC) Project name Description ABRD cost ($) Trawalla-Beaufort Construct passing lanes realign and resheet pavement on Western Hwy between Trawalla and Beaufort 150.0 to 154.4 km from Melbourne 996,000 Victoria St. Duplication, Ballarat Construct duplication 2.050,000 Total-National Highway 3.046,000 AUSTRALIAN BICENTENNIAL ROAD PROGRAM APPROVED URBAN ARTERIAL ROADS PROJECTS FOR FEDERAL ELECTORATE OF BALLARAT (VIC) Project name Description ABRD cost ($) Grant St-Ballarat Reconstruction from Albert St. to Barkly St. 500,000 Total-Urban arterial roads 500,00 Total-ABRD 6,254,000 AUSTRALIAN LAND TRANSPORT PROGRAM APPROVED NATIONAL HIGHWAY PROJECTS FOR FEDERAL ELECTORATE OF BALLARAT (VIC) Project name Description ALTP cost ($) Western Hwy-Ballarat Bypass (Stge 1) Two lane two way from Woodmans Hill 104km to Sunraysia Hwy 116km 830,000 Western Hwy-Burrumbeet Upgrade Gluepot Rd to provide traffic connection from Ballarat bypass to Western Hwy 10km to 130km 55,000 Western Hwy-Trawalla Widen and resheet east of Trawalla with overtaking lane 145.3km to 149km 660,000 Western Hwy-Trawalla Widen, regrade weak sections between Trawalla and Beaufort 150km to 151.8km 445,000 Western Hwy-Beaufort Construct overtaking lane and resheet west of Beaufort incl new culvert from 161km to 163.8km 665,000 Western Hwy-Beaufort Install guardrail at Fiery Crk bridge at 164.9km 30,000 Western Hwy-Buangor Widen and resheet east of Buangor from 171.1km to 173km 440,000 Western Hwy-Buangor Widen and resheet from west of Middle Crk to Buangor from 173km to 176.7km 750,000 Western Hwy-Ararat Provide passing lanes east and west of Langi Ghiran from 182km to 187.4km 10,000 Western Hwy-Ararat Final seal pavement regrading Lowe St rail overpass, Ararat from 201.7km to 201.9km 4,000 Western Hwy-Ararat Widening to provide passing lane at intersection George St, Ararat incl culvert at 202.3km 80,000 Western Hwy-Leigh Ck. Resheet, widen and regrade Mlb. Bound Cwy between Leigh Ck. and Woodmans Hill 100,000 Western Hwy-Ballarat Widen to 4 lanes in Sturt St. Ballarat from Gillies St. to the railway 50,000 Western Hwy-Ballarat Intersection improvements at ring road Ballarat 30,000 Western Hwy-Buangor Intersection improvements with Challicum Rd. Buangor 5,000 Total-National Highway 4,154,000 AUSTRALIAN LAND TRANSPORT PROGRAM APPROVED NATIONAL HIGHWAY PROJECTS FOR FEDERAL ELECTORATE OF BALLARAT (VIC) Project name Description ALTP cost ($) Western Hwy Ballarat to Ararat General maintenance 114.5-202.4km 911,000 Total-National Highways maintenance 911,000 AUSTRALIAN LAND TRANSPORT PROGRAM APPROVED RURAL ARTERIAL ROADS PROJECTS FOR FEDERAL ELECTORATE OF BALLARAT (VIC) Project name Description ALTP cost ($) Glenelg Hwy-Smythesdale Reconstruction north of Smythesdale 528,000 Total-Rural arterial roads 528,000 Total-ALTP 5,593,000 Total-Ballarat (Vic) 11,847,000 (Question No. 4594) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 18 September 1986: (1) When will he establish a Review Recall Panel to deal with vehicle recall disputes. (2) What will be (a) the size of the panel and (b) the criteria for membership. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Recall Review Panels will be established on a case by case basis as and when the need arises. 2 (a) The size of Panels is not fixed, but would generally comprise six persons. 2 (b) Membership of Panels will generally be comprised of a representative from an appropriate consumer organisation, a representative from the relevant industry association, representatives from state and Territory vehicle regulatory authorities, and an officer of the Office of Consumer Affairs. The Federal Office of Road Safety will provide a Chairperson unless the Office is a party to a dispute, in which case an alternative appointment would be made. (Question No. 4595) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 18 September 1986: (1) Has he had the power since July 1986 to recall unsafe cars when problems cannot be solved under industry codes. (2) Has the Valiant seat slide issue not been resolved by the industry. (3) Will he refer this dispute to the Review Recall Panel; if not, why not. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Under the Trade Practices Revision Act 1986, the Attorney General may order a recall if this is warranted and the issue cannot be resolved under industry codes. The Minister for Transport advises the Attorney General on vehicle safety recall matters. (2), (3) I am advised that matters raised in the honourable member's question are relevant to issues currently before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Federal Court, and therefore subjudice in accordance with the conventions of the House. It would be inappropriate for me to respond at the present time in these circumstances. (Question No. 4602) Mr Langmore asked the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 18 September 1986: What information is available on the (a) level of and (b) recent trends in rents in (i) shopping centres and (ii) office accommodation in the A.C.T. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (i) The rents in shopping centres in the A.C.T. are a matter of commercial negotiation between individual managers and lessees and details are not publicly available. Market information suggests that increases of 40-50% have been experienced during recent renewals of three year contracts. Annual rents for street level sites in Civic and the town centres are now approximately $600.00 per square metre. Rents for individual sites can differ significantly depending on position, size and the volume of passing traffic. (ii) The rents on prime commercial property in Canberra have risen rapidly since 1980. During 1985 prime office developments achieved annual rents of $185.00 per square metre for entire buildings leased to the Government and $205.00 per square metre for full floors leased to the private sector. Private sector annual rentals for small suites in Civic increased from approximately $185.00 per square metre in 1984 to around $220.00 per square metre in 1985. Estimates of Canberra office annual rent level in 1985 were: Central Business District...Per sq metre Prime...$190-220 Modern...$180-200 Older...$130-175 Fringe...$130-175 Suburban...$140-175 Rental levels for prime commercial properties in the Civic area are expected to stabilise while those for prime commercial property outside of Civic are expected to increase in the short term. (Question No. 4617) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 September 1986: (1) What was the cost to his Department of providing tea, coffee and other beverages in 1985-86. (2) What is the projected cost for 1986-87. (3) What arrangements regulate the provision of this service. (4) Have the arrangements changed in 1986-87; if so, how. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) $111,751. (2) $62,000. (3) The Department of Finance advises departments of accounting arrangement for beverage services, usually by circular. (4) Yes. New arrangements to operate from 1 July 1986 were notified in Department of Finance circulars 1985/17 and 1986/9. The first mentioned circular involved new arrangements for recording payments for beverage services and crediting payments from patrons. The second outlined new arrangements in situations where the Commonwealth Accommodation and Catering Service (CACS) provides and operates beverage services. The costs of these services will now be met by the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services, whereas they were previously met by departments. (Question No. 4625) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 September 1986: (1) What is the projected cost in 1986-87 of his Department employing consultants for (a) joint staff review, (b) Stratplan, (c) performance monitoring, (d) social security reviews, (e) the Office of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation and (f) any other departmental function. (2) What individuals, firms or companies (a) were employed in each of these categories in 1985-86 and (b) will be employed in 1986-87. (3) Why are consultants required in each of these categories and what functions will they undertake. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) Details of consultants used in 1985-86 and those proposed to be used in 1986-87 follow: Consultancy Cost in 1986-87 Consultants hired 1985-86 Consultants hired 1986-87 $ (a) Joint Staff Review 338,000 Nil P.A. Consulting Services (b) Stratplan 260,000 Coopers & Lybrand- W. D. Scott Koranya Pty Ltd Gertsman & Associates Astech Consulting Services Control Data Pty Ltd Canberra College of Advanced Education PA Computer & Telecommunications Pty Ltd PA Consultants Cooper & Lybrand-W. D. Scott Control Data Pty Ltd Canberra College of Advance Education PA Computer & Telecommunications Pty Ltd (c) Performance Monitoring 219,000 PA Consultants Coopers & Lybrand Arthur Anderson Deloite, Haskins & Sells None to date (d) Social Security Review 218,000 Prof. Bettina Cass Prof. Bettina Cass (e) Office of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation 100,000 Nil Financial Synergy Pty Ltd (f) Other Departmental functions: (i) Information Systems 97,000 Nil Coopers & Lybrand-W. D. Scott (ii) Equal Opportunity 63,000 Nil None to date (iii) Benefits 40,000 Nil Dr Grbich, Mr Sawkins (iv) Reciprocal Agreements 20,000 Nil None to date (v) Industrial Section 48,000 Mr Chilla Miller Mr Chilla Miller (vi) Other 97,000 Nil None to date (vii) Maintenance Secretariat 20,000 Deena Shiff Professor Garfinkel Deena Shiff, Peter Waters (3) The consultants are required to perform the following functions: (a) Joint Staff Review-To provided expertise not available within the Department. Their functions are to propose principles and processes and a methodology to permit determination of the appropriate level of staffing in the Department having regard to the workload and functions in Regional Offices. (b) Stratplan-To provide high level technical advice where skills are not available within the Commonwealth Public Service or where independent advice is required. Their functions are to provide independent advice to the Minister on Stratplan progress, independent technical advice for post implementation reviews of various Stratplan phases. They are also to provide expert technical advice on various Departmental computer initiatives. (c) Performance Monitoring-To provide experience and expertise not available within the Department. They will undertake tasks such as market research and evaluation, risk based modelling and statistical analysis and an examination of the need for a videotext for the Management Information System. (d) Social Security Review-To identify long-term directions which the social security system might take and the shorter-term priorities which need to be addressed. (e) Office of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation-To undertake the actuarial costs of the present compensation for Commonwealth Government Employees and cost proposed changes. Australian Government Actuary is unable to complete the task within the required time frame. (f) Other Departmental Functions: Information Systems-To assist with the implementation of Program Budgeting into the Department. Equal Employment Opportunity-To examine work practices within the Department, and to review the program after it has operated for 12 months. Benefits-To assist the Department in the review of policy in the areas of Investment Income. Reciprocal Agreements-To provide technical advice which is not available in the Department for developing and maintaining an ADP system, which will be used for a variety of reasons associated with the implementation of the Australian/Italian Reciprocal Agreement, on a mini-computer. The consultant would also evaluate the software packages for mini-computers against the objectives/requirements of the system. Industrial Division-T.U.T.A. trainer is being engaged to conduct training courses on Industrial Democracy processes for work place delegates. Other-This is a provision for other consultancies which may be required by the Department during the year. Maintenance Secretariat-The consultants are required to assist the Maintenance Secretariat in developing legislative reform packages on child maintenance. (Question No. 4628) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 September 1986: (1) What was the cost of publications and other information facilities for the overpayments project in 1985-86. (2) What is the projected cost of this material for 1986-87. (3) Is this cost estimated to be less than that incurred in 1985-86, if so why. (4) Will he supply copies of the material produced for the overpayments project. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) $714,591.26. (2) $220,000. (3) The reduced cost in 1986-87 is due to the fact that introductory costs associated with the Overpayments Project and relevant costs associated with the Amnesty were incurred in 1985-86. Additionally, procedures introduced as part of the Overpayments Project are being progressively integrated into the Department's normal functions and thus it is not possible to separately identify all relevant costs relating to 1986-87. (4) Yes. (Question No. 4638) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 19 September 1986: (1) Has he established a statutory committee under the Navigation Act to consider the recommendations and observations made by Mr Justice Sheppard at the Court of Marine Inquiry into the grounding of the TNT ship ``Alltrans'' in March 1985. (2) What is the criteria for membership of the committee. (3) Who is to be appointed to the committee. (4) What are the terms of reference of the committee. (5) When does he expect the committee to report. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes, to look at the alcohol related issues. (2) Department of Transport chairing; 2 representatives from shipowners; 2 representatives from maritime unions; 2 medical experts in drug and alcohol dependency. (3) Mr P. R. Holmes-Chairman; Captain I. G. Steverson-The Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd; Captain A. J. Tait-Howard Smith Industries Pty Ltd; Mr J. Brennan-Seamen's Union of Australia; Captain F. G. Ross-Merchant Service Guild of Australia; Dr L. R. Drew-Federal Department of Health; Dr B. H. Rance-Federal Department of Aviation. (4) In the light of the findings of the Court of Marine Inquiry into the grounding of the ``TNT Alltrans'': 1. Recommend standards with respect to the consumption of alcohol for mariners involved in shipboard operations. 2. Recommend options available for promoting and achieving compliance with these standards. 3. Recommend management practices which would provide indicators of potential shipboard alcohol problems. 4. Identify issues which should be further addressed by the Maritime Services Advisory Committee (Marine Crews) with respect to other aspects of consumption of alcohol on board ships. (5) The committee is expected to report by the end of this year. (Question No. 4647) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 22 September 1986: (1) Does he intend to introduce the Hague Visby Rules in relation to the sea carriage of goods; if not, why not? Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Any government decision on accession to the Visby and Special Drawing Rights (SDR) Protocols and their incorporation in Australian law through amendment to the Sea Carriage of Goods Act 1924 will be made following a current review of marine cargo liability being conducted by the Department of Transport. At my request the Department of Transport sought industry views earlier this year on the two amendments to the Hague Rules which currently form the basis of Australian marine cargo liability legislation, and on the possible future adoption of the Hamburg Rules, an alternative regime which is not yet expected to enter into force internationally for several years. Industry replies varied but, at the specific request of shippers I have now deferred consideration of adoption of the Protocols until the Department of Transport has prepared a report on wider issues in marine cargo liability, including a thorough examination of all the options for adopting the Hamburg Rules. The extended review is to be completed by 30 June 1987. It will assess all significant factors involved in making legislative changes to the Sea Carriage of Goods Act 1924 including the appropriateness of the Protocols and of the Hamburg Rules pending their entry into force internationally. The report will take into account the views of all interests in the industry. (Question No. 4658) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 22 September 1986: Further to question No. 2521 placed on notice on 18 November 1985: (a) have more than 10 months passed since the Question was first placed on notice; (b) have 26 Ministers already replied to a similar question; (c) when can I expect an answer to the question; and (d) what does this delay say about the efficiency of the internal reporting system in his Department. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question number 2521 appeared in Hansard of 8 October 1986, page 1708. (Question No. 4677) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 24 September 1986: (1) What percentage of the Australian consumption of nitrogenous fertiliser is supplied by Australian manufacturers. (2) Will the Government's decision to cease the consumption subsidy applying to imported fertiliser and to increase subsidy rates on locally manufactured fertiliser result in 2 domestic prices for the same product, depending on whether it was manufactured in Australia or overseas. (3) Will there be instances of a company, being both a domestic manufacturer and an importer, charging 2 different prices for the same product. (4) Did advice to remove the rebate from imported fertiliser come from his Department; if not, was his Department consulted before the decision was taken. (5) Did the Government consult with the National Farmers' Federation before the decision was taken. (6) Does the move to apply the subsidies to domestic manufacturers amount to protection for those manufacturers. (7) How will world prices for fertiliser be monitored to ensure that the rebate is passed on in full to primary producers. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Approximately 55 per cent based on 1984-85 figures. (2) and (3) There are, of course, many prices for fertiliser in Australia depending on source and distance from the production plants. However, it is not expected that the changed subsidy arrangements will lead to a two-tiered price regime within the various sectors of the market. The new arrangements will not reduce the need for competitive pricing in the fertiliser industry and in a competitive environment it is unlikely that a two-tiered price regime could be sustained. (4) The decision was taken after careful consideration of advice received from all interested Commonwealth and State Departments, and fertiliser and rural industry representatives. (5) Yes. (6) Manufacturers will receive some benefit as the expected increase in local demand will lead to increased throughput. However, manufacturers are still required to pass on the full benefit of the subsidies. In addition, the ability of farmers to obtain imports at world prices means manufacturers will still face competition from low cost imports. (7) The Government has already decided to increase the resources in the Australian Customs Service devoted to monitoring subsidy claims, and has undertaken to amend the guidelines against which proposed price increases are assessed. (Question No. 4680) Mr Cadman asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 24 September 1986: (1) Which migrant centres were to be sold as part of measures announced in the Government's economic statement of May 1985. (2) Have any centres been sold; if so, (a) what was the date of sale, (b) who was the purchaser and (c) what was the sale price in each case. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Migrant centres to be sold as part of measures announced in the Government's economic statement of May 1985 were: Cabramatta NSW * Fairy Meadow NSW * Wiltona VIC * Entire centre in each case Eastbridge VIC * Endeavour NSW * Pennington SA * Surplus vacant land (2) No. Expressions of interest have been received in respect of Cabramatta, Fairy Meadow, Eastbridge and Endeavour, and negotiations are proceeding in each case. The Wiltona migrant centre is to be advertised in October 1986 for sale by tender. Following a review of requirements by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, and proposed expansion of accommodation and facilities at Pennington Migrant Centre, surplus land is no longer available for disposal at that Centre. (Question No. 4696) Ms McHugh asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 25 September 1986: (1) What are the (a) number of person hours involved in and (b) cost of outside contract surveying and drafting services used by his Department and instrumentalities responsible to him in (i) 1984-85, (ii) 1985-86 and (iii) 1986 to date, including the Australian Survey Office and the Department of Housing and Construction. (2) Are there any instances where surveying or drafting requirements have not been satisfied due to limitations on the resources of (a) his Department or instrumentalities responsible to him or (b) the Department of Housing and Construction; if so, what are they. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The estimated number of person hours involved in, and the cost of, the use of consultant surveying and drafting services by my Department for the period in question are as follows: (a) Person Hours: Surveying Drafting 1984-85... 30,000 15,500 1985-86... 29,300 5,100 1986-87 to date... 5,460 1,771 (b) Cost Surveying Drafting Total $ $ $ 1984-85... 980,000 264,300 1,244,300 1985-86... 868,900 115,000 983,900 1986-87 to date... 200,000 30,800 230,800 The above cost figures also include funds supplied directly from clients to supplement shortages. Consultant funds used for aerial photography and photogrammetry are not included. However these were- 1984-85... $541,300 1985-86... $346,000 1986- to date ... $83,000 (2) (a) It is estimated that between 10% and 20% of the total annual work program requested by clients cannot be met due to limitations on the resources of the Australian Survey Office. (b) The Department of Housing and Construction is responsible for the staffing and funding of its drafting services. (Question No. 4721) Mr Andrew asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 7 October 1986: (1) How many person participated in the telephone surveys and other activities of the Priority One program. (2) Were the names and addresses of these persons recorded; if so, are those names and addresses still on record. (3) Were these persons followed up by any subsequent mailing or telephone call. Mr Dawkins —Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Youth Affairs-The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. The national phone-in was the only telephone survey initiated under Priority One in 1985/86. 25,931 calls were received. 2. Personal details provided by callers during the national phone-in are no longer on record. 3. Expressograms thanking callers for their participation were sent to those persons who provided personal details. Some callers were contacted to clarify aspects of the issues which they raised. (Question No. 4732) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 8 October 1986: (1) What are the details of his discussions with welfare groups concerning a new scheme to replace pensioner earning concessions. (2) Were discussions held with any other groups or individuals; if so, (a) with whom and (b) what were the details of these discussions. (3) When and where did all these discussions take place. (4) What was the total and itemised cost of these discussions. (5) Have any options been proposed; if so, (a) what are they, (b) who proposed them, (c) when were they proposed and (d) what was his response. (6) If no options have been proposed, why not. (7) Is a new scheme to replace earnings concessions ready for implementation as indicated in his news release BLH 4/86 of 4 February 1986; if so, what are the details of this new scheme and when will it be implemented. (8) If there is no new scheme, why not. (9) What is the total and itemised cost of the new scheme. (10) Will he take action regarding the details and date of implementation of this new scheme, having regard to the Government's decision to delay for a further 8 months the poverty traps relief measures passed in November 1985; if so, what are the details and timetable of implementation. (11) If he will not take action, why not. (12) How many (a) written and (b) oral complaints have been received by him and his Department over the withdrawal of earnings concessions. (13) When were the complaints received and where did they come from. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1)-(4) Discussions as to possible options to replace the earnings concession took place in Canberra and Melbourne with representatives of the Welfare Rights Centre, ACOSS, VCOSS and the National Advisory Council on Social Welfare in February and March 1986. There were no specific costs associated with these discussions. (5)-(11) Arising from these discussions an alternative approach was developed by officers of my department and was considered in the Budget context. As is normal practice, details of Budget proposals are not made public. Given current financial constraints and the consequential emphasis on assisting persons in greatest need, other Budget proposals were given priority. (12)-(13) My department's records do not permit the identification of the number of written or oral complaints received over the withdrawal of the earnings concession. I have received approximately 200 letters concerning the withdrawal of the earnings concession from members of the public since it commenced to be withdrawn from 1 November 1985. (Question No. 4747) Mr Fife asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 10 October 1986: (1) How many appeals under the hardship provisions of the assets test have been lodged since the legislation came into operation. (2) How many of these appeals have been upheld in favour of the appellant. (3) What is the average time taken from the date an appeal is lodged until a final determination is made. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Department of Social Security does not maintain records of specific categories of appeals against the assets test. However, 2,585 appeals in relation to all facets of the assets test have been lodged with the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) since 21 March 1985 when the legislation came into force, up to and including the period ending 31 August 1986. Based on statistics collected for the first year of the operation of the assets test, it is evident that approximately 70 per cent of appeals related to valuations of property; the remaining 30 per cent would have related to the hardship provisions and other matters. In the period from 21 March 1985 to 31 August 1986 inclusive, a total of 120 assets test appeals had been lodged with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). Of these, 52 cases can be regarded as including an appeal dealing with the hardship provisions. (2) From 21 March 1985 to 31 August 1986 inclusive, 594 assets test appeals to the SSAT had been conceded by the Department and a further 168 were upheld or partly upheld following a recommendation from a Social Security Appeals Tribunal. From 21 March 1985 to 31 August 1986, of the 12 assets test cases decided by the AAT, 5 cases have specifically involved the hardship provisions, 3 of these cases were affirmed in favour of the Department. (3) The average time taken to process an assets test appeal to the SSAT is 32 weeks (based on the June 1986 quarter). The average appeal time for the AAT to hear and decide a case ranges from 4 to 6 months depending upon the nature of the matter. (Question No. 4753) Mr Connolly asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Bicentenary, upon notice, on 10 October 1986: (1) How many countries have accepted official invitations to send their crew-training vessels to take part in the Tall Ships event for the Bicentennial. (2) Is he able to say how many privately owned vessels are taking part. (3) What is the itinerary for the Tall Ships event. (4) What ports have had to be omitted in the revised itinerary. (5) Have smaller port communities omitted from the itinerary campaigned to have the Tall Ships call at their ports during the Bicentennial celebrations. (6) What approaches have been made to ship owners. (7) Have any of these approaches circumvented the role of the Department of Foreign Affairs. (8) What efforts has he made to achieve a full response from nations owning sail training vessels. (9) Is there any risk of other vessels pulling out of the program if fewer ships than was expected register for the event. (10) What funds have been expended to date on arranging this event. (11) What degree of involvement has he or the Prime Minister had in inviting various nations to take part in this event. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Four countries have accepted official invitations. They are Spain, the Federal Republic of Germany, the United States of America and the United Kingdom. Several countries have indicated informally their intention to accept. Some others have deferred consideration of the invitation until next year. (2) There are five firm acceptances so far from a total of 73 registrations of interest from non-government vessels, including Australian vessels. (3) The proposed itinerary for ships approaching from the Indian Ocean is Fremantle 8-12 December 1987; Adelaide 22-26 December 1987; Melbourne 31 December 1987-5 January 1988; Hobart 10-14 January 1988; Sydney 19-26 January 1988. The proposed itinerary for ships approaching from the Pacific Ocean is Brisbane 30 December 1987-2 January 1988 or Melbourne 31 December 1987-5 January 1988; Hobart 10-14 January 1988; Sydney 19-26 January 1988. Decisions about ports of call are ultimately matters for ships' operating authorities. (4) Albany, Port Lincoln and Launceston have been omitted from the originally proposed ports of calls. (5) The community of Portland, Victoria, campaigned to have tall ships visit, but has now accepted advice from the Australian Bicentennial Authority that itineraries of vessels participating in the Tall Ships Event cannot be adjusted before 26 January 1988. Portland is now seeking, with the cooperation of the Australian Bicentennial Authority, to have one or more vessels call at the port after the Event. (6) Invitations relating to Government-owned vessels were issued through the Department of Foreign Affairs. Invitations to foreign non-Government-owned vessels were issued by the Australian Bicentennial Authority using the Sail Training Association (United Kingdom) and the American Sail Training Association mailing lists. Invitations to Australian vessels were issued through the Australian Yachting Federation and the State Sail Training Associations. (7) No. The facilities of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Australian missions abroad have been fully utilised by the Government and the Australian Bicentennial Authority in the preparations for the Tall Ships Event. (8) I have taken every opportunity to encourage participation in the Tall Ships Event in my discussions with representatives of other governments. (9) Not that I am aware. (10) $694,379.21 to 10 October 1986. (11) Invitations to 30 nations were issued on behalf of the Government. The Prime Minister has taken every opportunity to pursue the invitations in discussions with Heads of Government. (Question No. 3282) Mr Lee asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 20 February 1986: (1) Can he direct or request Telecom to provide concessions to subscribers in special need. (2) Is Telecom fully reimbursed by the Department of Social Security for all concessions and services provided to (a) pensioners or (b) persons with hearing disabilities; if not, which concessions are partially funded by Telecom. (3) Is the provision of a telephone service a necessary means of contact with emergency services and neighbours for blind persons living alone. (4) What is the cost to a blind person of installation of a telephone in their home. (5) Would he support a proposal to grant blind persons living alone free installation of a telephone. (6) Will he direct or request Telecom to waive the telephone installation fee for blind persons living alone. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based partly on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (1) I am not empowered to direct Telecom to provide such concessions. However, the Telecommunications Act at Section 12, which deals with the circumstances under which Telecom may be reimbursed by the Commonwealth because of the refusal by the Minister for Communications to approve tariff determinations, provides a power for me to notify Telecom of rental and call charges that I would be prepared to approve, and I may specify any concessional rentals and call charges that should in my opinion be provided for persons included in a specified class. This provision has never been used and it would not be an appropriate vehicle to serve the purposes outlined in part (6) of the question. It should be noted also that the provision relates only to rentals and call charges, not installation fees. (2) (a) The cost of the concession on the basic telephone rental which is available to pensioners, blind persons, war widows and sickness beneficiaries is borne by the Departments of Social Security and Veterans' Affairs (some $39.3m in 1984-85). (b) No. Telecom allows a one-third reduction in the standard rental and installation fees for miscellaneous items of telephone equipment specifically designed for use by disabled persons, for example, the gliding tone caller, volume control facility and visual signal device. It also allows a one-third reduction in the installation fees for certain other Telecom provided facilities which can be of benefit to the disabled. (3) It is recognised that the telephone provides a vital link for a wide range of disadvantaged and disabled people in the community. (4) The standard service connection fees apply, viz., $190 for a new customer, $110 for a previous customer and $30 for an in-place service. (5) and (6) As Telecom is required by its legislation to operate essentially as a business undertaking, the question of free installation charges for blind persons living alone is a matter for consideration by the Minister for Social Security. (Question No. 3952) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 7 May 1986: What amount was spent by the Minister's Department and statutory authorities under the Minister's control on the use of Commonwealth vehicles in 1984-85. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: It is not possible separately to identify costs associated with the use of Commonwealth vehicles by the Department and Statutory Authorities so the following information includes all costs associated with transporting officers and goods, such as taxis, buses, short term long term and casual vehicle hire, fuel, maintenance, parking fees, etc. $ Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment Central Office... 109,097.00 Australian Archives... 190,322.99 National Film and Sound Archive... 16,931.74 Statutory Authorities Australia Council... 115,007.00 Australian Film, Television and Radio School... 88,310.00 Australian Film Commission... 20,510.00 Australian Heritage Commission... 10,084.00 Australian National Gallery... 33,920.00 Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service... 260,029.45* Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority... 13,931.00 National Library of Australia... 27,916.55 National Museum of Australia... 43,837.22 Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region... 69,965.79 * Includes all fuel and lubricants for use in vehicles, generator, bore and sewage pumps, etc. (Question No. 4065) Mr Milton asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 23 May 1986: (1) Is it a fact that the plans drawn up by the Roxby management for the Olympic Dam mining town did not include household rainwater tanks; if so, is the decision based on the fear of possible radioactive contamination from the mine; if not, for what other reason. (2) What pressure will this decision place on the water reserves of the Great Artesian Basin and the surrounding mound springs. (3) Is he aware of reports that the Basin's water reserves have been diminishing due to excessive extraction. (4) Are these reports factual; if not, what is the cause. (5) Is he aware that the mound springs have been nominated for world heritage status and inclusion in a national park; if so, does the Government support this nomination; if not, why not. (6) What undertakings has Roxby management given in relation to the excessive use of underground water. (7) What conclusions did the environmental impact statement make in relation to the effect of the mine's operation on the Great Artesian Basin and mound springs. Mr Cohen —On the basis of advice provided by relevant South Australian authorities, the South Australian Department of Mines and Energy and South Australian Department of Environment and Planning, I am able to provide the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) I understand that household rainwater tanks were not included in the design of domestic dwellings for the mine township as the South Australian Authorities considered that: (a) unit costs of water would be high compared with reticulated supply, recognising that rainfall in the area is irregular and unreliable; (b) the water supplied via the reticulation system will be of a quality which compares favourably with supplies to other country towns in South Australia; and (c) rainwater tanks would be a potential source of contamination by bird droppings. Although tanks are not to be installed by the mining company I am not aware of any objection to employees installing their own rainwater collection systems. (2) Since scarce rainwater would only be used for domestic purposes the decision not to install rainwater tanks is unlikely to place significant additional pressure on the water resources of the Great Artesian Basin. (3) and (4) Reports that the Basin's water reserves are falling due to excessive extraction cannot be substantiated. Flows from individual wells have diminished throughout the Basin since developments commenced in the last century. The decline in flow, which is well documented, is due to the number of uncontrolled flowing wells and springs resulting in a reduction of pressure, leading to a reduction in flow. This is explained fully by M. A. Habermehl in his paper ``The Great Artesian Basin, Australia'' BMR Journal of Australian Geology and Geophysics V5 1980, 9-38. The period following the construction of a well which is allowed to flow uncontrolled, will result in a gradually diminishing pressure at the well which is reflected in a reducing flow until a new equilibrium is established. The mutual interference of a large number of uncontrolled wells results in an extended period of decline but ultimately leads to an equilibrium condition if no new wells are drilled. Habermehl's work shows that the high initial discharge in the early years of exploitation, which was caused by the release of pressure in the aquifers, gradually levelled off, and has now approached a steady state condition, in which total basin discharge is roughly balanced by recharge. It should be noted that the reduction in pressure does not significantly change the amount of water available, only the amount which will flow to the surface without pumping. I understand that late last year, the South Australian Government commenced a five year study into the water resources of the Basin. (5) The mound springs have not been nominated for the World Heritage List. Under the World Heritage Convention, nominations for areas in Australia can only be made by the Commonwealth Government. I understand that a proposal to nominate a large area of South Australia, including the mound springs and the Lake Eyre drainage basin, has recently been received by the South Australian Government. However, this has not been referred to the Commonwealth for either comment or consideration. The South Australian Government has acquired the Mount Dare Station in order to create Witchera National Park, which will include the Dal- housie mound springs. (6) Understandings relating to the use of underground water are set out in Clause 13 of the Indenture Agreement between the State of South Australia and the Roxby Joint Venturers. (7) The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) concluded that, apart from localised impacts, the mine's operation will not adversely affect the Great Artesian Basin as a water resource. It also concluded that there will be no direct physical impact on any mound spring, but that the borefield's development will reduce spring discharge as indicated in the following table, taken from the draft EIS. ESTIMATES OF REDUCTION IN SPRING DISCHARGE Spring Present head above ground level Reduction in head Reduction in discharge (m) (m) (%) Borefield A: Priscilla... 20 20 100 Gosse... 40 10 25 McLachlan... 40 10 25 Smith... 40 10 25 Hermit Hill... 30 5-10 17-33 Borefield B Davenport... 30 3 10 Wangianna... 30 3 10 Welcome... 30 3 10 The model which was used to make these predictions was based on limited hydrogeological knowledge. Further studies were carried out at the recommendation of the South Australian Department of Environment and Planning (Roxby Management Services Report ``Olympic Dam Project, Supplementary Environment Studies: Mound Springs''). The South Australian Department concluded in the report ``Assessment of the Potential Impact of Wellfield A on the Biology of Mound Springs'' that sufficient information was available to make meaningful predictions of the impact of extraction of groundwater on the mound springs and that no mound springs of conservation significance would be affected, although the reduction in biological status of some springs would mean an even greater need for conservation of mound springs throughout the arid zone. (Question No. 4163) Mr Hunt asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 29 May 1986: (1) Will the new statutory valuations for trading stock purposes applying to stud stock be implemented from 1 July 1986? (2) What will be the average percentage increase in value of stud livestock for operators in the (a) bloodstock breeding industry; (b) dairy cattle breeding industry; (c) beef cattle breeding industry; and (d) sheep breeding industry? (3) If the new valuations begin on 1 July 1986, why will there be no significant effect on Federal Government revenue until, and only during, 1988-89? (4) What additional costs incurred by the breeder will become taxable under the new rules? (5) Will the new arrangements represent an additional tax burden on breeders, or will it bring forward a tax liability which otherwise would have been incurred during the year of sale? (6) Did the Government seek the views of affected industries prior to the 15 April 1986 rural and economic statement by the Minister for Primary Industry; if so, with which industry bodies and when? (7) Has the Government sought views from the affected bodies since 15 April 1986? (8) What are the breed societies to whose members the new rules will apply? (9) Will these societies be required to submit membership lists to the Government; if so, how often will the lists be required? Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The honourable member's question relates to the proposal, announced on 15 April 1986, to take breeding costs into account in the income tax trading stock valuation of stud animals generally. As announced in the 1986-87 Budget, changes to the stock valuation arrangements are now being restricted to horse breeders and are to apply only in respect of service fees. Other animal breeders, such as sheep and cattle breeders, will not be affected. Under the revised proposal, service fees incurred after 19 August 1986 in breeding horses will be taken into account in determining their cost price for the purposes of the trading stock provisions of the income tax law. The measure does not represent the imposition of a new tax. The effect will be one of timing. A horse acquired by natural increases and on hand at the end of an income year will be taken to have a cost price not less than any service fee incurred in breeding the horse. The estimated revenue gain from the measure is $7m in 1988-89, with negligible gains in subsequent years. There will be no effect on revenue until 1988-89 because the measure will first apply to progeny born in 1987-88. Service fees taken into account in that income year will result in a gain to revenue on assessment in 1988-89. (Question No. 4487) Mr Hodges asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 16 September 1986: (1) What is the size of the Senior Executive Service (SES). (2) How many appointments have been made to the SES since March 1983. (3) What proportion of these appointments were made from outside the career public service. (4) What are the names, positions, and salaries of these outside appointees. (5) What proportion of these outside appointees are now permanent public servants. Mr Willis —The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) 1,645 as at 1 October 1986. (2) In the period 1 March 1983 to 1 October 1986 1,335 promotions and appointments were made to the former Second Division/Senior Executive Service. (3) Of the 1,335 promotions and appointments, 91 were made from outside the career public service. (4) The Public Service Board has provided details regarding the 91 outside appointees and the positions to which they were originally appointed. This information is shown in the table below. (5) As indicated in the table, all but 19 (including 14 fixed-term appointees) of the 91 appointees are now permanent public servants, although some of the more recent appointees are still subject to probation; of the 14 fixed-term appointees, 13 still hold their appointments. Name Agency and Position to which Appointment was made Level Mr E. W. Bennett... Defence Support... Finance Manager, Williamstown Naval Dockyard... 1 Mr A. W. Blewitt... Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Centre Secretary... 1 Mr G. E. Bowen... Transport... Assistant Secretary, Coastal Shipping Branch, Sea Transport Policy Division... 1 Ms J. M. Layton... Health... Assistant Director-General, Aboriginal Health Branch, Public Health Division... 1 Dr G. J. Murphy... Health... Assistant Director-General, Environmental Health Branch, Public Health Division... 1 Dr M. E. Osborne... Office of National Assessments... National Assessments Officer, South East Asia Branch... 1 Mr J. A. Pettifer... Defence Support... General Manager, Albion Explosives Factory... 1 Dr K. E. Schott... Employment and Industrial Relations... Assistant Secretary, Incomes and Prices Policy and Research Branch... 1 Mr P. N. O. Tedder... Australian War Memorial... Assistant Director, Resources Management Branch... 1 Mr E. R. Wilson... Royal Australian Mint... Manager, Services Branch... 1 Dr D. R. Hamilton... Employment and Industrial Relations... Manager, Planning and Review Branch, Planning and ADP Division, Melbourne... 1 Mr W. J. Merrilees... Employment and Industrial Relations... Assistant Director, Sectoral Studies, Bureau of Labour Market Research... 1 Dr K. J. Kennedy ... Commonwealth Schools Commission ... Assistant Director, Curriculum Development Projects Branch, Curriculum and School Development Division ... 1 Mr T. R. Rodgers ... Council on Overseas Professional Qualifications ... Executive Director ... 1 Dr F. Taylor* ... Defence ... Manager, Technical Services Branch, Williamstown Dockyard ... 1 Dr J. R. Hlubucek ... Science ... Overseas Representative, Washington ... 1 Dr M. A. Abe* ... Industries Assistance Commission ... Assistant Commissioner, Executive Branch ... 1 Mr J. F. Campbell ... Attorney General's ... Public Trustee, Community Affairs Division ... 1 Ms D. R. Suggett ... Commonwealth Schools Commission ... Assistant Director, Curriculum Projects Branch, Curriculum Development Centre ... 1 Mr B. W. Thornton ... Office of the Insurance Commissioner ... Assistant Commissioner, Development and Administration Branch ... 1 Ms S. P. Tongue ... Social Security ... Assistant Secretary, Equal Opportunity Branch, Regional Administration Division ... 1 Mr N. D. Bridger ... Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office ... Assistant Ombudsman, Melbourne ... 1 Mr R. N. Barber ... Community Services ... Assistant Secretary, Legal and Development Branch ... 1 Mr K. P. Zervos* ... Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions ... Assistant Director, Major Fraud Branch, Melbourne Office Division ... 1 Mr P. R. Crosswhite ... Australian Sports Commission ... Assistant General Manager ... 1 Ms M. M. Kellow ... ACT Health Authority ... Assistant General Manager, Nursing Services Branch, Hospital Services Division ... 1 Mr J. B. Gilchrist ... Local Government and Administrative Services ... Assistant Secretary, Strategic Planning Branch ... 1 Mr S. Kerkyasharian ... Special Broadcasting Service ... Assistant Executive Director, Ethnic Radio ... 1 Dr A. Blundell-Wignall ... Office of the Economic Planning Advisory Council ... Principal Economist ... 2 Mr J. Cowe ... Defence Support ... Production Manager, Williamstown Naval Dockyard ... 2 Mr P. T. Dillon ... Defence Support ... Programme Manager, Aerospace Division, Government Aircraft Factories ... 2 Dr M. A. Edwards ... Education and Youth Affairs ... Special Adviser, Office of Youth Affairs ... 2 Dr M. M. McKernan ... Australian War Memorial ... Assistant Director, Research and Publications Branch ... 2 Mr N. S. Reaburn ... Attorney-General's ... Senior Assistant Secretary, Law Enforcement Branch, Justice Division ... 2 Dr E. R. Reid ... Veterans' Affairs ... Director, Medical Services, WA Branch Office ... 2 Mr A. R. Begbie ... Social Security ... (resigned 1.10.86) Senior Assistant Director-General, Performance Monitoring Branch ... 2 Mr M. F. Delaney ... Public Service Board ... Assistant Commissioner, Research and Information Branch ... 2 Mr E. P. Evans* ... Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions ... Deputy Director, Brisbane ... 2 Mr H. C. Burmester ... Attorney General's ... Senior Assistant Secretary, Counsel Branch 2 ... 2 Mr G. T. Blewitt ... National Crime Authority ... Adviser (Legal) ... 2 Dr D. W. Kinsey ... Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority ... Executive Officer, Townsville ... 2 Mr W. Georgiou ... Public Service Board ... Assistant Commissioner, Functional Management Group, Management Improvement Division ... 2 Ms R. L. Galbally* ... Commission for the Future ... Director ... 2 Mr M. M. Clarke ... Health ... Assistant Secretary, Pharmaceutical Benefits Branch ... 2 Mr J. W. Templeton ... Prime Minister and Cabinet ... Assistant Secretary, Government and Legal Branch, Parliamentary and Government Division ... 2 Ms M. A. Faulkner ... Community Services ... Director, Office for the Aged ... 2 Ms J. Ellis ... Community Services ... Director, Office for Disability ... 2 Ms G. M. Biscoe... Health... Assistant Secretary, Nursing and Health Services Workforce Branch... 2 Mr H. M. Selby... Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office (resigned 30 May 1986)... Senior Assistant Ombudsman... 2 Mr M. A. Roche... Prime Minister and Cabinet... Assistant Secretary, Social Policy Branch... 2 Dr D. A. Chaikin... Attorney General's... Senior Assistant Secretary, International Branch, Criminal Law and Security Division... 2 Ms C. L. Cheah... Housing and Construction... Associate Director, Victoria/Tasmania Region... 2 Ms E. A. Delaney... Prime Minister and Cabinet... Assistant Secretary, Policy Branch, Office of the Status of Women... 2 Mr G. S. G. Grainger... Primary Industry... Assistant Secretary, Secretariat and Legal Services Branch... 2 Dr D. I. Bevege... Australian Development Assistance Bureau... Assistant Director General, South East Asia Branch... 2 Mr B. J. Knox... Family Court of Australia... Principal Registrar... 3 Mr L. C. Shaw... Special Broadcasting Service (retired 31.7.86)... First Assistant Executive Director, Corporate Affairs Division... 3 Mr R. W. Taylor... Defence Support... First Assistant Controller, Munitions Division... 3 Dr R. H. C. Wells... Health... First Assistant Director-General, Quarantine Division... 3 Ms M. P. Murnane... Social Security... Director, Office of Childcare... 3 Mr G. L. Lampe... Employment and Industrial Relations... General Manager, CES Special Groups Division, Melbourne... 3 Ms M. Y. Coleman... Social Security... Special Adviser, Social Welfare Policy Secretariat... 3 Dr G. H. Riley... Office of the Supervising Scientist... Director, Alligator Rivers Region Research Institute... 3 Brigadier M. Mackenzie-Orr... Special Minister of State... Head, Protective Services Co-ordination Centre... 3 Mr M. A. Gallagher... Local Government and Administrative Services... First Assistant Secretary, Local Government and Regional Development Division... 3 Prof. H. E. Green... Defence... Superintendent, Radar Division, Electronic Research Laboratory, Defence Research Centre... 3 Dr J. McC. Morrison*... Aviation... Director, Aviation Medicine Branch, Flight Standards Division... 3 Mr R. F. Greenwood... Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions... Deputy Director, Prosecutions Branch... 3 Brigadier J. P. A. Deighton*... National Crime Authority (retired 1.10.86)... Regional Executive Officer, Melbourne... 3 Dr D. J. Cook... Housing and Construction... Executive Director, National Building Technology Centre... 3 Ms S. G. Halley... Community Services... Director, Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service... 3 Mr M. A. Lynch... Special Minister of State... First Assistant Secretary, Executive Unit... 3 Mr M. G. Moxey*... Australian Broadcasting Tribunal... General Manager... 3 Mr B. A. Corish*... Commonwealth Schools Commission... First Assistant Commissioner, Curriculum and School Development Division... 3 Major-General A. D. Powell ... Defence Support ... Controller (Munitions) ... 4 Dr A. F. Summers ... Prime Minister and Cabinet (resigned 5.3.86) ... First Assistant Secretary, Office of the Status of Women ... 4 Dr J. S. Deeble ... Australian Institute of Health ... Director ... 4 Prof. R. M. Pegrum* ... Housing and Construction ... Director of Architecture ... 4 Mr J. A. Bissett ... Health ... First Assistant Secretary, Health Services Financing Division ... 4 Mr A. J. Bansemer ... Health ... First Assistant Secretary, Health Services Financing Division ... 4 Mr R. G. Sims ... Prime Minister and Cabinet ... First Assistant Secretary, Trade and Industries Division ... 4 Dr A. L. Elek ... Office of the Economic Planning Advisory Council ... Chief Economist ... 4 Dr P. T. McCawley* ... Australian Development Assistance Bureau ... Deputy Director General Policy, Planning and Management Division ... 4 Mr A. J. Hicks* ... ACT Health Authority ... Deputy General Manager, Hospital Services Division ... 4 Ms S. M. Brooks ... Prime Minister and Cabinet... First Assistant Secretary, Office of the Status of Women ... 4 Mr J. A. Hoggett ... Prime Minister and Cabinet... First Assistant Secretary, Economic and Social Policy Divison ... 4 Mr D. A. Shand* ... Finance ... First Assistant Secretary, Financial Management and Accounting Policy Divison ... 4 Dr R. B. Dun ... Australian Development Assistance Bureau ... Director ... 5 Mr E. P. Willmot ... Aboriginal Affairs ... Deputy Secretary ... 5 Mr P. H. Clark ... Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (resigned 3.1.86)... Senior Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions ... 6 Mr R. C. Webster* ... Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions ... First Deputy Director, Executive Branch, Head Office Division ... 6 * Denotes appointment on a fixed-term. CURRENT SALARY LEVELS Effective 10.7.1986 $ Level 1 ... 48,867 Level 2 ... 53,632 Level 3 ... 58,398 Level 4 ... 63,164 Level 5 ... 67,930 Level 6 ... 72,695 (Question No. 4493) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 16 September 1986: (1) What is the average total cost, including labour and travel, of the installation by his Department of a power point in a Department of Defence home. (2) Does his Department use private contractors for this purpose. (3) If not, why not. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The cost, including labour and travel, of the installation by my Department of a power point in an existing Department of Defence home will depend on the age and condition of the house, the nature of its electrical wiring and the location of the switch and can vary from $50 to an amount in excess of $150 if cable upgrading is required. The average cost of a power point in a new Defence home is in the order of $30. (2) Yes. (3) See (2) above. (Question No. 4561) Mr Lloyd asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 16 September 1986: (1) Does sales tax apply to road construction equipment; if so, (a) since when and (b) at what rate. (2) Are there provisions for exemption from the tax; if so (a) what are they, (b) how many applications for exemptions have been received, (c) how many have been successful and (d) how many have been unsuccessful and for what reasons. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Road construction equipment has been subject to sales tax since 1 January 1983 at the following rates- 1 January 1983 to 19 September 1985, 7.5%. 20 September 1985 to 19 August 1986, 10.0%. From 20 August 1986, 20.0%. (2) Exemption from sales tax is available in respect of road construction equipment for use by government departments and authorities and local councils. Road construction equipment for use by private contractors exclusively, or primarily and principally, in carrying out contracts for government departments and authorities, local councils and fire brigades is also exempt from sales tax. The Australian Taxation Office does not collect stat- istics on the number of successful exemption claims or the number of exemption claims rejected. (Question No. 4668) Mr MacKellar asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 22 September 1986: (1) When was the Australian Public Service Senior Executive Service Fellowship Program introduced. (2) How many awards have been made in each year since its inception. (3) What has been the total expenditure on fellowships in each year of the scheme. (4) What were the (a) names, (b) designations, (c) departments, (d) countries to be visited and (e) estimated costs in respect of each awardee in 1986-87. (5) Does the program enable awardees to be accompanied by their spouse or partner; if so, (a) are any of the spouse's or partner's travel or personal costs met by the fellowship and (b) how many 1986-87 awardees were, or are to be, accompanied by their spouse or partner. Mr Willis —The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The Senior Executive Fellowship program was introduced in September 1983. The outcome of the first annual round of applications was announced in March 1984. (2) The number of Fellowships awarded for each year since the program's inception has been as follows: nineteen for 1984-85 (one Fellowship holder later withdrew); twenty-two for 1985-86 (one Fellowship holder later withdrew); and eleven for 1986-87. (3) The total expenditure on Fellowships awarded for the first two years of the program was: $455,482 for the eighteen 1984-85 Fellowships taken up; and $595,810 for twenty of the twenty-one 1985-86 Fellowships taken up (NB one has yet to be acquitted). Estimated costs of 1986-87 Fellowships add up to a total of $347,908. (4) The table below provides details of the following kinds regarding each 1986-87 Fellowship holder: (a) name; (b) designation at time of award being made; (c) department; (d) countries to be visited; and (e) estimated costs. (5) The program enables Fellowship holders to be accompanied by their de jure spouses at official expense under the provisions of and subject to the criteria set out in Overseas Determination No. 136 of 1982. This Determination applies to any short term overseas visit, not just to Fellowships. (a) Where spouse accompaniment at official expense is approved, the Fellowship holder's department meets costs of fares and the difference between single and double accommodation rates; (b) Of the eleven 1986-87 Fellowship holders, six have either taken or indicated they plan to take their spouses at official expense. The following officers have been awarded 1986-87 Senior Executive Fellowships. (a) Name (b) Designation (c) Department (d) Countries to be visited (e) Estimated costs ($) 1. Mr P. N. Atcherley Deputy Secretary, Level 5 Defence (ACT) Canada UK USA 35,000 2. Mr J. B. Bowdler State Director, Level 3 Employment and Industrial Relations (NSW) Canada USA 18,341 3. Mr M. A. Cranswick First Assistant Secretary, Level 4 Attorney General's (ACT) UK USA 25,961 4. Mr J. R. Ford Australian Government Actuary, Level 4 Treasury (ACT) Canada France New Zealand Sweden UK USA West Germany 35,752 5. Mr J. P. Forestier First Assistant Secretary, Level 3 Science (ACT) Canda France Hong Kong Sweden UK USA West Germany 28,000 6. Mr G. J. Fraser First Assistant Secretary, Level 3 Territories (ACT) Canada Europe (countries not yet confirmed) UK USA 35,000 7. Mr J. D. Moore Deputy Secretary, Level 6 Treasury (ACT) Canada USA 31,210 8. Mr J. B. C. Preiss First Assistant Commissioner, Level 4 Public Service Board (ACT) Denmark Ireland Italy Japan Sweden West Germany Yugoslavia 28,500 9. Dr A. D. Richards Assistant Secretary, Level 2 Housing and Construction (ACT) Canada Denmark Sweden UK USA West Germany 36,774 10. Ms M. J. Scott Assistant Secretary, Level 2 Community Services (ACT) Austria Denmark France Italy Netherlands Sweden UK West Germany 36,370 11. Mr P. B. Westerway First Assistant Secretary, Level 3 Communications (ACT) Canada France Italy Japan Switzerland UK USA West Germany 37,000 (Question No. 4672) Mr Langmore asked the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 23 September 1986: What have been the results of government policy within the ACT in relation to the: (a) Number of new jobs created, and the percentage increase in employment; (b) Unemployment rate; (c) Number of home building sites developed; (d) Number of houses built; (e) Number and type of public houses built; and (f) Number and percentage increase in child care places since 5 March 1983. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) 24,000 new jobs have been created since March 1983 in the ACT, which is a 22.7 per cent increase. (b) The unemployment rate has dropped from 8.3 per cent in March 1983 to 3.7 per cent in August 1986. (c) The number of home building sites developed in the ACT since March 1983 was 11,339 comprising 9,744 single block sites and 1,595 multi-unit sites. (d) The total number of houses completed between March 1983 and August 1986 was 5,770. (e) The number and type of public houses completed in the period 5 March 1983 to 30 September 1986: 1 Bedroom aged person unit... 132 2 Bedroom aged person unit... 31 2 Bedroom house... 199 3 Bedroom house... 1,027 4 Bedroom house... 67 5 Bedroom house... 2 6 Bedroom house... 10 8 + Bedroom house... 5 Total... 1,473 (f) Government funded child care places in the ACT are as follows: March 1983-2,546, October 1986-3,546. This is an increase of 39 per cent. (Question No. 4689) Ms McHugh asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 25 September 1986: (1) What was the (a) number of person hours involved in and (b) cost of outside contract surveying and drafting services used by his Department and instrumentalities responsible to him in (i) 1984-85, (ii) 1985-86 and (iii) 1986 to date, including work contracted out to the Australian Survey office and the Department of Housing and Construction. (2) Are there any instances where surveying or drafting requirements have not been satisfied due to limitations on the resources of (a) his Department or instrumentalities responsible to him, (b) the Australian Survey Office or (c) the Department of Housing and Construction; if so, what are they. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) (i) 1,226 hours, (ii) 758 hours, (iii) 1,946 hours. (b) (i) $13,709, (ii) $11,510, (iii) $45,233. (2) (a) No. (b) The Australian Survey Office is responsible for the staffing and funding of its surveying services. (c) The Department of Housing and Construction is responsible for the staffing and funding of its drafting services. (Question No. 4715) Mr Tickner asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 7 October 1986: Did the Government establish an inter-departmental committee to inquire into the compensation of a group of Australian prisoners of war imprisoned in Nazi concentration camps during World War II; if so, (a) when was it established, (b) when did it report to the Government, (c) what were its recommendations and (d) what action has the Government taken as a result of its recommendations. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Late in 1984 the Government established an inter-departmental committee to examine claims by Australian prisoners-of-war interned German concentration camps during World War II. (a) the committee held its first meeting on 21 February 1985; (b) the committee reported to the Minister for Foreign Affairs in April 1986; (c) and (d) Ministers are currently considering the report of the committee. (Question No. 4773) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 16 October 1986: (1) Why is there no estimate for cost recovery for the Trade Commissioner Service and trade promotion for 1986-87 shown at page 278 of Budget Paper No. 6? (2) Has consideration been given to the abandonment of cost recovery? Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Trade Commissioner Service and the overseas trade promotion program were incorporated into the activities of the Australian Trade Commission (Austrade) when that organisation commenced operations in January of this year. The Cost Recovery estimate for 1986-87 ($5 million) is included in the Revenue Estimates for Austrade shown on page 283 of the Budget Paper No. 6. (2) Cost Recovery remains an integral part of the activities of the Australian Trade Commission. (Question No. 4810) Mr Shack asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 17 October 1986: (1) Is the vessel the `Cape Don' due in Fremantle shortly to undergo refurbishment; if so, what will be the cost of the refurbishment. (2) Is the vessel to be involved in the America's Cup proceedings in any way; if so, what is the nature of the involvement. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) `Cape Don' is expected to arrive in Fremantle on 29 October 1986 for Statutory Annual Surveys (Machinery, Equipment and Loadline), planned maintenance and general voyage repairs. The estimated cost of this work is $80,000. This work is expected to be completed on 20 November 1986. The `Cape Don' will then undertake an itinerary of servicing marine navigation aids in Western Australia finishing in Fremantle on 23 December 1986. The vessel will reposition to South Australia 23/29 December to undertake servicing work for marine navigation aids in South Eastern States. (2) No. (Question No. 464) Mr Langmore asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 26 March 1985: What categories of consumer goods and services are not covered by sales tax or excise taxes. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The major categories of consumer goods and services that are not subject to sales tax or excise duty are basic foodstuffs, drugs and medicines, most building materials, clothing, footwear, books and virtually all services. (Question No. 632) Mr Lloyd asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 16 April 1985: (1) Has his attention been drawn to proposals by Confectionery Manufacturers of Australia Ltd concerning sales tax anomalies between confectionery and snack foods. (2) Will these proposals be included in considerations of a broadly based consumption tax. (3) If such a tax is introduced will he consider reducing the current 20% sales tax on confectionery to that level. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) and (3) The proposal for a broad based consumption tax, as set out in Approach C of the draft White Paper, Reform of the Australian Tax System, would have removed anomalies arising from the taxation of confectionery at 20 per cent and the exemption of food items under the wholesale sales tax. The proposal envisaged the application of a uniform rate of retail sales tax to goods and services generally, including confectionery and snack foods, and the abolition of the wholesale sales tax. The reform of the wholesale sales tax, announced on 19 September 1985, addressed the discrimination between confectionery and snack foods under the wholesale sales tax by reducing the tax rate on confectionery to 10 per cent and introducing tax at 10 per cent on a range of snack food items. (Question No. 1564) Mr Jacobi asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 August 1985: Has he considered proposals that trusts be taxed in a similar manner to companies, that is by source, making the trustee liable for the tax; if so, would this method result in (a) tax on income derived in Australia falling on the trustee, (b) manipulations involving the use of offshore tax havens and overseas beneficiaries being obviated and (c) income tax splitting schemes being eliminated. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Yes. The question of taxing trusts on the same basis as companies was addressed in the Government's draft White Paper on Taxation of June 1985 and in my Statement to Parliament on 19 September 1985 on Reform of the Australian Taxation System. The introduction of the full imputation system of company taxation from 1 July 1987 will reduce, for most investors, the incentive to use trusts. In addition, legislation was enacted in late 1985 to extend company tax arrangements to those public unit trusts which operate a trade or business. With regard to the specific issues raised: (a) Yes. The income of the relevant trusts would be taxed in the hands of the trustees at the company tax rate. (b) This matter is not relevant, since the income tax law already contains measures that impose on trustees of resident trust estates the primary liability for the payment of tax on trust income to which a beneficiary who is a non-resident is presently entitled. In these cases the beneficiary is also liable to be assessed on the distribution and is entitled in his or her assessment to credit for the tax paid by the trustee in respect of the relevant distributions. (c) No. The taxing of trusts in a similar manner to companies is not considered to be an appropriate response to income splitting practices, particularly, in the light of the introduction of imputation. However, the proposed reductions in marginal rates of income tax and the recent strengthening of the Division 6aa provisions (relating to taxation of the unearned income of unmarried minors) can be expected to ameliorate the problem. (Question No. 2255) Mr Maher asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 17 October 1985: What was the (a) volume and (b) value of each item (i) exported to (ii) imported from Sri Lanka in 1984-85. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Due to the bulk of the statistical information sought, I have conveyed it directly to the honourable member. It can be made available to any other interested member by my Department. (Question No. 3270) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 12 March 1986: (1) Does his Department distinguish for purposes of strategic analysis between a capability and the intention to use that capability; if not, why not. (2) Is a nuclear weapons delivery system with hard target kill capability a necessary, if not sufficient, condition for the acquisition of a first strike capability. (3) Is he able to say whether the Annual Report to Congress for FY 85 of US Defense Secretary Weinberger stated that the TRIDENT II (D-5) missile system is being developed and deployed to provide a sea-based capability to destroy hard targets. (4) Is he able to say whether (a) the D-5 is to be retrofitted to certain existing US SSBN as well as to purpose-built boats, (b) the initial operational capability of the D-5 is scheduled for 1989 and (c) the D-5 program is intended to develop to the point where the US will have, by 1998, some 734 TRIDENT II missiles, each with between 10 and 15 MIRV warheads. (5) Is the availability of more than 7000 D-5 warheads a significant addition to the first-strike capability of the USA; if not, why not. (6) Is it a function of the US base at North West Cape to provide communication for the US Navy's most powerful deterrent force, the nuclear powered ballistic submarine. (7) Does the communication function include the relay of operational and other instructions to US SSBN; if not, when was this relay function abandoned. (8) Will D-5 equipped SSBN continue to require C3 support from the US VLF net including North West Cape; if not, why not. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) The acquisition of a nuclear weapons delivery system with a hard target kill capability would be a necessary but not a sufficient condition in the acquisition of a first strike capability. I refer the honourable member to page 2077 of the Senate Hansard of 13 November 1985 which addresses in more detail the conditions that would be necessary to carry out a first strike. It should also be borne in mind that US leaders, including President Reagan and Secretary of Defense Weinberger, have repeatedly emphasised that US strategy is purely defensive and that a `first strike' by the US has been ruled out. (3) Yes. (4) (a) The Government understands that the US does plan to retrofit the first eight TRIDENT SSBNs, now at sea, with the D-5 missile at a later date, and to deploy the D-5 missile in the subsequent boats in the series. (b) Yes. (c) The ultimate extent of the TRIDENT II program remains subject to Congressional consideration. The Government understands that the United States Navy is assuming, for planning purposes, that it will have a force of 20 TRIDENT boats by the end of the 1990s which will carry a total of 480 D-5 missiles. Additional missiles may be procured for replacement and testing purposes over the expected operational life of the missile. The Government does not believe the D-5 will exceed the SALT II limit of 14 warheads; a maximum of 12 has been referred to in US press reports. (5) The US does not have a `first strike' capability vis-a-vis the USSR. The D-5 program will add to US hard target kill capability but will not give it an ability to conduct a successful `first strike'. (6), (7) and (8) There is no `US base' at North West Cape. The Naval Communication Station at North West Cape became a jointly operated facility in 1974 following agreement between the then Minister for Defence, Mr Barnard and the then US Secretary for Defense, Dr Schlesinger. The purpose of the Naval Communication Station at North West Cape as defined in the 1963 Agreement between Australia and the US relating to the Station, is `defence communication'. The function of the Station is to relay communications for ships and submarines of the United States Navy and the Royal Australian Navy. The Station was established to enable Very Low Frequency (VLF) communications to be received reliably by allied submarines operating in the Indian Ocean and the Western Pacific, and to enable High Frequency (HF) communications to be received reliably by allied naval vessels operating in the nearer areas of the Indian Ocean and in the South East Asia. These roles have not changed. While the US submarine force receives communications through a range of systems, the US VLF communications network is still the primary means of communicating with submerged USN submarines. The US continues to develop the VLF network with new VLF stations-most recently with a station in Puerto Rico-while also improving its other communication systems. The US is continuing to improve its Low Frequency (LF) network, and is now in the early stages of establishing an Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) system to communicate with submerged submarines. The ELF system will consist of two transmitter sites, in the states of Wisconsin and Michigan in the US, which will operate in synchronisation. It is expected to be fully operational in 1988 and will allow reliable communication to submarines too deeply submerged to allow reliable VLF communications, albeit with a slower message rate. The US is also improving the TACAMO airborne VLF relay system it uses as a backup to the fixed-site network. At present the TACAMO system uses EC-130 aircraft but from 1989 it will increasingly be based on faster and longer ranged E-6A aircraft. US submarines also use satellite communications systems and the satellites employed are being improved also, although using these systems involves greater exposure of the submarine than do VLF systems and consequently a higher risk of detection. The US has also conducted research on using lasers to communicate with submerged submarines but an operational system is not yet possible. The US plans to base all its OHIO class `TRIDENT' SSBNs only in the continental US. The longer range of the TRIDENT missiles will enable them to cover targets in the USSR without needing to make lengthy transits to patrol areas (unlike the old Polaris SSBNs, some of which were based in Guam). The longer range of the TRIDENT missiles also gives the US the option of operating its SSBNs effectively over considerably wider areas of the world's oceans than it was previously able. In view of the strategic importance of maintaining the security of the US SSBN force, and the advantages of VLF communications for this purpose, these vessels will continue to rely on the US VLF network, of which the Station at North West Cape forms part. The Station could be expected to be used to relay communications to SSBNs if they were operating in its area of reliable VLF coverage. (Question No. 3369) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 13 March 1986: (1) Did he issue a public statement on 9 February 1986 to the effect that it was the Government's policy to provide as much information as possible about the joint Australia-US defence facilities; if so, has the Government officially made available to Members of the Australian Parliament all information about the joint facilities which (a) is available on request to any US Senator or Member of the House of Representatives and (b) has been issued by the US Government to US Senators and Members. (2) If the information has not been made available will he ensure that it is available within 30 days of 13 March 1986; if not why not. (3) What is the title of each document available to US Senators and Members and (a) when and (b) where is it available to Australian Senators and Members. (4) If any documents are not available to Australian Members of Parliament (a) why not and (b) which documents. (5) Are all documents pertaining to the joint facilities which are available to citizens of the USA under US freedom of information legislation also available to citizens of Australia; if so (a) when and (b) where are the documents available. (6) If all documents are not available to Australian citizens (a) which documents or classes of documents are not available and (b) why not. (7) Will he take immediate steps to ensure that these documents are available to Australians; if so, when and if not, why not. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) On 18 February 1986, I announced the release of official photography of the Joint Defence Space Research Facility (JDSRF) at Pine Gap ``in order to give the public a clearer idea of the physical appearance of JDSRF Pine Gap''. This was in accordance with the Government's policy of providing as much information as possible about the joint facilities without detriment to the operations of the facilities. It is not practicable to identify all unclassified information concerning the facilities which has been or could be made available in both the US or Australia in response to requests under, or outside, freedom of information legislation. However, members of the Australian Parliament whose responsibilities so require are fully briefed on all aspects of the joint defence facilities. (2) to (4) See the answer to (1) above. (5) to (7) Public access to Australian Government documents on the joint defence facilities may be granted under the provisions of the Australian Freedom of Information Act. US documents are subject to the provisions of US legislation. I understand that under the US freedom of information legislation, public access may be granted to US citizens or non-US citizens, resident and non-resident alike. However, many of the documents on the joint facilities are classified for national security reasons and are unlikely to be made available publicly in either country. (Question No. 3378) Mr Braithwaite asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 13 March 1986: What is his Department's estimate of the amount by which the (a) Australian dollar and (b) interest rates would fall if the Government eased its tight monetary policy. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: It is inappropriate for Treasurers to comment specifically on expected or hypothetical movements in exchange rates or interest rates. I do not propose to depart from that approach. (Question No. 3705) Mr Jacobi asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 9 April 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to comments by the Director of Public Prosecutions in his annual report for 1984-85 that (a) penalties for defrauding the Commonwealth are still inadequate in spite of amendments in the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 2) 1984, (b) section 10 of the Crimes Act dealing with search warrants is in the need of substantial revision and the matter should be addressed by legislative amendments, (c) the problems for investigators obtaining the documentation necessary to sustain a prosecution when in many cases it had been destroyed by banks has not been resolved and (d) the situation where persons targeted for investigation and subsequent prosecution for company stripping activities spanning various States and Territories creates significant difficulties in terms of extradition which is an anomalous situation in a federal system dealing with federal offenders and continues to cause real difficulties in the major fraud area in particular. (2) What action will he take in response to each of the problems outlined by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) (a) In Schedule 1 of the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) (No. 1) Act 1986 which was passed by the Parliament in the Autumn Sittings the penalties provided in sections 29D and 86A of the Crimes Act 1914 were substantially increased as was the penalty provided in sub-section 9 (1) of the Crimes (Taxation Offices) Act 1980. The new penalties apply to offences committed after 24 June 1986. (b) The amendment of section 10 of the Crimes Act 1914, which deals with search warrants is to be considered in the context of the Criminal Investigation Bill. However, Police will be given additional powers under the proposed proceeds of crime legislation to trace assets and follow the money trail. (c) The Costigan Royal Commission has made a number of recommendations in relation to banking matters including the recommendation that most banking records be retained by banks for a minimum period of 7 years. These recommendations have been adopted by the Government as part of the drive to attack the proceeds of crime. (d) I will await the outcome of the reference to the Australian Law Reform Commission to review the operation of the Service and Execution of Process Act 1901 before deciding what action should be taken. (Question No. 3888) Mr Wright asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 May 1986: (1) Is it a fact that an aged pensioner who earns in excess of $1000 from interest on savings over and above the age pension is required to pay provisional tax. (2) When was this law introduced. (3) In view of the changing interest earning capacity of many aged Australians due to higher interest rates will he have the present law reviewed with a view to having the $1000 limit increased to at least $2000. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Provisional tax is generally payable by any taxpayer whose taxable income is high enough for tax to be payable and whose level of non salary and wage or pension income, such as interest on savings, exceeds $999. (2) The provisional tax system was introduced in 1944. It is designed to collect tax from individuals with non salary and wage income on a basis consistent with the pay-as-you-earn arrangements applied to salary and wage income, that is, to collect tax on income in the year of income in which it is derived. However, where assessable income includes salary and wages, pensions and incomes from other sources, the law provides the Commissioner of Taxation with a degree of flexibility in determining the amount of provisional tax payable. It is his practice, having regard not only to administrative considerations, but also to the revenue and general taxation consequences, not to collect provisional tax from taxpayers with non-salary and wage income below $1000. Under the discretion conferred on the Commissioner special administrative rules are also developed each year for age pensioners in calculating their provisional tax liability which results in their generally paying less provisional tax than would otherwise be the case. (3) The provisional tax threshold was increased to $1000 in 1979. In considering changes to the threshold it is necessary to weigh the administrative advantages of raising the threshold against the short-term budgetary cost and the need to observe the principles of the pay-as-you-earn system. It should also be borne in mind that an increase in the $1,000 threshold would not reduce the total tax payable by persons who would otherwise be subject to provisional tax but simply defer that liability until the next financial year. Nevertheless the honourable member may be assured that his proposal to increase the limit to $2000 has been noted. (Question No. 3971) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 8 May 1986: (1) Is a nuclear weapons delivery system with hard target capability a necessary, if not sufficient, condition for the acquisition of a first strike capability. (2) Is he able to say whether the new Soviet DELTA IV Class SSBN (nuclear powered ballistic submarine) will be fitted with 16 missile tubes containing the new SS-NX-23 SLBM (submarine launched ballistic missile). (3) Is he able to say whether the new SS-NX-23 SLBM (a) will have the capacity to carry up to 10 MIRVs (multiple independently targeted re-entry vehicles) and (b) is now being flight-tested and nearing operational status. (4) Is he able to say whether the Soviet Union is developing a modified version of the SS-N-20 SLBM, carrying between 6 and 9 MIRVs, with a range of 8300 kilometres, which will be carried by the TYPHOON Class SSBNs fitted with 20 missile tubes. (5) Is he able to say whether the modified SS-N-20 and SS-N-23 are likely to be more accurate than their predecessors and provide a hard target capability for Soviet SLBMs. (6) Would the availability of a large number of modern, accurate SLBMs with a hard target capability be a significant addition to the first strike ability of the Soviet Union; if not, why not. (7) Is he able to say whether the Soviet naval base facilities at Cam Ranh Bay include communication facilities capable of transmitting VLF or ELF communications signals to the Soviet SSBN fleet. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The acquisition of a nuclear weapons delivery system with a hard target kill capability would be a necessary but not sufficient condition for the acquisition of a first strike capability. I refer the honourable member to page 2077 of the Senate Hansard of 13 November 1985 which addresses in more detail the conditions that would be necessary to carry out a first strike. It is most unlikely that these conditions could be satisfied in the foreseeable future by either superpower. (2) It is anticipated that the DELTA IV SSBN's 16 missile tubes will contain the new SS-NX-23 SLBM. (3) (a) It is likely that the SS-NX-23 SLBM will have the capacity to carry up to 10 MIRVs. (b) The SS-NX-23 is now being flight tested. I am not able to say whether it is nearing operational status. (4) It is not clear whether this is the case but Soviet practice suggests that the USSR probably will develop a modified version of the SS-N-20. (5) Modified versions of missiles are likely to be more accurate than their predecessors. Soviet SLBMs are not expected to have an effective hard target kill capability in the next generation of missiles unless terminal guidance systems are deployed. (6) See answer to part (1) above. While the Soviet Union already has enough nuclear weapons to destroy-in theory-nearly all US hard targets in a `first strike', and the availability of a large number of SLBMs with a hard target capability would add to this theoretical capability, it does not have the ability to achieve either complete surprise or the destruction of US retaliatory forces. The Soviet Union does not have, therefore, a `first strike capability'. Adding yet further to this hard target kill capability would not give the USSR the ability to conduct a successful `first strike'. (7) I have no evidence that the Soviet communications facilities at Cam Rahn Bay have such capabilities. (Question No. 4281) Mr Carlton asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 5 June 1986: Is he able to say what are the most recent estimates of the debt servicing ratios, as defined on page 66 of the 1985-86 Budget Paper No. 1, for (a) 1975 to 1985 inclusive and (b) 1974-75 to 1984-85 inclusive for (i) Australia, (ii) the USA, (iii) the UK, (iv) France, (v) Italy, (vi) Canada, (vii) New Zealand, (viii) West Germany, and (ix) Japan. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Strictly comparable data on debt servicing ratios of the particular countries and time periods referred to are not readily available. However, Morgan Guaranty recently published a paper entitled Morgan International Data June 1986 which attempts to report debt servicing statistics on a uniform and comprehensive basis for the calendar year 1985. The following table has been prepared from this information: DEBT SERVICING AS PROPORTION OF EXPORTS OF GOODS AND SERVICES-1985 Interest only Interest and Capital % % Australia... 14.1 33.9 United States... 15.8 28.0 United Kingdom ... 21.4 25.5 France... 6.0 9.8 Italy... 7.4 13.3 Canada... 12.3 16.7 New Zealand... 10.7 23.6 West Germany... 4.2 10.4 Japan... 6.6 9.2 (Question No. 4343) Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: Is he able to say in which countries Cuban troops are stationed. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: According to information available to the Government there are Cuban soldiers in troop formations in Angola and Ethiopia and Cuban military advisers in Nicaragua, Chad, Guinea Bissau, Mozambique, Tanzania and Sao Tome and Principe. In Nicaragua a number of the Cuban military advisers appear to have combat roles. (Question No. 4344) Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: (1) Is he able to say how many underground nuclear tests were carried out by (a) the USA and (b) the USSR in (i) 1982, (ii) 1983, and (iii) 1984. (2) When did the USSR announce a moratorium on nuclear testing in 1985. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) While the US announces most of its underground nuclear tests, the USSR rarely announces its tests. Publicly available estimates are based on the interpretation of seismic events detected by seismic monitoring systems, and it is difficult to discriminate between underground conventional explosions, small earthquakes, and very low yield nuclear tests. Consequently misidentification is possible. With the above in mind it is not possible to give an unqualified answer. However my Department considers the estimates given in the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute Year Book for 1985 to be reasonably accurate and as such they are reproduced below: (a) US, (i) 18, (ii) 15, (iii) 15. (b) USSR, (i) 31, (ii) 27, (iii) 27. (2) Pravda of 30 July 1985 carried a statement by Mr Gorbachev announcing a decision ``to unilaterally end any nuclear explosions as of 6 August this year''. (Question No. 4361) Mr Everingham asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) Is he responsible for the administration of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. (2) When did the area that was once known as Wagait Reserve become Aboriginal land. (3) Is there a responsibility upon the Northern Land Council to compile and maintain a register setting out the names of persons who, in the opinion of the Council, are the traditional Aboriginal owners of Aboriginal land in the area of the Land Council. (4) Has the Council done this in respect of the land that was once known as the Wagait Reserve. (5) What are the names of the traditional owners. (6) Is the name of Mrs P Henwood amongst them. (7) If not, has her claim to traditional ownership been handled in accordance with s.25 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act to his satisfaction. (8) Does he have any objections to her undertaking mining exploration on her traditional land. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. However it should be realised that Land Councils are Statutory Authorities and that my direct control over them is limited to matters specified in the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (the Act). (2) 6 September 1978. (3) Yes. (4) No-No complete register of traditional owners has been compiled by any of the three Land Councils. Following the review of the Act by Mr Justice Toohey in 1983 he recommended in the light of the difficulties in compiling a register that the requirement for a register be made optional. The Act is being amended to implement that recommendation. (5) and (6) No complete register of traditional owners has been compiled. (7) The Northern Land Council has taken steps, in accordance with s.25 of the Act, to resolve the dispute over land ownership through conciliation. These measures were unsuccessful and I am informed that the Full Council of the Northern Land Council at its meeting of 15 and 16 October determined that the Kungarakany and Warai people are the traditional owners of the eastern portion of Wagait which is the area under dispute. I understand the determination may be challenged in the courts. (8) Under paragraph 40 (1) (a) of the Act the Minister and the Land Council are required to consent to the grant of a mining interest on Aboriginal land. I have not yet seen any proposal from the Northern Land Council seeking my consent to the grant of a mining interest to Mrs Henwood. (Question No. 4409) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) Is he able to say whether a former member of both the African National Congress (ANC) National Executive Committee and of the Central Committee of the South African Communist Party, Mr. B. Hlapane, testified before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism in 1982 that all funds for ANC military operations came through the South African Communist Party. (2) Is he able to say whether the magazine of the African National Congress, Sechaba, is printed in East Germany. (3) Is he able to say whether ANC President Oliver Tambo told the ANC National Consultative Committee in June 1985 that the democratic, anti-feudal and anti-imperialist revolution in Afghanistan has been saved with the support of the Soviet Union. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The record of the hearings of the United States Senate Subcommmittee on Security and Terrorism held in March 1982 shows that Mr B. Hlapane, who described himself as a former member of both the ANC National Executive Committee and the Central Committee of the South African Communist Party, did testify that all funds for the military wing of the ANC were obtained from the South African Communist Party. (2) Sechaba, the magazine of the African National Congress, is printed in the German Democratic Republic and published in Zambia. Each issue of the magazine contains printing and publishing details. (3) I am not in a position to confirm whether or not the President of the ANC made a specific reference to Soviet involvement in Afghanistan in the terms attributed to him by the honourable member. (Question No. 4422) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: What was the total number of immigrants from Afghanistan in the years 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1985. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The following table sets out settler arrivals from Afghanistan (country of last residence and country of birth) for the years 1979-80 to 1984-85. 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 Country of residence... 3 8 37 24 31 87 Country of birth... 8 31 68 99 101 239 (Question No. 4457) Mr Reith asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 21 August 1986: (1) Has he re-examined the contract with Scribe Pty. Limited, the nominee company of Mr David Solomon, for media consultancy services for the Constitutional Commission. (2) Has he received advice that the contract is in conflict with rulings of the Commissioner for Taxation; and if so, which rulings. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. (2) No. (Question No. 4461) Mr Reith asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 21 August 1986: How many submissions has the Constitutional Commission received on proposals for reform of the Constitution. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: As at 31 October 1986, the Commission had received 430 written and 150 oral submissions from individuals and groups. Many others have indicated they will be lodging submissions shortly. The Commission will continue to receive submissions probably until the end of 1987. (Question No. 4470) Mr Andrew asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 22 August 1986: (1) Will the increase of sales tax on alcoholic wine decrease effective protection of Australian wine. (2) If so, does this conform with the Government's policy of encouraging the purchase of Australian products. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The protective tariff levied on imported wine consists of an ad valorem customs duty equivalent to a discriminatory wholesale sales tax at a rate of 10 per cent plus a specific rate customs duty, ranging from 25 cents to 70 cents per litre depending on the product. These arrangements were not changed in the 1986-87 Budget. The Budget measure increased the rate of wholesale sales tax on both Australian and imported alcoholic wine from 10 per cent to 20 per cent. In the case of imported wine, the value for wholesale sales tax purposes is inclusive of customs duties. Accordingly, there is no apparent reason to expect the relative price of imported to Australian wine, or the level of effective protection for Australian wine, to have been affected by the Budget measure. (2) The Budget measure applied neutrally to domestically produced and imported products. It was a measure designed to improve the fairness of indirect taxation of alcoholic beverages and to raise revenue. Australia's GATT obligations preclude any additional sales tax discrimination against imported wine. It might be noted that the Australian wine industry, like export and import-competing industries generally, is benefiting from the recent substantial real depreciation of the Australian dollar. (Question No. 4503) Mr Everingham asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 16 September 1986: (1) Why will it be necessary to close the south-eastern section of Kakadu National Park to aircraft operating below a specified altitude as stated in paragraph 9.2.3 of the Kakadu National Park Plan of Management. (2) Will general aviation interests be consulted in relation to the proposal. (3) Will the Darwin Aero Club be invited to make its views known to the Government on the proposal. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Kakadu National Plan of Management states that: `In consultation with air tour operators and other appropriate individuals and organisations measures will be considered to minimise the impact of air traffic on the Park environment, especially that associated with regular air tours in order to protect the integrity of areas with special natural and cultural values, to protect the amenity of living areas such as Aboriginal outstations or to ensure effective implementation of Park management programs such as fire and feral animal control. Such measures may include setting routes and altitude limits, taking into account aircraft type and noise emission, adjusting arrangements to suit seasonal features but avoiding populous areas. If it proves necessary, discussions will be held with the Department of Aviation about the procedure for specifying areas such as Wilderness Zones and living areas in Kakadu where operation of aircraft below a specified altitude (possibly 4,000 feet) may be prohibited except for Park management purposes, during landing or take-off procedures or in an emergency. (2) See (1) above. (3) See (1) above. (Question No. 4631) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 September 1986: (1) What is the estimated cost of travel, accommodation and related expenses for the (a) Social Security Review and (b) overpayments project in 1986-87. (2) What was the expenditure on these items in 1985-86. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1)- $'000 (a) Consultants ... 218 Office Requisites ... +128 Travel and Subsistence ... 27 373 (b) Salaries (approx.) ... *50 Travel and Subsistence (for Training) ... *80 Office Requisites etc. ... 622 Publicity and Information ... *220 Capital Equipment ... 4000 Postage ... 1330 Computer Services ... 35 Less reduction in budgeted expenditures for computer equipment due to acquisition of personal computers in previous year ... -300 6037 * carried forward from 1985-86. (2)- $'000 (a) Overtime ... 0.2 Consultants ... 25.2 Travel and Subsistence ... 6.3 Office Requisites ... +0.5 32.2 (b) Salaries (approx.) ... 350.0 Travel and Subsistence ... 18.2 Office Requisites etc. ... 241.4 Postage ... 550.3 Publicity and Information ... 714.6 Computer Services ... 27.0 Capital Equipment ... 900.0 2801.5 + mostly printing. (Question No. 4637) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 19 September 1986: (1) Further to his answer to question No. 4020 (Hansard, 19 August 1986, page 90) relating to South African business relationships of tenderers for airport car parks, is Wilson Parking (SA) Pty Ltd incorporated in Australia and registered in South Africa as an external company. (2) Will he investigate the business connections of Wilson Parking and ensure that other companies tendering for Department of Aviation work, and who have South African connections, are not disadvantaged; if not, why not. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) In determining tenders for business concessions on airports my Department adheres strictly to Government policy which stipulates that Commonwealth Departments, statutory authorities and other instrumentalities will no longer enter into contractural relationships where the contract value is equal to or exceeds $20,000 with companies in which either individual or corporate South African persons in aggregate have a majority interest, nor purchase supplies of South African origin. Neither Wilson Parking (SA) Pty Ltd nor Wilson Parking are concessionaires however Wilson International Pty Ltd is the car park concessionaire at Melbourne Airport. The ownership of Wilson International Pty Ltd has been investigated and I am advised that so far as can be ascertained there is no South African ownership of that company. (Question No. 4646) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 22 September 1986: (1) What are the criteria for eligibility for compensation for those affected by the decision to site Sydney's second airport at Badgerys Creek. (2) Has he taken into account the effect of aircraft noise on the community in establishing the boundary for the airport; if not, why not. (3) How many applications for compensation from people affected by the decision to site the second Sydney airport at Badgerys Creek have been (a) received and (b) finalised, including payment of compensation. (4) What individual amounts of compensation have been paid. (5) How many partial payments of compensation have been made, and what are the individual amounts. (6) How many applicants are still to receive compensation. (7) Will the $9.5m set aside in the 1986-87 Budget for payment of compensation at Badgerys Creek be sufficient to meet the Government's commitment; if not, how does he propose to make up the shortfall in compensation available. (8) If he does not propose to make up the shortfall in 1986-87, why not. (9) What period of time has the Government in mind for the completion of the payment of compensation to all eligible persons. (10) What would be the impact of aircraft operations, and especially aircraft noise, on property, houses, and people which are sited on or who are living within (a) the `40' Australia Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF) contour, (b) the `35' ANEF contour and (c) the `30' ANEF contour. (11) Are there any properties outside the proposed boundary of the Badgerys Creek airport which will be partially or wholly inside (a) the `40' (ANEF) contour, (b) the `35' ANEF contour and (c) the `30' ANEF contour. (12) If so, does he intend to include within the boundary of the proposed airport those properties lying within the `35' ANEF contour so as to establish a noise buffer zone; if not, why not. (13) If these properties are to be included within the boundary, will they then be eligible for compensation for the impact of aircraft operations upon them; if not, why not. (14) What churches and graves are within the boundary or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed airport, and what is intended to be done with them. (15) Is relocation of graves likely to be necessary; if so, what measures is he proposing for the relocation and commemoration of the graves. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Lands Acquisition Act 1955 provides that property owners are entitled to compensation where the whole or part of the property is acquired by the Commonwealth by compulsory process (Section 10). To enable the affected property owners within the site selected for a Second Sydney airport to plan for their future in an orderly way, they were advised that three options were available to them: (a) immediate sale by agreement (b) sale by agreement at some future time (c) compulsory acquisition by the Commonwealth shortly before commencement of construction, at some time in the future. The purchase of properties from those landowners who have indicated a wish to pursue option (a) above is proceeding. Purchase is being arranged at a fair and mutually agreeable price. In addition to the agreed purchase price, the Commonwealth is offering to pay the costs for owners to obtain independent legal and valuation advice so they can negotiate with the Commonwealth on an informed basis. The Commonwealth is also offering to pay all reasonable relocation/re-investment costs of property owners. As the purchase of these properties is by agreement, the affected property owners are not entitled to compensation as a result of the Government's decision to site the second Sydney airport at Badgerys Creek. Compulsory acquisition is not proposed until such time as the site is actually required for airport purposes. If at that time, any properties required by the Commonwealth remain in private ownership, the questions of compulsory acquisition and compensation will be considered. (2) Considerable attention was devoted during the site selection process to the effects of aircraft noise on surrounding communities. Two different runway alignments for the Badgerys Creek site were studied in detail and I direct the honourable member's attention to section 8.5.1 of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which states ``The principal basis for selecting the north-east/south-west alignment for the preliminary master plan was its lesser noise impact on people in surrounding areas''. Section 9.2 of the EIS describes the noise effects of the two alternative alignments in some detail. (3)-(8) Questions (3) to (8) inclusive are based on a misapprehension regarding compulsory acquisition which as I have already stated is not applicable at this stage at Badgerys Creek. Instead of replying to them individually I will therefore outline the present situation regarding the acquisition of properties on the airport site. The Department of Local Government and Administrative Services has provided the following information. As at 15 October 1986, 157 property owners had approached the Commonwealth with a view to selling or obtaining valuations of their properties. The Commonwealth Valuer had completed valuations in respect of 99 properties, and offers to purchase made on 53 of them. As of that date 13 such offers had resulted in settlements which with associated costs, totalled $2.6m. Some funds were made available in the last financial year; the Government has limited funds available to purchase properties in 1986-87 to $9.5m for (a) properties where the Commonwealth has already made a firm offer and (b) properties where owners can demonstrate that they had entered into a firm commitment to purchase a replacement property on or before 25 July 1986. A further number of property owners not included in categories (a) and (b) above have made approaches claiming hardship and details are being considered. It is intended that this type of process will be continued in the next Budget to enable the acquisition process to proceed at a reasonable rate. (9) Refer to my answer to Question (1). (10) In 1981 an extensive survey was conducted by the National Acoustic Laboratory in an attempt to relate the NEF system of noise measurement to community reactions to aircraft noise. From this work it is possible to predict the proportions of residents around major airports who are likely to consider themselves moderately or seriously affected by any particular amount of aircraft noise as measured by the ANEF system. For the high noise areas mentioned by the honourable member, the figures are as follows. At 40 ANEF, about 55% of residents could be expected to consider themselves seriously affected with a further 33% considering themselves moderately affected. At 35 ANEF the figures drop to about 40% considering themselves seriously affected with a further 38% considering themselves moderately affected. At 30 ANEF we could expect about 27% to consider themselves seriously affected with a further 40% considering themselves moderately affected. (11) There are a number of properties outside the Badgerys Creek airport site boundary which lie wholly or partially within the 30 or 35 ANEF contours, including two which are partially within the 40 contour. I would however remind the honourable member that the published noise contours relate to a worst case assumption which was used for the purposes of the Environmental Impact Statement and is unlikely to be achieved for very many years, if ever. Indeed it would involve more aircraft traffic than presently at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. (12) The purchase of properties within the 35 ANEF contour around new airports for the purpose of establishing noise buffer zones was one of the recommendations of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aircraft Noise and will be considered by the Government along with the other recommendations of that committee. No decision has been taken on this matter at this stage in relation to Badgerys Creek or any other airport site. (13) If properties are purchased in the future for noise buffer zones the procedure followed would most likely be the same as that for properties within the site, that is, initially at least, acquisition by agreement with the property owners. However, this is only speculation at this stage, as I repeat, no decision has been taken on this matter. (14) Three churches are included within the airport site boundary, the Church of England and Uniting Churches in Pitt Street Badgerys Creek and St Francis Xavier Roman Catholic Church in The Northern Road, Luddenham. Each is accompanied by a small cemetery or churchyard. As far as acquisition is concerned, these properties will be treated in the same way as other properties within the site. That is, the Commonwealth is prepared to buy the sites if the churches wish to sell but there will be no moves towards compulsory acquisition for the time being. The churches and the graveyards can therefore continue to function as they always have for the foreseeable future. However, because of the long term situation, it is being suggested that relatives should think carefully before carrying out further burials at these locations. Some discussions have been initiated with the churches and these will continue and will cover such matters as suitable alternative burial sites. As more work is done on the detailed design and the staged development of the airport, attention will be given to the avoidance of unnecessary interference with the churches and, in particular, the graves. It appears likely that the early stages of airport development could be satisfactorily undertaken without affecting any of the cemeteries. In the case of the Pitt Street cemeteries it may well be possible for the graves to remain indefinitely, even if the airport is ultimately developed to its maximum potential. In this case the cemeteries could remain as suitably landscaped areas, fenced off from the rest of the airport and with access available to the public, and this is one of the matters to be covered in discussion with the church authorities. (15) In the case of the Northern Road Cemetery, the location is such that, if the airport is ultimately developed to its full potential with two parallel runways, the church and the graveyard would have to be removed. Again the details of such an operation, a suitable site for relocation and/or suitable memorials, would be a matter for discussion with the church authorities at the time. (Question No. 4675) Mr McArthur asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 23 September 1986: (1) What has been the cost of appeals made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) against decisions of his Department in each year since 1982-83. (2) Has the cost of appeals been borne by (a) his Department or (b) beneficiaries. (3) What legislative or regulatory action has his Department taken or does it propose to take as a result of AAT rulings in these cases. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Before 1 January 1985 few appeals were taken to the AAT. No cost figures are available for those appeals. Following the amendments to Repatriation legislation to establish a new Repatriation determining system, significant costs in relation to AAT appeals have been incurred by the Department of Veterans' Affairs during the financial years 1984-85 and 1985-86. Costs which have been able to be identified separately are: 1984-85 $180,000 1985-86 $760,000 (These costs include salaries of staff, travel expenses, the provision of medical reports and costs of counsel in the few cases where counsel were briefed) (2) There is no provision for the awarding of costs in the AAT's Repatriation jurisdiction. The parties are, therefore, responsible for their own costs. In practice, however, the costs of most Veterans have been met by legal aid. (3) The implications of AAT decisions are brought to the attention of delegates of the Repatriation Commission who are responsible for determining claims for pensions. After consideration of the implication of matters arising from decisions of the AAT, amendments to the Veterans' Entitlements legislation have been passed by the Parliament to clarify the Government's intentions concerning the application of provisions relating to financial hardship and the definition of `income' for the purpose of the income/assets test. It might be noted that to date the AAT's Repatriation division has issued a relatively small number of formal decisions (about 120 only). (Question No. 4690) Ms McHugh asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 25 September 1986: (1) What was the (a) number of person hours involved in and (b) Cost of outside contract surveying and drafting services used by his Department and instrumentalities responsible to him in (i) 1984-85 (ii) 1985-86 (iii) 1986 to date, including work contracted out to the Australian Survey Office and the Department of Housing and Construction. (2) Are there any instances where surveying or drafting requirements have not been satisfied due to limitations on the resources of (a) His Department or instrumentalities responsible to him, (b) The Australian Survey Office or (c) The Department of Housing and Construction; if so, what are they. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a and b) The only use of outside contract surveying and drafting services, other than use made of Australian Survey Office and the Department of Housing and Construction and separately reported by them, is that made by Qantas in (i) 1984/85 (a) 19 person hours (b) $1324 (ii) 1985/86 (a) 4455 person hours (b) $32,352 and (iii) 1986/87 Nil to date. (2) (a) There are some instances where surveying and drafting have been deferred due to resource limitations. In times of budgetary constraint there will always be some projects that will be deferred. Program and resource management ensures that resources are devoted to the highest priority projects. (b) The Australian Survey Office is responsible for the staffing and funding of its surveying services. (c) The Department of Housing and Construction is responsible for the staffing and funding of its drafting services. (Question No. 4722) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 7 October 1986: Further to his answers to Questions 4538 and 4539 (Hansard, 19 September 1986, pages 1104 and 1107, respectively) is he able to add to his answers now that the charges against Mr Sawyer and his wife have been dismissed and the matter is no longer sub-judice. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No. The confidentiality provisions of the Social Security Act do not permit the public disclosure of information concerning the affairs of any person acquired by officers of my department in the performance of their duties or in the exercise of their powers and functions under the Social Security Act. (Question No. 4730) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 8 October 1986: (1) How will his Department implement each of the Government's social welfare fraud measures in remote areas. (2) Will different requirements be set for the various categories of departmental clients; if so, (a) what are they, (b) to what category of clients will they apply and (c) in what areas will they be applied. (3) If different requirements will not be set for the various categories of clients, will different requirements be set for each benefit or pension affected by the 1986-87 Budget. (4) Will extra costs be incurred in implementing the Budget measures in remote areas; if so, (a) what are the details and (b) what is the estimated extra cost for each year until 1988-89. (5) What areas are described by his Department as being remote. (6) For each remote area, (a) how many field officers were stationed in the area (i) immediately prior to the announcement of the Budget measures and (ii) in each of the past 5 financial years and (b) how many clients for each benefit resided in the area in each of the past 5 financial years. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (4). A range of measures were introduced in the Budget to assist in verifying individuals' entitlement and to provide information on community support services and social security rights and obligations. These measures include the personal lodgement of the fortnightly application for continuation of unemployment benefit, personal lodgement of a review form for sole parents each three months, the interview of sole parents three months after grant and the interview of unemployment beneficiaries after two years in receipt of benefit. The guidelines for personal lodgement are essentially that all relevant clients should comply where they can reasonably be expected to do so, taking into account factors such as distance from a Department of Social Security office, travelling time and cost of transport. Additional factors which may be taken into account in relation to a sole parent are restrictions arising from employment and the care of severely handicapped children. Similar considerations apply in determining whether unemployment beneficiaries and sole parents are required to attend a personal interview. Persons whose circumstances are such that they are not required to attend an office interview or personally lodge forms at the Department's office will include persons in remote areas. In such areas lodgement of review-type forms by mail will be accepted. As far as personal interviews are concerned these will be undertaken by telephone or by department officers when they are in the area. A further measure introduced is the use of mobile teams to review unemployment benefit entitlement. These teams will be employed in both metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas particularly where there is a combination of high numbers of unemployment beneficiaries and significant job vacancies. The estimated additional staffing and administrative costs for the overall implementation of these measures are: 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 Unemployment Benefit... $2.6m $5.2m $5.1m Supporting Parents... $3m $3.7m $3.7m No separate estimate is available as to the proportion of that cost which relates to remote areas. (5) and (6). Since ``remote areas'' are not formally defined for departmental purposes it is not possible to supply the details requested. (Question No. 4740) Mr MacKellar asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 8 October 1986: (1) Did Mrs Sylvia Faulkner institute an action in the High Court of Australia against the Commonwealth and C. F. Flint in 1974. (2) Has a hearing date been set for that action; if so, when. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. I note that in 1982 the action was remitted to the Supreme Court of New South Wales. (2) Yes; 27 April 1987. (Question No. 4741) Mr Hodges asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 8 October 1986: What has been the cost of producing autographed photographs of himself and his wife for free issue to the public in each year since 1982-83. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: In almost all instances autographed photographs of myself and Mrs Hawke are issued in response to requests from the public. The costs for the calendar years since 1983 are as follows: $ 1983... 445.00 1984... 331.00 1985... 600.97 1986... 280.79 (to October 1986) (Question No. 3380) Mr Braithwaite asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 13 March 1986: What progress has been made towards gathering statistics relevant to Australia's invisibles trade on the amount of direct insurance premiums and reinsurance which is being sent offshore. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Australian Statistician collects information on Australia's insurance transactions with non-residents for purposes of compiling balance of payments statistics. He has collected this information for many years, mainly in the annual ABS survey of foreign investment, from Australian insurance and reinsurance enterprises, from Australian branches of foreign insurance enterprises and from agents and brokers for foreign insurance enterprises. From this information, estimates of the net effect of insurance premiums and claims upon the current account have been compiled and made generally available on request. However, until recently, these estimates have excluded the effect of insurance business placed directly abroad, other than through agents and brokers, by enterprises and by individuals. In February this year, the Statistician changed the form of presentation of balance of payments statistics. Six separate categories relating to insurance, compiled in accordance with international statistical conventions, are now published in the quarterly balance of payments bulletin. These categories identify insurance services (ie premiums less ``normal'' claims) and insurance income (ie ``extraordinary'' claims) received from and provided abroad. Also, the method of estimating insurance services received from abroad (ie premiums placed abroad less ``normal'' claims received from abroad) has been improved to take account of that component of business placed directly abroad by enterprises not previously measured; this has been done by adjusting upwards data reported in the annual survey of foreign investment by data available from taxation sources. While the new balance of payments presentation and estimation methodology make it possible to more accurately assess the effect of insurance service and income transactions on the current account, separate estimates of premiums and claims and of premiums placed directly abroad are not available. It might be noted, however, that consideration is being given to the possibility of amending the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Act 1984 to provide for the collection of statistics under that Act on the volume of insurance business being placed overseas by insurance intermediaries. (Question No. 4420) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) What is the level of assistance given by the ABC to members of the African National Congress (ANC) engaged in film production training? (2) Was the decision to provide assistance to the ANC made by the management or the Board of the ABC? Mr Duffy —The following answer to the honourable member's question is based upon information provided by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation: (1) The ABC Staff Union was approached by APHEDA (Australian People for Health, Education and Development Abroad), which is affiliated to the ACTU (Australian Council of Trade Unions) to assist in a project to train two members of the ANC's Information Department in film editing and equipment maintenance. The ABC Staff Union put forward the training proposal to senior Corporation staff and, because it was in line with the ABC's long-held commitment to sharing its broadcasting expertise with Third World broadcasters, the request was granted. The African trainees' travel, accommodation and living expenses were paid for by APHEDA. The equipment used in their training was provided by APHEDA and, for its part, the ABC provided the technical expertise. (2) The decision to provide assistance was made by senior ABC staff. (Question No. 4448) Mr Hollis asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 21 August 1986: (1) Do the Australian delegations to the annual sessions of the World Health Assembly prepare reports on the work of the sessions. (2) If so, why are the reports not tabled, as are the reports of the Australian delegations to the International Labour Conference and Unesco General Conference. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) I understand that it has not been the custom for Australian delegations to UN technical agency conferences (other than those you have mentioned) to table reports of their annual sessions. However, in the interests of promoting public awareness of the agency's work I would have no objection to tabling the reports of the Australian delegations to World Health Assemblies. (Question No. 4462) Mr Reith asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 21 August 1986: (1) What persons have been appointed as advisers pursuant to s.40 of the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Act. (2) What are the terms and conditions of appointment of such persons. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The National Occupational Health and Safety Commission-Worksafe Australia-has not conducted any inquiries under s.39(1) of the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Act 1985. Consequently, no appointments of either Commissioners to conduct such inquiries, or advisers to Commissioners, have been made under s.40(1) of the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Act. (2) As no persons have been appointed as advisers pursuant to s.40 of the NOHSC Act, no terms and conditions of appointment have been determined. (Question No. 4466) Mr Reith asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 21 August 1986: (1) Has the Government received any applications to provide funds for research into the effects of cannabis and other drugs on road safety and driving ability. (2) If so, what funds have been or will be provided and to whom. (3) If no funds have been provided, why not. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (3) Under the various research grant schemes administered by my Department, no applications for funding for research into the effects of cannabis and other drugs on road safety and driving ability were received in 1985/86 or in the current financial year. I am advised that in January this year the Federal Office of Road Safety (FORS) released a report of a major study entitled `The Interaction between Alcohol and Marijuana: A Dose Dependent Study of the Effects on Human Moods and Performance Skills' by Gregory Chesher, Helen Dauncey, John Crawford and Kim Horn, Psychopharmacology Research Unit, Department of Pharmacology, University of Sydney, New South Wales. The Study was commissioned by FORS in April 1983 and also received financial support from the New South Wales Drug and Alcohol Authority. An estimated 15 per cent of the annual budget provided by the National Health and Medical Research Council for its Road Accident Research Unit in Adelaide is related to studies of the involvement of alcohol in road accidents. For 1986, funding for this work thus amounted to $50,000. (Question No. 4501) Mr Everingham asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 16 September 1986: (1) Has his Department outfitted a Rockwell Commander aircraft VH-LTI for search and rescue work; if so, what was the cost and when was it done. (2) On how many occasions has the aircraft been used for search and rescue work. (3) Is the aircraft available on a 24 hour basis for this work; if not, why not. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Commander aircraft VH-LTI is owned by my Department as part of the Flying Unit. Departmental aircraft are required primarily to fulfil technical and operational functions. However, there are ancillary roles including Search and Rescue (SAR) which fall within the charter of departmental aircraft. VH-LTI is outfitted for SAR work, but as mentioned previously, it is a subsidiary task for the aircraft. The cost of outfitting the aircraft for search and rescue was $45,000 and it was completed in January 1985. The annual cost to maintain the system and equipment is $3,500. (2) VH-LTI has been engaged in six search missions. It has not been required for any supply drop missions (rescues) except for practice exercises. (3) Departmental aircraft are regarded as part of the `semi-dedicated' search and rescue network. VH-LTI is available on a 24 hour basis using a best endeavour approach. The aircraft is not on standby. (Question No. 4719) Mr Duncan asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 7 October 1986: (1) Does the Government have a duty to provide a safe workplace for its employees. (2) Have studies shown passive smoking or exposure to cigarette smoke constitutes a health hazard; if so, what steps has the Government taken to protect its employees from this hazard. (3) Has the Government sought legal advice regarding its liability in such matters. Mr Willis —The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) As an employer the Commonwealth has a common law duty of care to take all reasonable steps to protect its employees' health and safety, including the provision and maintenance of safe workplaces. (2) A growing number of studies indicates that passive smoking (involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke) is potentially hazardous to health. The National Health and Medical Research Council report Effects of Passive Smoking on Health, published in July 1986, provides the most recent Australian review and analysis of the literature in this field. In response to the conclusions of this report, as well as to the growing pressure from Public Service staff for smoke-free workplaces, the Public Service Board issued draft new guidelines on `Smoking in the Workplace' on 3 September 1986. These guidelines, to be issued in final form in mid November, recommended steps to be taken towards the Board's goal of achieving smoke-free APS office environments by 1 March 1988. (3) The Government is drawing upon advice provided by the Attorney-General's Department to the Department of Health in August 1986 in relation to the power of a Secretary of a Department to ban smoking in that Department. The Attorney-General's Department advised, inter alia, that, in the light of the AAT decision Re Bishop and Commonwealth of Australia, it could be argued that injury from passive smoking is reasonably foreseeable and that consequently such an injury could give rise to an action for damages at common law. (Question No. 4734) Mr McArthur asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 8 October 1986: (1) How many World War I veterans (a) live in Australia, (b) were on a pension until the implementation of (i) the assets test and (ii) the Veterans' Entitlements Act, (c) now receive no pension and (d) now receive a reduced pension. (2) How many World War I veterans have appealed against their pensions being reduced. (3) How many appeals are awaiting hearing. (4) What is the (a) average and (b) overall cost per annum of hearing each appeal. (5) Who bears the cost of these appeals. (6) What is the cost saving to the Government of reducing pensions of World War I veterans after taking into account the cost of hearing appeals. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: It is assumed the honourable member's question relates to service pension. (1)- (a) It was estimated that 6,350 World War I Veterans were living in Australia on 30 June 1986 with approximately 5,300 having eligibility for the service pension on the basis of having qualifying service, i.e. service overseas. (b) (i) 4,189 as at March 1985, the time of introduction of the assets test. (ii) 3,096 in June 1986. The Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 came into effect on 22 May 1986. The reduction in numbers of World War I service pensioners is almost entirely attributable to deaths. (c) Statistics are not kept on the reasons for cancellation of service pension, e.g. as a result of the assets test or enactment of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. In the period March 1985 to 25 September 1986 there was a total of 62 cancellations of service pensions of World War I Veterans. (d) Statistics are not kept on the reasons for reductions of service pension, e.g. as a result of the assets test or enactment of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. In the period March 1985 to 25 September 1986 there was a total of 430 reductions of service pensions of World War I Veterans. (2) Statistics identifying applications for internal review by World War I Veterans against Repatriation Commission decisions are not available. Two World War I Veterans have lodged applications for review with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) since the Tribunal was given its jurisdiction on service pension matters on 1 January 1985. (3) Both AAT appeals were subsequently withdrawn. (4) Not applicable. (5) The cost of reviews conducted by delegates of the Repatriation Commission pursuant to section 59 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act is borne by the Commonwealth. Applicants seeking review by the AAT are generally responsible for any costs they incur. However, Veterans have a right to apply for legal aid. Where legal aid is granted, the applicants' costs are borne by the Commonwealth. (6) As will be evident from the above answers, this information is not available if cost savings based on the effects of the assets test and the Veterans' Entitlements Act on World War I service pensioners are being sought. It is hard to see how the Veterans' Entitlements Act would have affected service pensions of World War I Veterans. (Question No. 4778) Mr Tuckey asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 16 October 1986: (1) Further to his answer to question No. 2779 (Hansard, 11 February 1986, page 105) what were the total receipts and expenditure of the export inspection service for 1985-86. (2) Does the expenditure include those items excluded from the base cost as stated in his previous answer, if not, what was the cost for (a) retraining staff (b) abnormal research and development (c) security and (d) Government business. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Total receipts for the export inspection service in 1985-86 were $50.2 million. Total expenditure from appropriation was $90.0 million. Total cost of running the service was in the order of $104 million. (2) Yes.