Friday, 14 November 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Debate resumed from 13 November, on motion by Dr Blewett: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(10.01) —I listened last night to the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster), who preceded me in the debate, and his litany of those who are opposed to the introduction of the Australia Card. To balance the record, I will list a few people who are in favour of it: Mr Eric Risstrom of the Australian Taxpayers Association, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Mr Eric Myer of the Business Council of Australia, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Australia, and even our old mate Andrew Hay, who told the National Taxation Summit that it could play a key role in coming to grips with social security fraud. The Law Council of Australia supports it, as do the Economic Planning Advisory Council and the Australian Society of Accountants. Let me quote from the Returned Services League national newsletter of June 1986: The RSL congratulates the Government for recognising the need for a compulsory photographic identification card for all Australians. The list of those who support it goes on. There are groups as diverse as the Queensland Chamber of Fresh Fruit and Vegetables, professors of economics and, indeed, trade unions. I could refer to quotes which show that at various times support has been given by the New South Wales Leader of the Opposition, the President of the Victorian Branch of the Liberal Party, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Chaney) and the shadow spokesman for social security. Of course, the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) has strongly advocated it at various times, as has the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Hunt). Indeed, at times, the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has supported it. Mr Keogh —Who is that? Mr HOLLIS —At the moment I believe it is the honourable member for Bennelong, but the position is very shaky, I am told. There is a difference of only two in the numbers this morning, I am told. Senator Janine Haines supported it in her statement to the National Tax Summit. Support has been given by the shadow Minister for Science in the Senate. All my colleagues on this side of the House support this legislation with one voice. Indeed, within my own family, even my pensioner mum and dad support this legislation. Of course, thousands and thousands of ordinary Australians support it because they are sick and tired of the cheats who are ripping off the system. I have noticed in the last two weeks in one of the New South Wales papers-the Sun-Herald, I think-that the honourable member for Macquarie has received quite a lot of coverage in talking about various proposals to tighten up the social security system and about fraud. After making those statements in the last two issues of the Sun-Herald, how could he argue in the House last night against the Australia Card? In the four years during which I have been a member of parliament the one thing I have learned to admire is the effrontery of those who sit opposite, the people who are now declaring themselves to be on the side of tax evaders. The debate in which we have engaged has been wide ranging and speakers on this side of the House have been answering the red herrings that have been put up by the Opposition and what red herrings they have been. Of course, this will not stop Opposition members running around Australia trying to scare people about this legislation. We saw this happen with the assets test, the fringe benefits tax and the human rights Bill. So lacking in policies is the Opposition that it has to resort to the politics of fear and the more lacking in policies that it gets the greater its fear tactics and distortions. We heard a good example of fear tactics and distortions last night from the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). However, the Australian people are awake to the Opposition, as are the commentators. Opposition members should read the editorials in yesterday's newspapers-the Australian, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Canberra Times or the Australian Financial Review. They should read this morning's editions to see what these newspapers think of the Opposition and its opportunism. Given what commentators are saying in the papers and the Opposition's performance in this chamber, how long can the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) sit back before he makes his challenge. One of my colleagues said this morning that there are only two votes in it. Mr Keogh —That's right. Mr HOLLIS —The honourable member for Bowman assures me that that is true, that there are only two votes in it. Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order on the matter of relevance. We are speaking to very important legislation-the ID Bill-but the honourable member is just going into the problems of the Liberal Party, if they exist. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will understand that yesterday we had a very wide-ranging debate on the ID card in which I think he took part. Mr HOLLIS —Even I could not attempt to unravel the problems in the Liberal Party. It is interesting that the honourable member for Bennelong has finally discovered the cash economy. It is a pity he did not discover it during the time he had charge of the Treasury. The Melbourne Age of 26 March 1986 said about the cash economy: The Australian Retailers Association claimed that the card- the Australia Card- would go a long way towards eliminating the cash economy once and for all! We on this side of the House know about the cash economy and we are doing something about it. The main offenders in the cash economy are builders, who are conducting the strongest campaign against this legislation, the real estate business and the Opposition. What are they opposing? They are opposing a government measure to bring fairness and equity into our system and to stop fraud for which the honest taxpayer is paying to the tune of millions of dollars each year. That is what they are opposing. What is the Opposition offering? We on this side of the House and the Australian people do not know what it is offering because it will not release any details of its policies. However, we do know that the Opposition has abandoned any claims to being serious about tackling tax evasion and avoidance and social welfare fraud in Australia. The Australian people know it and they will be reminded of it day after day leading up to the next election. The Government will remind them of the Opposition's record and how it opposed this measure which would tackle tax evasion and avoidance and social welfare fraud in Australia. We have listened to the claims of the Opposition about the Australia Card being an attack on civil liberties. The Australia Card program proposed by the Hawke Labor Government is part of a package which will put in place the most comprehensive safeguards for privacy ever seen in this country. From what has been said by honourable members opposite, one would think that no other country had a national identification system. The honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) yesterday gave us a list of the countries which have such a system. I might say that countries with civil liberties that we can only envy have national identification schemes. The Opposition is cynically distorting the language of genuine civil libertarians. It is claiming that it is a citizen's basic right to be able to defraud the community, either through not paying his or her fair share of tax or through cheating the social security system. I listened last night to the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) telling us how honest every citizen was and that there was very little fraud. I would agree with him that the average Australian citizen is honest. But the Opposition, especially members of the National Party of Australia, have been running around the country year in and year out talking about fraud and how fraud has to be controlled. Who has been screaming the loudest for the Government to control this fraud? Who has been most critical of government because of supposed overpayments and fraud cheats? It has been members of the National Party. Let us have a look at some of the statements that have been made on this matter. On 8 June 1985 the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), the shadow Minister for Social Security, said: 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: Another majority benefit would be a reduction of fraud affecting Government outlays, especially social welfare payments. On 6 November 1985 the honourable member for Richmond said: Those people who have ripped off the welfare system, especially those whose names are known, must not be allowed to escape scot free. On 23 May 1986 he said: It's time to toughen up for the sake of the taxpayers and genuine people looking for work. I might say that 12 months ago the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) was widely reported in my electorate as being in favour of the Australia Card. Articles appeared in the Highlands Post, the Southern Highlands News, the Shoalhaven and Nowra News, the South Coast Register and many other publications with comments from him about how he was in favour of the Australia Card. But, for good measure, he gave the Hawke Government a service because he thought that we would not go ahead with the Australia Card. But what has happened to the honourable member for Gilmore? He has been very quiet. I keep asking him in the local papers to state where he stands and whether he has the same view that he put 12 months ago. But the honourable member for Gilmore has been muzzled by his own party because he supports the introduction of the Australia Card. If some 12 months ago the honourable member was so much in support of the Australia Card, will he cross the floor and vote with this side, which really would be the only honourable thing for him to do? The Opposition has been very critical of this Government about this legislation. But what is it proposing? Nothing would come anywhere near the Australia Card for effectiveness in tackling the problem of tax and welfare cheats. This Government is the first Federal Government in Australia's history to do anything about fraud and tax cheats. Why is it that the Opposition attempts to deny the Government the very instrument which would most effectively restore fairness and equity to the tax and welfare system? I would be delighted to fight an election on the issue of the Australia Card so that the people of Australia could express their view on this Government, which is tackling fraud and tax avoidance, and on the Opposition, which continues to support these tax avoiders and welfare cheats. Why should the ordinary, decent taxpayer of Throsby support tax avoidance, fraud and cheats? The ordinary pay as you earn worker of Throsby has had enough. The taxpayers of my electorate are rightly demanding that the Government do something. They have seen the Opposition, after years on the Treasury benches doing nothing, now supporting fraud and welfare cheats. The Australian public will not be deceived by the hollow rhetoric of the Opposition members. They have no effective alternative to the Australia Card. They are unconvincing grandstanders who prefer to allow tax evasion and welfare fraud to continue unabated rather than see this Government take effective action to tackle these scourges. We on this side of the House are serious about cutting the crooks out of the social security system and the Australia Card will be the key component in our scrutinisation strategy. As I said, those on the Opposition benches have no effective alternative to the Australia Card. They are unconvincing grandstanders. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(10.16) —Most honourable members have attempted to justify their position in supporting the Australian identity card by quoting from a statement I made in June last year. The honourable member who has just resumed his seat, the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis), sought to shield behind a statement that I made last year in giving support to this legislation. It is true that I made a statement last year in good faith because I had what proved to be a simplistic view that such a system would stamp out social security and certain types of tax fraud. It was a simplistic view. It is a simplistic view that a lot of people probably still hold throughout Australia. I think most of us have been concerned with the extent of fraud that has been going on, and a great deal of it has been going on in the cash economy. But I am not convinced that this particular card is going to stamp out that type of fraud. A withholding tax may, but no one can wipeout fraud generally in the community. It would be like trying to wipe out prostitution. If anybody thinks that this card is going to wipe out fraud, he is crazy. Following the majority findings of the joint and all-party committee of inquiry against the Australian identity card system I changed my views. Indeed a lot of people changed their views because there was a very extensive inquiry held by representatives of every political party of this Parliament. It produced a very comprehensive report and the members of that inquiry went into extensive study of the situation. As a result of having read that report and having talked to the members of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card I came to the view that it was a very extensive intrusion into the privacy of people without really coming to grips with the problem that this legislation has set out to solve. As a consequence of this I issued a statement on 12 June of this year, but nobody quotes this statement; instead they choose only to quote a statement I made over 12 months ago. Mr McGauran —You have been mis- represented. Mr HUNT —No, I have not been misrepresented, because last year I sincerely held that view. I do not for one moment criticise those members of the Australian Labor Party who held a view different from mine last year. Members of the Australian Labor Party, and a great number of them, in good faith were opposed to this identity card because they were concerned about civil liberties. But the overwhelming arguments that have been put to them in the Caucus apparently have been sufficient to change their view. We live in a democratic society where we are supposed to listen to reason, where we are supposed to debate and argue issues. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is probably one person who changes his mind more than most in this country. Only a few weeks ago he was talking about mining in the Kakadu National Park. What is he saying today? Today he is talking about legal action against Geopeko, so he has changed his mind. Only a week or so ago there was not to be logging in the Tasmanian national parks, but because of the discussions between the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and the Tasmanian Minister I understand logging will continue. So there is a change of mind. Facts often have a big influence on rational thinking and ultimate decisions. Australians have the biggest task. They will have to assess whether it is right and proper to have an identity card making them, as individuals, the victims of close scrutiny. The dealings and activities of each and every one of us will be registered on microfilm that will become the property of the state. The individual is not the property of the state. It is against that background that I certainly changed my view because I could see that there would be no real cost benefit in the proposed solution to the problem. On June 12 this year I said: The national identity card proposed by the Hawke Government will not be effective in controlling social security fraud, tax evasion or illegal immigrants. In fact, in the United States a major problem had become the production of fraudulent ID cards. I was initially in favour of the proposal . . . but after a close study . . . I am now convinced it is not the way to go. When I said that, I believed that there was still a possibility that the Government would not ultimately come down with a final decision on this matter because there were people in the Labor Party who were concerned about it. I also said that the card would cost $2 billion over the next 10 years and would require the employment of an extra 2,150 public servants to administer it. I said that every two years-but I was wrong in this respect; I think it is every four or five years-every Australian would need to be rephotographed for a new card. I continued: The Australia card will not be cost effective. The savings and the result of introducing the card will not justify its cost. A much more cost effective solution involves the Department of Social Security carrying out more in the field of checks and to enforce the work test for benefits and the Taxation Office using a high integrity tax file number. More emphasis on the effective use of the present mechanisms to stop cheats rather than creating another massive bureaucracy is the sensible road to take. I seek leave to table a copy of what I said in June this year. Leave granted. Mr HUNT —Let nobody else go running around talking about what I said in June last year. We can all look back to see what we said this year, last year, 10 years ago. I make no apology-it is not a confession at all. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) is a very intelligent man. He is a Rhodes scholar and I would have thought that a man of his integrity and intelligence would have changed his mind from time to time. If he has not he must have got his Rhodes scholarship by default. I enter this debate only briefly to put the record straight. But since the Bill was introduced I have strengthened my opposition to this outrageously intrusive legislation which makes every Australia the compliant victim and the property of the Commonwealth bureaucracy in the form of a humble servant of the state. It is obnoxious legislation. It is intrusive of the fundamental rights of the individual. It changes the fundamental relationship between the individual and the state and it reeks of the type of identification system one could expect to find in a totalitarian state. It does so at great cost to the taxpaying citizens, without necessarily achieving the abolition of fraud. Even the Minister said earlier: `Nobody says it is going to stop fraud'. This massive Bill of 130 pages provides for the careful construction of an information network and profile of each individual, giving government agencies unprecedented access to detailed information about each Australian citizen. It is an insidious violation of individual privacy. The Government, in its totalitarian zeal-I say that deliberately because there is a totalitarian zeal about this-has attempted to impose a Bill of Rights defining the rights it is prepared to extend to its citizens. This was supposed to be a free country. Now it seeks to inflict another imposition on individual rights. The Government has ignored the findings of its Joint Committee and the views of people within its own ranks. The 130 pages in the Bill contain a maze of requirements which effectively will make it essential for individuals to carry their card at all times. The Government will force people to make their card number available when depositing, withdrawing or borrowing money. The card will be required to obtain Medicare cash payments, to buy or sell property or even-can you believe it-to gain admission as an in-patient at a hospital. Not only will the hospital authorities require the card but also clause 53 (2) requires the hospital, as soon as possible, to notify the Health Insurance Commission of the card number. Primary producers will need to present the card before they can deal with marketing authorities or agencies. When the farmers realise this they will go off their heads. This will be an incredible bureaucratic problem for agents and farmers and, if I am any judge, we will see an increase in commission by agents to try to cope with the bureaucratic requirements in this clause of the Bill. In clause 43 (1), which concerns primary production, `marketing authority' means a statutory marketing authority and `produce agent' means an agent who is acting on behalf of a producer. The clause states: A marketing authority or produce agent shall not, on or after the first relevant day, make to a person a payment representing the proceeds, or part of the proceeds, of sale of primary produce unless- (a) the marketing authority or produce agent requires, or has at some previous time required pursuant to this sub-section, the production of a current Card of the person as at the time of production . . . (c) the marketing authority or produce agent records, or has at some previous time recorded pursuant to this sub-section, the person's Australia Card number. Do honourable members know what the penalty is for non-compliance? It is $20,000. Mr McGauran —How much? Mr HUNT —It is $20,000. The buying, selling, leasing or renting of a home will be covered by this outrageous legislation. One must produce the card when one goes to a bank to make a deposit in a savings account. Mr Hollis —Stop misleading. That is not true. Mr HUNT —The honourable member should not mislead people. It is in this legislation. If one wishes to lodge money in an investment account, a unit trust organisation or a building society one has to present one's card to be registered. Mr Cobb —Even a safety deposit box. Mr HUNT —Even a safety deposit box is covered. The buying or the selling of shares-you name it, it is listed here. When people read the extent to which they will be required to comply with this Australian identity card they will be horrified. The protest and concern about the fringe benefit tax will pale into insignificance. Once again Labor has gone overboard and has plunged into a mind-boggling attempt to get at the average Australian citizen. Gone are the days when members of a Commonwealth government and the bureaucracy will be the servants of the people. This legislation aims to make the people the servants of the Government. It will enrage every adult citizen who has to comply with the principles attaching to this legislation. Let it be understood that my Party will use every medium at our disposal in our constituencies and elsewhere to expose what will be required of the Australian people to comply with the 130 pages of this ridiculous legislation. I regret now that the members of the Labor Party who were opposed to the legislation did not carry through their opposition and defeat it in Caucus. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(10.31) —In speaking to the Australia Card Bill which is of great interest to me I deeply resent that my time has been cut down to five minutes. I resent in particular the standard of debate to which I have had to listen in this House. I make frequent trips to State Parliament because it is only there that I can be reassured about the standard of debate in this House. Those members at least make us look good. In the time left to me I want to make a few references to civil liberties. That is an issue about which I am very concerned. I have been on the receiving end of the abuse of civil liberties. I can remember being harassed as a kid by the police in South Australia. Night after night I was harassed by the police and pushed from one policeman to another. Mr McGauran —Why? Mr CAMPBELL —Because I did not have identification I was harassed. On occasions I wished that I had an Australia Card. The spoon-fed, silver-coated member would not know about that. On those occasions I would dearly have liked to have had an Australia Card with my photograph because it would have protected my civil liberties. A lot of nonsense is talked about civil liberties. Members of the Opposition talk about their change of heart. I am all in favour of them changing their minds if they are wrong. In fact, they should all change their minds. Conversion in such a short time-six months on the road to Damascus, when those opposite can go completely from one point of view to another-involves more than simply a change of mind. When I look into my wallet I find very little money but I find 14 credit cards. Every bit of plastic in my wallet has encoded little bits of information about me which are recorded somewhere. That is information over which I have no control. I know that this information is made available and used because last year I got a letter from American Express International Inc. saying: `We have looked into you, Mr Campbell. We feel that you are the sort of citizen who should have one of our cards. We invite you to apply'. Being flattered I duly applied. The company eventually replied: `We have checked out your credit rating. We will not give you a card'. I found this rather outrageous so I wrote back and said: `I am incensed. I would like to know on what grounds you assess my credit rating'. I got no reply. There is no protection at all from these sorts of people. I am very conscious of civil liberties. There is no doubt that within the Australia Card concept there is the possibility of some abuses. But this is a judgment a government has to make. The Opposition, having the purity of impotence, cannot do anything constructive. All it can do is haggle. Those opposite are not in a position to make the judgments that the Government has to. The Government has put in train protection mechanisms that will not subject me to such abuse. Let us consider other areas of civil liberties abuse about which nothing is done in this Parliament. I draw the attention of honourable members to changes that have been made to the Extradition Act, changes which run right over the civil liberties of people. Was there a murmur from those opposite? There was not. I spoke to the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), one of the Opposition's more intellectual members and a member for whom, despite his rather pompous exterior, I have a very high regard. I could not even get him interested in the matter. I am very concerned about the grave injustices against civil liberties involved. As a result of those injustices two American citizens are languishing in gaol in Fremantle because they cannot get bail. That is an outrageous situation of which the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) should not be proud. When the civil liberties of those gentlemen are diminished, the civil liberties of all of us are diminished and I am very conscious of this. I can remember when I was black banned by a large company for my opposition to it. I had no redress for that. It was able to circulate, by various means, allegations about me which effectively kept me out of employment for five months. As a result of that I was able to break that particular custom in respect of other people, but I did not even realise those bans existed in respect of me until very late in the piece. So civil liberties have to be guarded all the time. They are not guarded simply by legislation; they are embodied in the culture of a country. It is to our culture that we have to look for protection. I remember the scare tactics put out by the Opposition about the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights did not really offend anyone's civil liberties and neither did it particularly protect them. The truth is that the Bill of Rights was damn silly legislation. It did not embody the risks to society as honourable members opposite said it did. We have to go back to our culture because it is that which embodies our freedoms. It is incumbent upon the Opposition to take a much more responsible view of this. I know that there are many people opposite who do not believe that this legislation carries the risks that they say it does and I wish that they would at least tone down some of the rhetoric they are using in this debate. Mr DRUMMOND(Forrest)(10.37) —This proposed legislation to introduce a national identification system will be roundly condemned throughout the Australian community when people understand what it entails. There are four main reasons why the so-called Australia Card is not in the national interest. Firstly, it will enable governments to keep comprehensive records on every individual. The consequential misuse of that information will create many new forms of social and individual injustice. Secondly, the Australia Card is seen as a panacea to the inefficient administration of government. I contend that the efficient administration of government will only be attained by reintroducing market realities into the Public Service and by reducing the legislative burden. Introducing another card, another check or another administrative device will do nothing to improve the system. Thirdly, the Australia Card may have a popular appeal but it will not work. The card will be as easy to forge as a birth certificate, tax file number, Medicare card, driver's licence, health care card, marriage certificate, electoral roll listing, group certificate, passport or any other identification paper we already have in our society. In fact, this one-stop identification process is likely to reduce the number of checks which are a feature of our current system. Fourthly, at a time of economic war, as our Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has termed it, why is the Government embarking on a scheme which is estimated to cost $759m over a period of 10 years? The statement of the financial impact of this legislation is laughable. There is no way that this card will not cost much more than it is worth in total community terms. Those people who attended the showing of Ray Bradbury's documentary Hasta Cuando about the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile would have been moved by his comment on the effect the national identification system had on Chile. Basically, he said it set up the building blocks for the development of a totalitarian state. A Chile policeman could apprehend a citizen, read off his number into a microphone on his lapel and have immediate access to total files maintained on the individual. If power corrupts, the counterpart is the Public Service's knowledge. Under this system the knowledge is always there just waiting for the Public Service interpreter to use it at will. The introduction of a universal ID card will provide government with an instantaneous data base on each individual. The argument for the introduction of the ID card is based on the premise that if one has nothing dishonest to hide, what is the problem. There is no doubt that for people who had anything to hide previously, things may become very difficult. As our Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) has reassuringly told us: The key to the system is not the card itself but the generation of one number which will act as a linkage number, between for example Social Security and Tax records. I do not believe for a minute the linkage will end there. It will be across the spectrum of public service activities. A few examples can demonstrate the point. The Government does not need to be all-knowledgeable on the individual. Even if it is, the cold statistical base does not reflect the truth behind the individual. Individuals often hide the truth to avoid the prejudice of others. For instance, consider the job application form which questions whether the applicant has a physical disability. For the applicant to answer yes would prejudice the application, even though he may be fully able to control the disability. Will applications for public service jobs be cross-referenced against medical records? Will the Government also look for records on immigration and ethnic affairs and do spot checks on past income levels? The legislation, through the generation of one number, will act as a link between various government departments. All the information will be on tap, whether or not it is a reasonable or accurate record of a person's activities. From reading clause 65 I would assume that this use of the Australia Card is quite possible, particularly with a similar minded bureaucracy throughout the Commonwealth Public Service. Under clause 43, marketing authorities and produce agents are required to see the Australia Card of any person to whom they make payment for primary produce. There is also a penalty if the marketing authority or the produce agents do not record the Australia Card number and provide the information when required by the Taxation Office. What happens if the information so supplied is incorrect? It is out of the hands of the farmer to rectify. He does not know what information has been transmitted about the financial transaction. The payment may be made then stopped for some reason. Is the record changed on the computer? I do not believe we can trust the Privacy Bill for adequate protection, or the Data Protection Agency which will be set up under this legislation. Incidentally, the Privacy Bill is based on Article XVII of the Bill of Rights which was so roundly condemned throughout the Australian community. I hope this proposal is not the alternative approach, to get all so-called rights passed in piecemeal fashion. I can imagine the unnecessary information conveyed through the central computer. Surely someone in this Government must stand back and say that the cure proposed is far worse than the disease. I thought that the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card made it clear that benefits in the area of taxation, welfare and immigration would be illusory. The main problem regarding taxation collection is the cash economy. The tax avoided through the cash economy was estimated to be between $8 billion and $30 billion in 1984-85. This card will do nothing to curb the cash economy. One widely reported statement by Mr Frank Costigan, QC, reads: I am bemused at the attempt to correct what are articulated as problems in the community by a solution such as the Australia Card . . . There are much cheaper and effective ways of coping with the problem which arises from tax evasion and avoidance. Certain reforms in tax legislation and the upgrading of the tax file number could achieve all the goals which are intended for the Australia Card. On pensions and social security, the Department of Social Security believes that the cost of the Australia Card would equal the benefits received from the program. The Joint Select Committee concluded that the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs should immediately transfer all its records from the manual system to a computer database. Simply put, the Department is running very inefficiently. Anyone who has any dealings with the Department would appreciate that. Some residents in my electorate have been waiting for more than a year for a decision. If they make an inquiry they are taught a lesson by being placed further back on the list. These are examples of how the departments can solve their own problems. As Roger Clarke said, the Government is using a jackhammer to crack a nut. If it started implementing reforms such as those mentioned in the conclusion of the report of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union the need for this card would disappear. The Government is at pains to point out that it is not compulsory to apply for the Australia Card. But if a person does not have one, he will not be able to commence work, open a bank account, sell any primary produce, have a safe deposit box, claim for Medicare, purchase property or deal in shares. The little piece of plastic will be more invasive than the influenza virus of Australia's way of life. Whatever the Government says, this card is not voluntary; it is compulsory. The ominous nature of this legislation reminds us of George Orwell's 1984. The Government has introduced the card with a classic piece of double think. `Voluntary' now means `compulsory'. The other piece of double think is that it will not be necessary to carry the card on one's person. If the card is introduced it will be a landmark in Australia's history of the bureaucracy's dominance over the individual. The legislation provides the building blocks for a totalitarian state. It will take only one unscrupulous government to phase out all the privacy measures and we will be left with a system that knows more about our lives than we know or care to remember. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I call the honourable member for Casey. Mr HALVERSON(Casey)(10.46) —This debate on the Australia Card Bill 1986 is not so much about whether we can or should introduce a compulsory national identification system, but whether we are prepared to ignore-- Mr Humphreys —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Minister was on his feet seeking the call when you were talking to him. You have given the call to the other side. I ask you to call the Minister. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I must admit that I was distracted. I have now put myself in a difficult position. I imagine that because I was distracted, I should call the Minister. If the honourable member for Casey has a short contribution-- Mr HALVERSON —I have an adequate contribution, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Humphreys —Mr Deputy Speaker, on the point of order-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —When I gave the call there were at least three members on their feet and the Minister. There was the honourable member for Berowra, the honourable member for Casey, the honourable member for Griffith and the Minister. I must admit that I had lost my place a little because of discussions I was having with both the Clerk and the honourable member for Denison, who had an amendment that he wanted to move. The normal procedure in the House is to award the call from one side to the other. With deference to the honourable member for Casey, I will call the Minister. Mr Shack —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: With the greatest deference to you, it is not open to you, under Standing Orders, to make this up as you go. The honourable member for Casey stood in his place. You recognised him. You gave him the call. He has the right to speak. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is a second issue here which no one has yet canvassed, and of which I am aware. I should give the call to the honourable member for Casey. I call the honourable member for Casey. Mr HALVERSON —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker-- Dr Blewett —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I was out of my place only because of your personal request that I discuss a matter with you. Therefore, it was extremely difficult for me to seek the call as I obeyed the request of the Chair that I discuss a matter with you. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I accept that. But the other point which no one has canvassed, and of which I am aware, is that to call the Minister will close the debate. While any other member rises, the Minister cannot close the debate. So the honourable member for Casey has the call. Mr Humphreys —Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not want to do this, but seeing that the Opposition is not honouring what it told me it would do, and the Opposition Whip is present-- Mr Lamb —He has broken an agreement. Mr Humphreys —He has broken an agreement. I move: That the honourable member for Casey be not further heard. Question put. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 54 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 17 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A. Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J. Blewett, N. Kent, L. Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J. Brown, John Kerin, J. C. Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. Brumby, J. M. Lee, M. Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J. Charles, D. E. McHugh, J. Charlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J. Chynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P. Cleeland, P. R. Mayer, H. Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B. Cross, M. D. Milton, P. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDawkins, J. S. Morris, PeterDubois, S. G. Mountford, J. G. Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P. Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T. Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J. Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D. Gayler, J. Scott, J. L. Gear, G. Simmons, D. W. Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H. Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R. Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C. Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E. Hayden, W. G. Uren, T. Holding, A. C. West, S. J. Hollis, C. Willis, R. Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J. Hurford, C. J. Adermann, A. E. Hodges, J. C. Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Hunt, R. J. D. Beale, J. H. Jull, D. F. Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B. Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S. Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J. Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M. Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G. Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ewen Peacock, A. S. Carlton, J. J. Porter, J. R. Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K. Coleman, W. P. Robinson, IanConnolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C. Conquest, B. J. Shack, P. D. Cowan, D. B. Sharp, J. Downer, A. J. G. Shipton, R. F. Drummond, P. H. Sinclair, I. McC. Edwards, Harry Slipper, P. N. Everingham, P. A. E. Smith, W. Fischer, Tim Spender, J. M. Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W. Hall, Steele Watson, D. J. H. Halverson, R. G. Webster, A. P. Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C. Darling, E. E. Dobie, J. D. M. Duncan, P. Moore, J. C. Price, L. R. S. MacKellar, M. J. R. Jacobi, R. Katter, R. C. Bilney, G. N. Nehl, G. B. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr LAMB(Streeton)(11.00) —What we have just seen is yet another tactic of cynical opposition by this Opposition which soundly lost the debate on the Australia Card and which was trounced yesterday on the censure debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 55 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 17 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A. Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J. Blewett, N. Kent, L. Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J. Brown, John Kerin, J. C. Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. Brumby, J. M. Lee, M. Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J. Charles, D. E. McHugh, J. Charlesworth, R. I. McLeay, LeoChynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J. Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P. Cohen, B. Mayer, H. Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P. Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G. Edwards, Ronald O'Keefe, N. P. Fatin, W. F. O'Neil, L. R. T. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F. Free, R. V. Saunderson, J. Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W. Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H. Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R. Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C. Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E. Holding, A. C. Uren, T. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Willis, R. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W. Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M. Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Jull, D. F. Beale, J. H. Lloyd, B. Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S. Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J. Brown, N. A. Macphee, I. M. Burr, M. A. Miles, C. G. Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C. Cameron, Donald Peacock, A. S. Cameron, Ewen Porter, J. R. Carlton, J. J. Reith, P. K. Cobb, M. R. Robinson, IanColeman, W. P. Rocher, A. C. Connolly, D. M. Shack, P. D. Conquest, B. J. Sharp, J. Cowan, D. B. Shipton, R. F. Downer, A. J. G. Sinclair, I. McC. Drummond, P. H. Slipper, P. N. Edwards, Harry Smith, W. Everingham, P. A. E. Spender, J. M. Fischer, Tim Sullivan, K. J. Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W. Hall, Steele Watson, D. J. H. Halverson, R. G. Webster, A. P. Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C. Hodges, J. C. Darling, E. E. Dobie, J. D. M. Duncan, P. Moore, J. C. Price, L. R. S. MacKellar, M. J. R. Jacobi, R. Katter, R. C. Bilney, G. N. Nehl, G. B. In division- Mr Donald Cameron-Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. Is it in order for so many Labor Party members, having opposed the ID card, now to be voting for it? Madam SPEAKER-Order! There is no point of order. Question resolved in the affirmative. Madam SPEAKER —The question now is: That the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Mr Hodgman —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order on which I seek the direction of the Chair. I circulated an amendment in my name to clause 1, which was seconded by the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), to amend the title of the Act by omitting the words `Australia Card Act 1986' and substituting the words `Moscow Card Act 1986'. Because of the guillotine, there can be no debate on the amendment. I want to direct your attention to pages 435 and 436 of Pettifer's House of Representatives Practice. In accordance with the sessional order which permits government amendments to be incorporated in the proceedings of the House, I ask whether my amendment, which was circulated but which cannot be debated because of the guillotine, can now be incorporated in the proceedings of this House so that the people will know that we wished to move the amendment but were prevented from so doing. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Is leave granted for the amendment to be incorporated in Hansard? Mr Young —Nyet. Mr Hodgman —I take a point of order. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Does the honourable member for Denison have a further point of order? Mr Hodgman —Yes, it is a legitimate point of order. My request was that the amendment be incorporated in the proceedings. That was the advice that I received from the table. You put the question that it be incorporated in Hansard. I repeat my request that, pursuant to pages 435 and 436 of Pettifer, it be recorded in the proceedings in the same way that government amendments are recorded pursuant to the sessional order. In other words, you put the wrong question. I could put it in Russian if you like-Moskovskaya Oodostevereny Lychnorti. Madam SPEAKER —That cannot be accomplished. It cannot be incorporated into the proceedings. Mr Carlton —Madam Speaker, I take the point of order that the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) was out of order in speaking in the House in a foreign language. I cite the precedent of the British House of Commons where a member attempted to make a speech in French and the Speaker ruled that the member was out of order, not because he was speaking in French but because the Speaker did not understand French and therefore would not know whether or not he was out of order. Madam Speaker, unless you speak Russian you would not have known whether the Minister was out of order or not. Madam SPEAKER —I do not speak Russian but if French were spoken I would probably be able to understand most of it. Question put: That the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 55 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 17 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A. Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J. Blewett, N. Kent, L. Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J. Brown, John Kerin, J. C. Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. Brumby, J. M. Lee, M. Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J. Charles, D. E. McHugh, J. Charlesworth, R. I. McLeay, LeoChynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J. Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P. Cohen, B. Mayer, H. Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P. Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G. Edwards, Ronald O'Keefe, N. P. Fatin, W. F. O'Neil, L. R. T. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F. Free, R. V. Saunderson, J. Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W. Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H. Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R. Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C. Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E. Holding, A. C. Uren, T. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Willis, R. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W. Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M. Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Jull D. F. Beale, J. H. Lloyd, B. Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S. Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J. Brown, N. A. Macphee, I. M. Burr, M. A. Miles, C. G. Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C. Cameron, Donald Peacock, A. S. Cameron, Ewen Porter, J. R. Carlton, J. J. Reith, P. K. Cobb, M. R. Robinson, IanColeman, W. P. Rocher, A. C. Connolly, D. M. Shack, P. D. Conquest, B. J. Sharp, J. Cowan, D. B. Shipton, R. F. Downer, A. J. G. Sinclair, I. McC. Drummond, P. H. Slipper, P. N. Edwards, Harry Smith, W. Everingham, P. A. E. Spender, J. M. Fischer, Tim Sullivan, K. J. Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W. Hall, Steele Watson, D. J. H. Halverson, R. G. Webster, A. P. Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C. Hodges, J. C. Darling, E. E. Dobie, J. D. M. Duncan, P. Moore, J. C. Price, L. R. S. MacKellar, M. J. R. Jacobi, R. Katter, R. C. Bilney, G. N. Nehl, G. B. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Dr Blewett —I present notes on clauses 32 to 51 of the Australia Card Bill 1986. Honourable members may obtain copies from the relevant parliamentary offices. Debate resumed from 23 October, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Madam SPEAKER —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate the Privacy Bill 1986 concurrently with the Privacy (Consequential Amendments) Bill. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —by leave-By way of explanation, I inform honourable members that an explanatory memorandum which was circulated at the time of the second reading needs to be corrected, and I now table the correction, which I understand has already been given to my counterpart opposite. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(11.21) —I received it three-quarters of an hour ago, which is hardly enough time for me to look at it, but I understand that there are corrections. It is a pity that more attention cannot be given to these documents because by legislation introduced, I believe by this Government, for the purposes of statutory interpretation the courts are now allowed to have regard to the explanatory memoranda. We are debating one of the great issues of our time: The nature of our society, the right and legitimacy of the state to demand that its citizens be accountable to it, and the reversal of the balance of power between the state and its citizens. On the outcome of this debate, should it go the way the Government wants, depends a new order in the relations between the state and its citizens. There is in our society a compelling need for the protection of privacy. It is under threat everywhere, especially from state agencies and commissions, which are given wide authoritarian powers to peer into the lives of our citizens, and especially from this Government, as has so irrefutably been demonstrated by the gross and deliberate invasion of privacy proposed by the Australia Card Bill. We on this side of the House have a fundamental and implacable resistance to this assault on our liberties. The Government has spoken of its commitment to the protection of privacy of Australians. It has broken this promise as easily and as carelessly as it has broken so many other promises. The issue is a simple one. We cannot have both privacy protection and the identity card. Just as the Government praises its economic management while the Australian economy lurches into an ever more hazardous state, so the Government speaks of the need to protect privacy while it legislates to destroy it. Government policy is not unlike the Soviet constitution. That constitution speaks of the guarantees of the rights of citizens, yet experience and history tell us how worthless those guarantees are. It is impossible to divorce the identity card from the Privacy Bill, because it is impossible to separate the Data Protection Agency, a wholly worthless agency set up under the identity card Bill, from the Privacy Bill. Some 20 of the 45 clauses of this Bill are exclusively concerned with the functions of the Data Protection Agency, because that agency is so closely and inextricably bound up with the identity card system. Whilst we endorse the need for legislation to protect privacy-a need which is compelling in our society-and whilst we generally endorse the privacy principles stated in the Privacy Bill, although those principles have been watered down from what they should have been by changes made to them by the Government, changes made in the form in which they appeared in a Law Reform Commission report, we will vote against this Bill. What the Government intends to do-I refer here to the identity card-is made possible only by computers. Computers have brought great benefits to our society. They have led immeasurably to society's capacity to store, retrieve, analyse and use an immense body of information. Computers have consigned to oblivion past record-keeping practices. In place of thousands of buildings and warehouses of files, innumerable man hours spent in finding files and cross-matching information we now have the databank and the computer terminal. In the last two decades we have seen a revolution in the storage and retrieval of information on which our society and all civilizations depend. There is, quite literally, no limit to the capability of computers as information storehouses. But for all its benefits, the computer age brings with it a great danger; just as the capability is revolutionary, so is the threat to privacy. The Government pays lip- service to the pressing need to guard against this danger. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), in his second reading speech on this Bill, said: In recent times there have been enormous developments in technology for processing information, providing immense opportunities for building up and using information on individuals. I repeat the words: `building up and using information on individuals'. How right he is. He went on: More than anything else, the capacity of modern computers to search and process information offers the greatest potential for invasion of personal privacy by misuse. How right he is. We are going to have invasion of personal privacy by government edict. He went on: The greater the accumulations of personal information, the greater are the possibilities of inaccurate material being included amongst such information. Decisions based on wrong information are oppressive to the individual concerned and hinder efficient administration. No doubt they do, but the great problem is the invasion of privacy. That is the great danger. As many honourable members on the other side of this House know-and we all know there are honourable members on the other side of this House who believe this-this whole package of legislation which involves an identification for all adult Australians should never have been brought to this House. Even the prime architect of this massive intrusion into the privacy of Australians recognises, or pays lip-service to, the danger it poses. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), in his second reading speech on the Australia Card Bill, said: At the same time, this Government wishes to ensure that we maintain a proper balance between the need to protect the interests of the community, and the need to preserve the rights to privacy and civil liberty of the individual. The Government, by its words, recognises the dimension and the danger our society faces, yet it sets about to destroy the very privacy it says it is committed to uphold. The warnings against the road it is taking are many. The New South Wales Privacy Committee, the only permanent specialist body in this country devoted to privacy issues, representing both sides of politics and with a membership spanning a wide spectrum of our community, in its submission to the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card of this Parliament said that it unanimously condemns the identity card. It concluded: That no convincing case has been made out for the proposed identification scheme. Its threat to privacy substantially outweighs any advantages it offers. Therefore the Privacy Committee recommends that the `Australia Card' program be rejected by the Joint Select Committee. It said: In contrast to the levels of popular confusion about the card and its purposes, a large number of organisations, groups and individuals in addition to the Privacy Committee have indicated strong opposition to the ID card. Apart from numerous politicians from both sides of the political spectrum, opponents have included: Mr Justice Kirby; Frank Costigan QC; Professor Richard Harding, Director of the Australian Institute of Criminology; Professor Geoffrey DeQ Walker, Queensland University Law School; Mr Roger Clark, Australian National University; Professor Ron Johnston, Wollongong University; The Australian Catholic Social Welfare Commission; The NSW Council of Social Services; The Federal Council of the Liberal Party; The Legal and Constitutional Affairs Policy Committee of the Australian Labor Party; Where are the members of that Committee today? Have their views been heard? Another opponent is the Australian Society of Labor Lawyers. I commend its members for their views. Have their views been heard by this Government? I am taking this list directly from the report of the New South Wales Privacy Committee. It goes on: A number of Legal Aid centres; The Western Australian Young Liberals; The Western Australian Young Labor Association; The Australian Council for Civil Liberties. To these can be added-these organisations are also opposed to this gross and dangerous intrusion into the privacy of Australians-the Confederation of Australian Industry; the Council of Small Business Organisations in Australia; the Real Estate Institute of Australia; the New South Wales Council of Australian Small Business Association; the Australian Associated Stock Exchanges; the Victorian Chamber of Commerce; the South Australian Chamber of Commerce; the International Commission of Jurists; the Australian Catholic Welfare Commission; the Anglican Social Responsibilities Commission of the Anglican Dioceses of Perth; the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board; Mr Robert Brown —I raise a point of order. I was prepared to allow the honourable member for North Sydney some latitude in the course his contribution is taking, but it is quite clear that his remarks are concentrated on the Australian Card question. That is a battle which the Opposition had just lost. We are now dealing with the Privacy Bill. I do not think the honourable member for North Sydney has come up to date yet. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —The Chair does not concur with the point of order. There is no point of order. Mr SPENDER —To go on: The New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board; the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association; the Federated Clerks Union-I am very glad to see it there as it is an old client of mine; the Victorian Teachers Union, not, I might add, an old client of mine. I detail these names to meet the Government's prime and only attack on the position taken by the Opposition, and that is the big lie peddled so assiduously when Labor was in opposition, repeated by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)-- Mr Robert Brown —I raise a point of order. I ask that that expression be withdrawn. `The big lie' is unparliamentary and the honourable member for North Sydney knows that it is unparliamentary. I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to request that the honourable member for North Sydney withdraw that expression. Mr SPENDER —That remark was directed to the Government as a whole. It was not directed to any particular individual-although there are one or two who, I would think, fit the description well. Therefore, as it is not a reflection on a specific individual; it is not unparliamentary. Mr Robert Brown —Mr Deputy Speaker, that is simply not correct. I have been ruled out of order on occasions and I have been asked to withdraw expressions that have been used in a general way as far as the Opposition is concerned. That practice has apparently been adopted by Madam Speaker, by previous Speakers and by Deputy Speakers. The most recent ruling, I think, has been to the effect that while a general expression of that kind may be used, if any individual member takes exception to it, it is considered to be unparliamentary and it is withdrawn. I indicated that I have personally taken exception to the use of that expression and I ask that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, rule that the honourable member for North Sydney withdraw it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I cannot. I have listened intently to what the honourable member said and it was a general comment. I do not think a precedent has been set. There is no point of order. Mr SPENDER —What has been said about us is that we are the opportunistic protectors of tax evaders. This has been repeated by the Prime Minister, repeated by the Treasurer (Mr Keating)-that great upholder, despite the heavy cost to himself, of high standards of personal and financial integrity-and repeated and peddled by some of the flunkeys on the front bench. But I am glad to say that some of them are honourable enough not to have done so. If we are opportunistic protectors of tax evaders what of these other people, all of whom oppose the card? What of these organisations? The truth is-and everybody in this Parliament knows it-that we have not taken a position of opportunism; we have taken a position of principle. If we look to the polls-and we know how much the polls rule the life of the Prime Minister-we would see that Australians, by a majority, at present appear to be in favour of this card. A majority of Australians support the card only because they do not understand what it involves. But if we wanted to be opportunistic, what would we do? We would let the legislation go through and take the easy course. But that is not the course we are going to take. We are going to go out and tell Australians what this card involves. They will repudiate this card along with the Government. Honourable members should remember that what is being peddled-Dr Goebbels knew it well-is the big lie. That is a lie which the Opposition will ram down the collective throats of this Government. Mr Robert Brown —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I seek clarification of the ruling you have given. Did you rule that it is in order for the honourable member for North Sydney to refer to the Government as being responsible for `the big lie'? If you did not rule that way, would you ask the honourable member for North Sydney to withdraw that expression? I take personal exception to it. I find it offensive. I find it unparliamentary. I believe that the honourable member is completely out of order in persisting in the use of that expression. It is unparliamentary and has been determined on numerous previous occasions, by Madam Speaker, by former Mr Speakers and by other people who have occupied the chair, as being a term which is not acceptable within the Parliament. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —It is a general term which has been used time and again. I hope that I am not wrong, but I cannot recall precedents being set by Madam Speaker or any other Speaker in ruling it out of order. I do not believe that it is out of order. It is a general term. I do not uphold the point of order. Mr SPENDER —It is the unique capabilities of the computer age and of computers that make what the Government proposes so dangerous. The computer has a unique capacity to search, process and match information. This was strikingly illustrated by the work of the Costigan inquiry which, through analysis and matching of information, was able to retrieve the identity of criminals from behind the aliases under which they functioned. Without Costigan's techniques of computer investigation which were so useful for his work on organised crime, would the Government ever have come up with this surveillance proposal against the privacy of its citizens? Knowledge is power. Computers provide an unparalleled opportunity for the state to increase its power at the expense of the individual. In assessing the consequences of the Government's proposals and the useless protection this Bill seeks to establish, we must look to the storehouse of information which will be generated about the lives of all adult Australians, a storehouse which necessarily follows from the impossibility-- Mr Robert Brown —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. Mr SPENDER —This is absolutely ridiculous. Mr Robert Brown —I am not trying to be disruptive, Mr Deputy Speaker. I give you my absolute assurance of that. We are not dealing with the Australia Card. We are dealing with the provisions of the Privacy Bills at present. The honourable member for North Sydney is dealing with a debate which has been settled in this Parliament. When referring to offences against privacy he may have claimed a connection with the Australia Card but he cannot possibly make a connection with the legislation we are dealing with at present. We are now dealing with Privacy Bills. I ask that the honourable member for North Sydney be brought back to the terms of the legislation with which we are currently dealing. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I believe that you will find that as this debate progresses there will be various references to previous legislation by way of comparison by members on both sides of the House. Therefore, the Chair will allow the honourable member for North Sydney to continue. There is no point of order. Mr SPENDER —I remind the House that I was referring to the useless protection this Privacy Bill seeks to establish. When we look at those so-called protections we must look to the storehouse of information that will be generated about the lives of all adult Australians. So that the honourable member for Charlton, who has been interrupting so assiduously for the purpose of breaking up the debate, will understand what it is all about, a storehouse of information that necessarily follows from the impossibility of law- abiding Australians acting satisfactorily and legally in our society without the identity card will be generated. An identity card will be a prerequisite of life in our society, First, there is the identification process. We have to understand these processes if we are to understand the futility of the so-called protections included in this Privacy Bill. Each Australian will have to satisfy the Government of his or her existence and to produce whatever information the Government reasonably thinks necessary for that purpose. One must go to a public servant and satisfy him that one has a right to be called by the name one was born under. The Government will have the power to tap into information kept on Australians by the Social Security Department and Veterans' Affairs Department and kept under the Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Act, the Student Assistance Act, the Australian Citizenship Act, the Passports Act, and the Migration Act, all for the purpose of being satisfied about the identity of Australians. Secondly, for each card holder, details of names, addresses, sex, date and place of birth, residential address and other information will be stored on the identity card computer. Mr Robert Brown —I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sorry, but I must insist that the honourable member for North Sydney is not dealing with this legislation and it is not sufficient for him to make some passing reference to the Privacy Bills in order to justify continuing to debate issues which have been determined in this Parliament, namely, the Australia Card. The honourable member for North Sydney is not dealing with this legislation. He is dealing with legislation which has been passed by this Parliament. I ask you to draw to his attention the nature of the legislation and to insist that he deals with that legislation and not with something which has already been dealt with. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Chair would like to inform the honourable member for Charlton that the Bill before the House refers in clause 21 to the Australia Card. Therefore, the honourable member for North Sydney is in order. There is no point of order. Mr SPENDER —Let me also remind you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the honourable member who has interrupted, that the Bill deals in 20-odd clauses with the Data Protection Agency. The Data Protection Agency is set up under the Bill so grossly misnamed the Australia Card Bill. We have gone through the identification process. Secondly, for each card holder there is a storage of information on the main identity card computer. Thirdly, there is the extraordinary reporting system set up under the identity card Bill. This has to be considered when we are assessing the futility of this so-called privacy protection Bill. One must produce one's identity card to open an account with a bank, a building society, a credit union, a co-operative society, a sharebroker, a futures broker, a unit, property or cash management trust; to invest in government securities; to deposit money with a solicitor, or with a company; to purchase land; to deal with rural marketing authorities; to establish one's right to Medicare and social security benefits; to send money overseas and to establish one's right to payment of interest on money held in one's name with financial institutions. So even if the money is there when the Bill comes into effect one will need to prove one's identity by a card to withdraw one's own money. One will need it even to get a job. Fourthly, in all these cases the Government by its legislation intends that the unique identification number should be logged by the bank, by the building society, by the employer or by whomever else it is who must, under the identity card Act, and subject to heavy penalties, record the number. In most, if not all, cases, this information is to be available to the Commissioner of Taxation. The Department of Health and Department of Social Security also may have access to it. Fifthly, under the national computerised Births, Deaths and Marriages Register, information such as family composition, legitimation, adoption, marital status and, in many cases, religious affiliation could be retrieved. Honourable members should remember that that is the storehouse of information which will be generated. What will be the consequence? Computers can talk to one another. Compatible computers can retrieve information from each other. By this means and through the unique identification system with each card holder having his or her own unique number, this storehouse of information distributed through government departments across the whole of Australia can be accessed by one person sitting at a government computer terminal or, perhaps, a private computer terminal. A profile, unparalleled in detail, of the lives of card holders will be available to governments and to anyone else who can get access to the system. What are the protections? The Privacy Bill is claimed by the Attorney-General to regulate the collection, handling and use by the Commonwealth departments and agencies of information about individuals so as to provide them with a level of privacy protection that is consistent with efficient government administration. I emphasise the words `consistent with efficient government administration'. The Bill states 11 principles called information privacy principles. The idea is said to be to confer some measure of protection for individuals against governments but the protections are as worthless as the Data Protection Agency set up under the Australia Card Bill which has such a major role in the Privacy Bill. They are worthless for the following reasons. First and fundamentally, the whole structure of the legislative package is such that the right to privacy of individual Australians is deeply infringed. That is the underlying philosophy and the direct legal intent of what the Government is doing. The so-called protections come into effect only after this infringement has lawfully taken place. In no way does it diminish this infringement or qualify it. The Government gave the game away in the second reading speech of the Attorney-General when he said there will be `a level of privacy protection that is consistent with efficient government administration'. We know how many liberties have been lost through the beguiling argument that we need efficient administration. The next reason why these protections are worthless is that the Data Protection Agency does not have direct control over the contents of the Register, the way it is used or the way information is relayed among government departments. Third, there are literally thousands of government servants who have access to the computer terminals which can call up information about individuals from agencies throughout Australia. All these are linked by the identity card number. How will it be possible for any agency, regardless of how many thousands of public servants work for it, to monitor access to this unique and extraordinary bank of information on the lives of Australians? How is it possible to prevent leaks and unauthorised usage? All of our experience of leaked confidential information from government departments tells us that it is not possible. Who will guard the guardians? Fourth, the Data Protection Agency is hamstrung in its functions. It is bound by information privacy principles and the weakness in those principles is brought about by some of the changes made to them by this Government. Fifth, it appears that the Government has not heard of computer hackers. It is notorious that even the most secure systems have been penetrated. I give two very brief examples taken from the Australian Accountant of February 1986. It recorded a case in America in which children broke into a cancer research clinic over the weekend. They were able to collect all user IDs and passwords. They wanted to break in so that they could get some computer time. These were children breaking in. Let us take a case in this country. In Melbourne a bank electronic funds transfer system was exploited by a youth to withdraw $40,000. He had worked out the means to enter the system, set up a bogus account and made his withdrawal at a time when he knew the system to be vulnerable because of a changeover of equipment. We are talking here about highly secure systems. We know that even the most secure systems can be penetrated. This system will contain information about the lives of just about every adult Australian, every permanent resident in this country over the age of 16. Does anybody think that that system will be secure? Of course no one does. Of course one knows this talk about security is as bogus as the speech made about privacy by the Minister for Health and his concern about maintaining some sort of balance of power between the Government and individuals. I conclude by saying that we have made it plain that we support the need for privacy legislation. What the Government has done makes it very clear how important strong privacy legislation is. But this Bill is a side issue. The real issue is the Bill to which it is tied-the Australia Card Bill. Members of this Government have run like a collection of frightened rats on the fringe benefits tax. We will see them run again on this Bill. We will take this argument around the country. We will tell Australians what is involved. We will make them understand. There will be an upsurge of opinion against this Bill just as there was an upsurge of opinion against the Bill of Rights and the fringe benefits tax. Then we will see the strength of the Government's resolution. We all know how strong its resolution was when it came under political pressure as a consequence of the fringe benefits tax. We will see the Prime Minister consult the polls and the tea leaves to try to get himself off the political hook of this Bill on which he has managed to impale himself. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(11.50) —Today we are dealing with the Privacy Bill 1986. That would not have been clear at all from the speech of the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). However, it is good that a Party like the Liberal Party, which introduced conscription, which sent young men to Vietnam against their will to fight and die, is now suddenly allegedly finding principles and issues that it wishes to put before the people on civil liberties. They were not doing very much in the Fraser years when there were appalling reports by the Commissioner of Taxation about fraud and tax cheating. Frank Costigan was called in and did a great job in pointing out that payment of tax became optional under the Liberal-National Party Government. The speech of the honourable member for North Sydney only proves how divided the coalition in Opposition is and how much tension and confusion the Liberal Party and the National Party display on this important issue of the Australia Card. This legislation works on the enormous contribution of the Law Reform Commissioner, Mr Justice Michael Kirby, who evolved the information privacy principles before the House today and which will become law. As honourable members can see, there are no penalties in the legislation. The provision is that there will be reports to Parliament. Some of the things that the honourable member for North Sydney said are true. Mistakes are made with computers. I had a telephone call this week at my office from a person in the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The person apologised profusely. There was a hiccup in the computer and a good friend of mine in Concord received a letter saying that his veterans' affairs pension had stopped because he was dead. He was somewhat surprised to receive that letter. However he has a good sense of humour and he will not mind. Such things do happen. In my experience public servants work very hard and are very honourable people. Enormous numbers of public servants not just the ones mentioned by the honourable member for North Sydney but thousands of people in the Australian Taxation Office have access to confidential taxation records, records in which taxpayers declare all their sources of income be they legal or illegal. These people know what income is available and have access to the records. They maintain confidentiality. Why should the public servants who administer the Australia Card suddenly reveal this information or disclose it unlawfully? Why should there be such a hoo-ha and a hullabaloo about it? The honourable member for North Sydney really descended into the farcical when he talked about the prospect of people's religious affiliations suddenly being retrieved by somebody pressing a button. That is just nonsense. If that is the strength of the argument that the Liberal and National Parties put up against the Privacy Bill and the Australia Card that is a joke. Many benefits will come from the introduction of the Australia Card. As speakers on the Government side said ad infinitum in that debate this is not a card that one carries like a Medicare card or a credit card. It will be needed for only limited purposes. As Frank Costigan insisted, this country must tighten procedures for opening bank accounts and upgrade the operation of banking facilities. One of the reasons for having an Australia Card is to operate a bank account. Another is to obtain a government payment. It is essential that people who obtain any government payments, be they pensions or unemployment benefits, obtain them legally. The vast majority of Australians who obtain unemployment benefits or who have to live on the pension or the supporting parents' benefit receive those payments legitimately and properly. This card will ensure that a person seeking the benefit is a real person and that the transaction is not fraudulent. It is a sensible and efficient way to ensure that the whole system is properly organised and managed. It is possible to check every person weekly to ensure that they are still in need of unemployment benefit, the pension or the supporting parents benefit and that they are not working, but that would be an extraordinary financial undertaking. It would require inspectors and supervisors and it would be very intrusive. It would offend the civil liberties of all if officers went out to homes, knocked on doors, and said `Are you still here?' or `Why weren't you here when I called yesterday to check whether you are still unemployed?'. A person who is unemployed is supposed to be out and about looking for work. I think the Australia Card is a tremendous compromise. When I initially heard the proposal I opposed it automatically. With my legal training and background I thought it was terrible. But I changed my mind when, over a long period, I read the reports and listened to the arguments about it within the Labor Party, the Labor Government, the Caucus and the community. After talking to constituents I even started a group in my area of people who were opposed to the idea of an ID card. Those people said to me eventually: `Why did you change your mind?'. I replied that I did not agree with our nation being robbed by people who fraudulently came into the country as tourists and worked, people who got payments illegally and people who defrauded all the Government departments-people who set out blatantly to deceive by obtaining a number of driver's licences and putting themselves on the dole and, as the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) said, receiving enormous fraudulent payments. Australians pay a lot of tax but they do believe that there should be a system which at least tries to make the social welfare segment of the Government's expenditure fair and honest. I believe it will be a great step forward in that regard. The earliest moves in Australia to do something about privacy were taken in New South Wales by the late John Maddison, a former Minister of Justice in a Liberal government, who established the New South Wales Privacy Committee. I pay great tribute to John as he was a wonderful Australian who saw the need for privacy legislation. The New South Wales Privacy Committee is essentially an advisory body that looks at complaints and makes reports to Parliament. For years and years there have been complaints about the sale of names of debtors in courts and many of these procedures have been endorsed by governments. From time to time the question of privacy comes into the public arena. Another debate which floated around and which is terribly important is the issue of spent convictions-people who have some conviction in their past, perhaps as a student peccadillo, as Mr Justice Fullagar referred to one student whose case he dealt with in the High Court of Australia. A man who I went through law school with, when being admitted to practice, had to disclose that he had been convicted of being drunk in Hyde Park. He was terribly embarrassed about this and I did not blame him because it had happened years before. But people have these things with them for the rest of their lives. Police and employers are very reluctant to allow people not to mention a previous conviction. This is part of the confidentiality and privacy requirements. I believe that the information privacy principles we are establishing today, which will bring Australia into line with the rest of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development nations, will do something to work on this notion of spent convictions to strike some sort of balance between the needs of the police and of employers to know the full details of one's past and at the same time save people from humiliation for the whole of their lives. The Privacy Bill being debated fits in and dovetails with the Freedom of Information Act introduced in 1982. I pay tribute to the previous Government for bringing that legislation in, particularly the late Senator Missen, who pushed for this legislation. It is extremely significant legislation because similar legislation does not apply in any of the States. It is quite pioneering as it gives individuals access to information prepared and collected at government expense. In Part IV are various categories of exempt documents. All the legal professional privileges that have come from the Courts of Chancery over the years which ensure that the solicitor-client relationship will prevent production of documents are recognised in Part IV. Documents connected with a client approaching a solicitor or barrister for advice are always privileged. The freedom of information legislation also talks about the amendment of personal records, so there is a close relationship between the two. Of course, the introduction of the Australia Card necessitated the introduction of this privacy legislation. I want to touch on other matters that this legislation will affect. One matter which has always annoyed me, not only in this Parliament but also in a State parliament in which I served, is the practice of Ministers-certainly not the Minister at the table, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen)-of all parties replying to members of parliament when a member may have written five or six letters to that Minister detailing problems of constituents and inevitably saying: `I reply to your letter on behalf of Mrs Smith, Mrs O'Brien, Mrs Jones, Mrs Maddern and Mrs Brown'. I believe this is a total breach of privacy and confidentiality. I believe this legislation before the House to introduce information privacy principles will stop this practice. Constituents become quite annoyed because they do not want to know who else has written to a member and they do not want other people to know that they have written to a member about some issue. Similarly, if a constituent writes to me and to a Minister, the Minister will often reply: `Here is the letter I have sent to the constituent. Thank you.' I believe that is probably outlawed or proscribed by this legislation because a Minister has no right to release a letter he has sent to a constituent. Even if a constituent writes in similar terms, the Minister should observe the niceties of this legislation, and I believe this is an important milestone in parliamentary and ministerial representations. In accordance with this legislation, government departments will have to look at all the information they collect. Any Australian who comes back from overseas has to fill out an immigration form as soon as he comes into Australia under the headings `Citizenship' and then `Country of Birth'. Why should any government department be allowed to ask where a person was born? A person is either an Australian or a non-Australian, according to the Migration Act. Why should any government department want to know whether a person was born in England, Ireland, Lebanon or Poland? Is it some sort of signal that if a person was born in a foreign country the authorities should search his baggage all the more? I think it is disgraceful. I have always objected to many of these questions that government departments place on forms. I think that Immigration, Customs and all these government departments must review the information they require individuals to declare on forms and certificates. I again make the point that the honourable member for North Sydney is quite wrong when he says that, by pressing a button, a government officer can find out a person's religious affiliation. That is one question that many people do not answer in a census as it is one question that is optional, yet he says that we will have a situation where a person's religious affiliation can be sourced. The depth of the Opposition's argument against this Bill and the Australia Card is nonsense. Other matters I did want to touch on today relate to the problems of the correction of information which is wrongly recorded. We all hear, as members of parliament, some horrendous stories of people who have had a default judgment entered against them by mistake or who at the last minute come to some arrangement with their creditors but find that credit agencies have their name blacklisted and they cannot obtain a loan or credit. As recently as yesterday I talked and wrote to the Attorney-General about a constituent who had a default judgment entered against him and who then got into a number of problems with other creditors. An alderman of Drummoyne Council, in my area, Alderman Tredwell, has raised the matter with me and with the State member for Drummoyne, who has raised it in the New South Wales Parliament. Credit agencies wrongly recorded indebtedness against this alderman and he had great trouble obtaining loans to finance the purchase of a new home. He had no redress. He had no way in which he could sort out the whole question of his privacy, his good name and his credit worthiness. I pay tribute to Mr Justice Kirby, an old friend of mine, who has worked very hard on the privacy area through the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development nations. He is probably the world authority on privacy. He has done a great job. Mr Spender —And is one who is opposed to the Australia Card Bill. Mr MAHER —Although I did not hear the interjection of the honourable member for North Sydney, I am sure he would support those remarks. Michael Kirby may oppose the Australia Card. I am sure he is a very sensible man and he would see that the problems that he may envisage are far outweighed by the need to allow the Government to protect the revenue, to protect the payments made from the hard earned funds of taxpayers who pay tax through the pay as you earn system every week with no way of avoiding tax. The money is taken out at source. These people do not want to see their money fraudulently taken by illegal immigrants who are working in Australia, perhaps receiving unemployment benefits or social security benefits. Taxpayers do not want to see people fraudulently getting multiple dole cheques or avoiding paying tax by working under other names or by not paying the interest on bank accounts or other investments. It is a fair enough argument that people should see that the tax system is not bleeding, that it is getting in the revenue and that it is properly working. Australia is a great country with a great future. As I have said, the three Bills being considered today are supplementary. This important legislation is the first set of guidelines in any Australian parliament to lay down the rules to protect privacy. In New South Wales and Queensland there are privacy committees but they are both only advisory. The various clauses of the Bills which set forth the principles for privacy should be supported by the House. I trust they will be endorsed as supplementary to the Australia Card debate which we have had in the House for the past two days. I recommend the Privacy Bill and trust that the House will support it. Mr SMITH(Bass)(12.08) —I understood the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) to have stated that his initial reactions, because of his legal training, were to oppose the Australia Card Bill. If he had followed those initial reactions he would now find himself on the same side as his friend Mr Justice Kirby. The purpose of the Privacy Bill 1986 is to regulate the collection, handling and use by Commonwealth departments and agencies of information about individuals. The aim is to provide privacy protection that is, in the words of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), `consistent with efficient government administration'. That is stated in the second reading speech. One might well ask: What does this mean? Efficiency is a little like peace; one can define it in many different ways. Many things have been done by governments in the name of efficiency. It is now an accepted truism that with the capacity of new generation computers and information processing capabilities there exists the greatest potential for the invasion of personal privacy by misuse. The ever-increasing role of governments at all levels, by the provision of services and the accumulation of information, is a fact that is well known to every thinking citizen. Whether this continual march forward by government into the life of the citizen is good or not is indeed a broader debate. Suffice it to say that my view is that the rapidity of the growth of government in its information seeking and retrieval capabilities is one of the most unhealthy trends of the development of the modern state. This Bill adopts the Australian Law Reform Commission draft legislation and also draws on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development guidelines on privacy. It is my view that there are features of the proposed legislation which should be endorsed. In general terms, the information privacy principles deserve support. There are 11 principles. They refer to things such as, in No. 1, the manner and purpose of collection of personal information. No. 3 deals with the solicitation of personal information generally. I highlight that No. 11 refers to the limits on disclosure of personal information solicited from information subjects. This is a very important provision because who gets what information is a basic question. It illustrates the extreme difficulty in formulating the legislation. Honourable members will see this if they look at that principle carefully. However, there is no doubt in my mind that there is a compelling need for privacy legislation. Whilst government activity is the focus-such as in social security, education, taxation and health and so on-we should not forget the ever increasing reach of statutory authorities such as the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The Bureau gives me some concern, not necessarily through its collection of census information but through other surveys, that it is increasingly undertaking to gather further information. Also, the relationship of databases of government being used by political parties, businesses or unions requires further study. After all, as we all know in this place, a very basic political tool is a good mailing list. The sophistication of the new marketing techniques targeted to certain groups is based on personal data analysis. The wrongful use of government personal data is apparent for even the most innocent to see. `Personal information' is very widely defined in the Bill to include anything-fact, true, false or opinion, although unrecorded conversation is not covered. Breaches of the principles are to be overviewed by the Data Protection Agency. Where there is a failure to satisfy an alleged breach of privacy by conciliation the next step is to report it to the Minister. Injunctive relief would be available as it is now. The sanction for a breach of privacy is in reality a bit of a paper tiger. It leaves one feeling that the elaborate mechanisms set up are but an expression of a desire for an ideal guard to privacy which relies more on the good sense of the information collector than anything else. I come back to my earlier observation: The only sure way to ensure privacy of the individual from the abuse by government is not to collect so much information in the first place. The demands of the Australian Taxation Office for information on the basis `we may need it' seems a spurious argument. It is a waste of time, money and effort and an intrusion of the very worst type. I commend to all honourable members the recent report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure on this very subject. Privacy protection demands a balance between the rights of individuals and the needs of the state. I underline the word `needs'. This is where I part company from the Government, on the question of needs. The Australia Card Bill is an integral part of the privacy legislation, or vice versa. This was pointed out in relation to clause 21. Privacy is a basic premise in our liberal democracy. It is eloquently described as `a vulnerable, fragile and essential freedom'. It is `a defence against the tyranny of the temporary majority'. That is what this Government is, a temporary majority. It has hitched its privacy principles to the biggest, most intrusive invasion of basic privacy of the individual in this country's history in a way that any thinking person must view with deep concern. The Australia Card package must be opposed in its entirety. Part only, such as this Bill, cannot be passed. The splitting of the Data Protection Agency functions between the two Bills-Privacy and Australia Card-is a cynical, blatant attempt to use the very just and sensible privacy principles as a mechanism to garner support for this odious Australia Card. It is a tactic of parliamentary draftsmanship unworthy of the Attorney. The data bank information to be gathered by the Australia Card Bill is awesome in its scope. People deserve protection from it and from its wrongful use. The basic question though is: Do we need it? The answer is clearly no. The honourable member for Lowe referred to Mr Justice Kirby. He is an articulate and learned former Chairman of the Australian Law Reform Commission and is respected by all in the community. He issued a warning on this card which is worth remembering. He said: Carrying the card will be obligatory in due course of time. And producing it will become 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. This is a warning from the man who spent over 10 years looking solely at law reform, a man who was described some minutes ago by the honourable member for Lowe as a world authority on privacy. His statement calls for privacy protection, to be sure, but it is far more fundamental. It is a statement that says: `Do not establish a framework that will require a necessary protection mechanism, for any such mechanism will be imperfect'. The very best protection is not to proceed. It is a matter of needs. As I said, we do not need the card. There are alternatives. If one looks at the social security system that has been touted as a reason that we need the ID card- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! I suggest to the honourable member that he be very careful in his remarks not to reflect on legislation that has been passed earlier today. Mr Spender —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The previous speaker spent a good bit of his time talking about that legislation, as, indeed, did I. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. I am not telling him not to talk about the matters. I am suggesting that he went very close to reflecting on a decision of this House. I am guiding him and suggesting that he be careful not to do that. That is all. I am not suggesting to him that he is not entitled to refer to the Australia Card. I allowed him to do that in his remarks about Mr Justice Kirby's attitude towards it. Mr SMITH —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As I was saying-and I am aware of your warning-in regard to the social security situation, it has been argued that we ought to proceed with the legislation that has just been passed on the basis that we need to be able to do away with what has been referred to as social security fraud. My point is that surely it would be better to have stricter identification requirements for the 2.8 million clients of the Department of Social Security, rather than put in place a system that will affect 16 million Australians. If one looks at taxation administration, which has also been a basis for wanting to proceed with the Australia Card, there is scope for administrative efficiency improvements. The report of the Standing Committee on Expenditure, which was released recently, amply outlined that these improvements could be achieved. It is also interesting that the Expenditure Committee is about to embark on an inquiry into another aspect of taxation administration. I think that that report will have some interesting proposals for honourable members to contemplate. The social implications of this momentous step will not be felt for many years. The computer matching capability is frightening. The Australian Computer Society, condemning the card proposals, stated: Computer matching brings together vast amounts of data about each individual, which was collected by different organisations for quite different purposes and with varying degrees of care and accuracy. The scope for misunderstanding and misinterpretation of merged data is enormous. There is also, of course, the problem of multiple access through computer terminals. My point is that privacy is threatened as never before. The Privacy Bill will not protect the citizen from the intrusion that the ID card will bring. The Government seeks to protect privacy with this Bill, while at the same time legislating to destroy it with the Australia Card Bill. This is a sad day for individual liberty and the privacy of the citizen. This Bill, unfortunately, must be opposed. The basic privacy principles, whilst they are in themselves good, are totally integrated into the Data Protection Agency aspects of this Bill and also the Bill that has just been passed, the Australia Card Bill. I find it sad that I must oppose those principles, but because of the way in which the legislation has been drafted-the cynical approach to the drafting-and the total integration of the whole package, we have no choice but to oppose it. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(12.19) —Prior to referring to the substance of the legislation that is before us today, I would like briefly to respond to an issue that was raised by my colleague the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). He indicated that on his side of the House there was-and I paraphrase this-implacable resistance to the Australia Card proposal. It is my submission-and I think it would be a view embraced by most observers of this debate-that there is not implacable opposition. There is opportunistic opposition from a range of people, including the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). I would go so far as to say that I would bare my underwear in Puckle Street, Moonee Ponds if the Opposition, if given the opportunity one day to implement the Australia Card proposal, did not do so. I fundamentally believe that, if circumstances changed, it would certainly have the carriage of this type of legislation. The reason that it would do so is that, on all the objective criteria, there are no substantial and weighty arguments against the sort of compromise package that this Government has brought in. I, like my colleague the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher), was very strongly opposed to the proposal when the Australia Card proposal was originally floated. The reason that I was opposed to it was that the original concept extended the use of the Australia Card across areas that I believed were quite inappropriate. At that stage there was not a corollary of privacy legislation, such as that which is before the House today; nor was there, for example, the proposal for a Data Protection Agency, and so on. In the final analysis the thing that annoys me most about the Opposition's position is the opportunistic nature of its approach to this and a number of other issues. The Leader of the Opposition-and I mention this in the debate because my colleague the honourable member for North Sydney raised questions about the leadership of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)-effectively attained leadership by undermining the former Leader, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), by alleging deficiencies. Mr Spender —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. What he is saying is perfectly irrelevant on any view of relevance. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —I am sure that the honourable member for Maribyrnong was making a passing reference to something and he will see that it is linked with the remarks that he will make in a short while. Mr GRIFFITHS —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. In fact, I was simply responding to submissions put before the House by the honourable member for North Sydney, who has now sought to take a point of order. I say simply-and I will not pursue this matter vigorously-that this legislation and the Australia Card proposal, which form an integral part of a very important package, are just like, for example, the assets test and the proposal to merge the Special Broadcasting Service with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. There is opposition, and perhaps that is acceptable in a democracy such as ours. Mr Spender —Perhaps? Mr GRIFFITHS —Well, it is acceptable but let me make this point: The opposition that is manifest on this whole range of issues goes very much against the rhetoric of the Opposition that it would support legislation in difficult economic circumstances when, on its merits and on balance, that should transpire. It has backed off from all the hard decisions. Show me one decision which has been supported by the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition flagged that he would support constructive legislation. Show me where he has done so. He has not done so on one issue from which he believes he can wring a few drops by marshalling the forces of some interest group. I would like very much to respond to some of the polemics of previous speakers, but I shall not do so, as time does not permit it. I would like to address the specifics of the Privacy Bill and related legislation which is before the House today. I think it is worth making a number of general points and I will then refer to some of the specific matters raised by my colleague the honourable member for North Sydney. The legislation that is before the House is the first comprehensive legislation for the handling of personal information to protect privacy at a national level. Of course, as was acknowledged by the honourable member for Lowe, New South Wales has a Privacy Committee. I think that Queensland has the same sort of committee. They ought to be commended for that. They ought to provide a suitable model for other States to pursue. This Privacy Bill will give a lead to the States. They have already expressed interest in promoting a uniform Australia-wide approach, and that is to be commended, not only in the context of this legislation, but also in the context of so much legislation in regard to which the States have a quite clear constitutional role to play. The legislation before the House substantially, but not in total, implements the important recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission privacy report which, I think, was presented in late 1983. The Bill reflects and makes good Australia's adherence to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development guidelines on the protection of privacy and it will help ensure that Australia keeps in step with privacy protection moves in other OECD countries and accordingly avoids any threat to the flow of data between Australia and those countries within the OECD context. The legislation is intended to be comprehensive and readily comprehensible and I hope honourable members will take note of that point. It is an important development of this Parliament. The Victorian Parliament is showing leadership in this context by putting legislation in such a form that it is readily understood by people in our community. I believe-I think my colleague the honourable member for North Sydney might agree on this point-that for too long legislation from parliaments all around Australia has been drafted in a form totally incomprehensible to the people in the community that that legislation purports to represent. This legislation follows that very important principle. I commend not only the Government but also officers of the House for putting the legislation in the way they have. It is, by any definition, a practical and workable code. I do not dispute the right of the Opposition to attack particular provisions in it but I am pleased to see we have bipartisan agreement on the necessity for making this type of legislation much simpler. The legislation before the House is not intended to duplicate existing freedom of information legislation; it is intended to dovetail with it. To the extent that all governments must be careful about the amount of taxpayers' funds that they expend on any particular reform, I think the dovetailing components of this legislation ought to be acknowledged. Regardless of different aspects of the Bill, once again, I do not believe that the Opposition would argue with that general proposition. This legislation has the advantage of building on a system which is familiar both to the public and Commonwealth Government departments. They have already had considerable experience with FOI over some very considerable time. It is not the ideal system; the ideal system would cost many tens of millions of dollars. However, the existing FOI regime is an important resource for people in our community and to the extent that it has been used quite significantly over past years. That view could almost be said to be unchallengeable. In the context of the extension of freedom of information rights that is encompassed within clause 23 of the Privacy Bill and other clauses in the related legislation, it is worth making the point that the Bills supplement the existing right to seek correction of personal affairs documents and to introduce reverse FOI procedures for personal affairs documents. At the moment reverse FOI procedures apply only to business affairs documents. They are a fairly significant component of the legislation and that fact ought to be acknowledged. In terms of the practical nature of remedies for persons aggrieved by information held within government departments and so forth, it is important to make the following points: Commonwealth departments have an absolute obligation-I stress the term `absolute obligation'-to comply with the 11 information privacy principles which are once again an important component of this legislation. The legislation takes full advantage of the creation of the high-powered Data Protection Agency encompassed within the Australia Card Bill by conferring investigation and reporting powers on it. At the outset of my remarks I referred to the important package of legislation surrounding the Australia Card Bill and it was really to the Data Protection Agency, together with this legislation before the House, to which I referred. I believe that that is a significant development and one that in the final analysis, as I said in the Australia Card debate, will be seen to enhance the civil liberties of the Australian community rather than, as some honourable members opposite would have it, retard them. The legislation minimises inconvenience to complainants by providing for automatic transfer of complaints to the most appropriate or relevant agency, for example, the DPA, the Ombudsman, the Merit Protection and Review Agency and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! It being 12.30 p.m., the time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. Question put. That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr L. J. Keogh) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 55 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 17 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A. Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Keating, P. J. Blewett, N. Kelly, R. J. Bowen, Lionel Kent, L. Brown, John Kerin, J. C. Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. Brumby, J. M. Lee, M. Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J. Charles, D. E. McHugh, J. Charlesworth, R. I. McLeay, LeoChynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J. Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P. Cohen, B. Mayer, H. Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P. Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G. Edwards, Ronald O'Keefe, N. P. Fatin, W. F. O'Neil, L. R. T. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F. Free, R. V. Saunderson, J. Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W. Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H. Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R. Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C. Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E. Holding, A. C. Uren, T. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Willis, R. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W. Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hodges, J. C. Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Hunt, R. J. D. Beale, J. H. Jull, D. F. Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B. Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S. Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J. Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M. Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G. Cameron Donald Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ewen Peacock, A. S. Cameron, Ian Porter, J. R. Carlton, J. J. Reith, P. K. Cobb, M. R. (Teller) Robinson, IanColeman, W. P. Rocher, A. C. Connolly, D. M. Sharp, J. Conquest, B. J. Shipton, R. F. Cowan, D. B. Sinclair, I. McC. Downer, A. J. G. Slipper, P. N. Drummond, P. H. Smith, W. Edwards, Harry Spender, J. M. Everingham, P. A. E. Sullivan, K. J. Fischer, Tim Tuckey, C. W. Goodluck, B. J. Watson, D. J. H. Hall, Steele Webster, A. P. Halverson, R. G. White, P. N. D. Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Darling, E. E. Dobie, J. D. M. Duncan, P. Moore, J. C. Price, L. R. S. MacKellar, M. J. R. Jacobi, R. Katter, R. C. Bilney, G. N. Nehl, G. B. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question now is: That the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 23 October, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(12.40) —This legislation-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of this Bill has now expired. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr L. J. Keogh) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 55 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 17 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C.A. Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A. Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Keating, P. J. Blewett, N. Kelly, R. J. Bowen, Lionel Kent, L. Brown, John Kerin, J. C. Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. Brumby, J. M. Lee, M. Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J. Charles, D. E. McHugh, J. Charlesworth, R. I. McLeay, LeoChynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J. Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P. Cohen, B. Mayer, H. Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P. Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G. Edwards, Ronald O'Keefe, N. P. Fatin, W. F. O'Neil, L. R. T. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F. Free, R. V. Saunderson, J. Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W. Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H. Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R. Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C. Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E. Holding, A. C. Uren, T. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Willis, R. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W. Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hodges, J. C. Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Hunt, R. J. D. Beale, J. H. Jull, D. F. Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B. Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S. Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J. Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M. Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G. Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ewen Peacock, A. S. Cameron, Ian Porter, J. R. Carlton, J. J. Reith, P. K. Cobb, M. R. Robinson, IanColeman, W. P. Rocher, A. C. Connolly, D. M. Sharp, J. Conquest, B. J. Shipton, R. F. Cowan, D. B. Sinclair, I. McC. Downer, A. J. G. Slipper, P. N. Drummond, P. H. Smith, W. Edwards, Harry Spender, J. M. Everingham, P. A. E. Sullivan, K. J. Fischer, Tim Tuckey, C. W. Goodluck, B. J. Watson, D. J. H. Hall, Steele Webster, A. P. Halverson, R. G. White, P. N. D. Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Darling, E. E. Dobie, J. D. M. Duncan P. Moore J. C. Price, L. R. S. MacKellar, M. J. R. Jacobi, R. Katter, R. C. Bilney, G. N. Nehl, G. B. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question now is: That the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Sitting suspended from 12.48 to 2 p.m. Mr PORTER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Health. How will an overseas person or corporation, who or which is not eligible to get an identity card, be able to conduct business with Australian financial institutions such as banks and broking and futures houses? Dr BLEWETT —I expect that the answer is that the Australia Card will deal with Australian institutions, each of which will be identified with an entity number attached to a particular Australia Card number. Mr SCOTT —Can the Minister for Social Security inform the House how the Department of Social Security intends to use the Australia Card? Mr HOWE —The Australia Card will be used as a high integrity mechanism to cut down on social security fraud. It will re-establish the identity of clients, and it will make possible instant cross-checks with other departments. It will be the principal document in confirming identity of people who claim pensions or benefits, clients with queries on payments, personal lodgments, replacing lost concession cards and checks on continuing entitlement. The Opposition has, as I think everyone in this House knows, a real problem in terms of its cynical about-face in terms of its fight against the Australia Card. Mr Porter —Are you saying that Social Security will not accept the ID card? Mr HOWE — The honourable member for Barker will know that the spokesman for social security, the honourable member for Richmond, has made it very clear on more than one occasion that he personally supports the Australia Card. Indeed he has gone beyond that. It is not simply a matter of his personal views; he, as spokesman for the Opposition, has indicated that there is broad bipartisan support on both sides of the House for this, and presumably in most of the factions in the faction ridden Opposition. The support is there. I think there is a particular cynicism in terms of the Opposition's position on this question because day after day I have had to put up with questions and concerns in this Parliament about the matter of social security fraud. This Government has done more than any other government in tackling the question of the integrity of the social security system. In this year alone we have substantially increased investment in relation to Stratplan and other elements of technology; we have had an amnesty and we have tightened up the administration of benefits concerning supporting parents and unemployment benefit administration. In this year alone, in a year of considerable tightness in terms of staff, we have put an additional 600 members of staff into seeking to eliminate and reduce overpayments and fraud. I ask the Opposition: When we have a system such as the one we have with social security which makes in any one year 100 million separate payments, is not the question of identity a fundamental issue when it comes to protecting the integrity of that system? The Department is aware of that and we have taken a number of steps to tighten identity. But it simply cannot be argued on a rational basis that the ID card will not complement those measures already taken and will not do a great deal, in social security terms, to eliminate fraud and to reduce overpayments. So what we are talking about in relation to this question is considerable hypocrisy. If people on the one hand want to criticise the Government, as the honourable member for Richmond did, for taking a necessary step in a tight Budget to defer the indexation of pensions and to defer the various measures in terms of easing means tests involving hundreds of millions of dollars, why, I ask the House, in relation to the ID card, would it want to throw away up to $1 billion a year? If we get to the heart of the matter I think the members of the Opposition are not really concerned about equity, fairness, elements of social justice or the fact that under their administration the taxation fraud industry in this country was the only growing industry. The Government put up proposals and it got very broad support in the community on the basis of a summit. It clearly has the support of the Australian public because people are concerned about tax avoidance. If some people do not pay their taxes someone else has to. The Government is concerned, particularly in the very sensitive area of social security, to ensure that people are not stigmatised, as they are constantly by the Opposition; but most fundamentally in relation to this measure, it is concerned that money is available to ensure that we are able to sustain the real levels of income security within this country in very difficult economic circumstances. Mr BLUNT —My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. In view of the comments he has just made about reconfirming the identity of clients with the ID card and complementing existing ID procedures used by the Department, I ask the Minister: Will he confirm evidence given to the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card by the Director of Benefits Control in his Department of Social Security that his Department will not accept the proposed ID card alone as a sound document for purposes of proving identity at the time of application for payment of benefit? Further, will he confirm evidence given by officers of his Department that less than one per cent of social security fraud and overpayment is related to false identity? Finally, is it a fact that there will be no net revenue saving to the Department from the introduction of the ID card? Mr HOWE —We know what the position of the honourable member for Richmond is. That is not a secret. He has allowed himself to be wheeled up in this Parliament to ask a question which is simply designed to cast doubt on the importance of identity procedures, particularly the ID card for social security purposes. Let me repeat, perhaps even more clearly: As I have just told the Parliament, the ID card will be the principal source of proof of identity used for a variety of purposes and in a variety of circumstances encountered by officers in the Department of Social Security. It will be used at the time people make additional claims for pensions and benefits. It will be used when clients attend counters for queries about payments and when clients are personally lodging unemployment benefit and sole parent forms. In other words, it will be used as the principal form of identity, and I think that is quite crucial. Mr Porter —Do you personally oppose it? Madam SPEAKER —Order! If the honour- able member for Barker intervenes again I will have to deal with him. I have asked him three times to cease interjecting. Mr HOWE —I do not think anyone has ever suggested that the Australia Card is designed to obviate all other forms of evidence of identity. I have made it very clear that as far as the Government is concerned the Australia Card is quite crucial in terms of improving the integrity of the social security system when it comes to question of identity. The second part of the honourable member's question goes to the matter of savings. Let me say that it has always been very difficult in social security to estimate in any precise terms the extend of fraud or overpayments. There has been talk about quite a range of substantial estimates; sometimes in the order of millions of dollars, sometimes smaller amounts. The one characteristic of all these estimates is that they represent very significant amounts of money. For my part, I have always indicated to the House that I believe there is, in terms of overpayments and fraud in social security and in taxation, a substantial problem. We are simply arguing about whether this particular weapon in the armoury of the Government against fraud is one that ought to be cast to one side, about whether we ought to say: `This particular weapon is one that we ought to put to one side'. I believe that the evidence that is being presented to parliamentary inquiries in relation to social security is that, in overall terms, we are talking in the area of hundreds of millions of dollars. So one ought not to be put off by questions such as that which came from the honourable member for Richmond. He is suggesting that because of the fact that very substantial moneys are involved, hundreds of millions of dollars ought to be disregarded by this Parliament for reasons which he would be quite unable to explain to this House. We know that when he thought the issue through before the pressures came on him, he came to a clear and rational judgment that the Australia Card was a crucial weapon in terms of the battle against social security and tax fraud. Mr SAUNDERSON —I direct my question to the Minister for Housing and Construction. What is the Government doing to implement the Australian made campaign and the national preference agreement in the Government's capital works program? Mr WEST —Within the Government's public works program which is executed by my Department, that is the Department of Housing and Construction, we are currently employing three methods of maximising the Australian-New Zealand content. The first is by ensuring that designers, whether they are employed by the Department of Housing and Construction or by private consultants, actually favour these products in their specifications. The system works well. It encourages Australian manufacturers to target the construction industry and to use the National Building and Technology Centre to gain wider recognition for Australian products. The second way in which we assist Australian manufacturers is by requiring contractors to use Australian-New Zealand made products and if they find that they are unable to do so they must seek approval to use any imported products. There are a range of situations, however, where high proportions of imported components can always be expected, such as in some electrical systems, pumping systems, lift installations, and so on. In these situations we employ a third method of encouraging the Australian-New Zealand content-a 20 per cent across the board margin of preference is applied. The national preference agreement which has recently been agreed to between the Federal and State governments extends preference to Australian-New Zealand goods to also cover the provision of services. That is a very important extension. The Government intends to use the national preference agreement to further assist Australian industry by extending Australian preference to embrace architectural and engineering design, project design, project management, and the consultancy services which are used in the delivery of Commonwealth capital works. I am further developing with my colleagues the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce and the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services the implementation details on this very important services issue. We are committed to the expansion of the Australian manufacturing industry and to the expansion of service supply. I will ensure that the new national preference agreement is in place within the Government's capital works system. Mr SHACK —Is the Minister for Health aware that many thousands of Australian investors, especially small investors-men and women investing their hard earned savings in the stock-market-have benefited from the increasing introduction of electronic services in the stock exchanges? Is the Minister aware that through electronic services, such as the successful Viatel network based in Melbourne and the Money Watch service based in Sydney, investors can conduct transactions over the telephone via computer without ever meeting their broker face to face? Can the Minister tell the House whether it is true that as a result of the operation of the Australia Card clients of Viatel and Money Watch will need to travel to Melbourne and Sydney respectively to present their card in person before those networks will be permitted through this legislation to authorise transactions on their behalf? Dr BLEWETT —It is typical which groups particularly concern the members of the Opposition in these matters. If, in fact, the Opposition had exhibited even the usual courtesy to allow the Minister to reply this morning, I could have clarified this point for the honourable member for Tangney at that time. As the Australia Card Bill quite clearly points out, although it is being constantly misrepresented by members of the Opposition, a card is required only at the original consultation with a broker or with a bank when opening an account or developing an arrangement with a broker in which one needs to be identified. I know of very few brokers and very few banks which will open accounts without some means of identification. Mr Ian Cameron —Well, why do we need the card? Dr BLEWETT —We have a plaintive National Party man saying: `Why do we need the card?'. We need it because we want to have the correct identification. That is the whole point. The notion that identification is not required for most procedures is an absurdity. It is already required. We want to make sure in these transactions that it is, in fact, the right identity. To take the particular telephone point, if the honourable member for Tangney reads clause 36 of the Bill he will see there a mechanism provided whereby even to open the account with a broker he can do it by mail, by having the Australia Card verified by one of a number of community leaders, so that problem is resolved-if he bothers to read the Bill. Mr SNOW —Has the Treasurer had any advice on the extent tax evasion is believed to be prevalent in the community? What action has the Government taken to curtail this loss of revenue? Mr KEATING —The Government quantified in the White Paper the general magnitude of tax avoidance and indicated that it was of the order of $3 billion. Mr Cadman —Why don't you pay back the money you stole? Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for Mitchell will withdraw his comment. Mr Cadman —The Treasurer is light-fingered. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will withdraw his comment. Mr Cadman —Yes, Madam Speaker, I withdraw. Mr KEATING —The White Paper made it clear that the funds avoided in the tax system were of the order of $3 billion, of which $2 billion was identified in the parliamentary paper which was published a couple of days ago. I indicate there that, in a letter to me from the Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure, the honourable member for Banks said: The term used in paragraph 3.17 that `taxation revenue losses through non-detection of total taxpayer incomes could conceivably amount to several billion dollars each year' is based on information sourced in the Draft White Paper of June 1985 on pages 36 and 37 which suggests that tax evasion may involve a revenue loss of at least $3 billion per annum. The statement in paragraph 5.2 that `it has been estimated that each year $2 billion in tax revenue is lost as a result of deliberate or inadvertent understatement and non-reporting of taxpayers' incomes' is also sourced from the Draft White Paper (as shown at bottom of page 44 of the Report), and of course is part of the same pool of lost revenue of $3 billion. My remarks to the House on the tabling of the Report make it quite clear that the $2 billion lost tax revenue is made up of . . . $500m from undisclosed interest and dividends- which the Australia Card is designed to deal with- $1,000m from understatement of income and overstatement of expenses by unincorporated businesses- which substantiation is designed to deal with- and $500m from companies- which the prescribed payments system is designed to deal with. So the $2 billion which is referred to in the parliamentary report is all dealt with by the Government's legislation. Two days ago when I made this point after Question Time, as is his wont each day, the Leader of the Opposition got up and said: `None of that money is covered by any of the Government's legislation'. That is totally wrong. It is covered by the Government's legislation; it is that $2 billion. This very day the Leader of the Opposition on Good Morning Australia continued to peddle the furphy that the identification card will not touch the $8 billion tax which is lost in a year through the cash economy. The Leader of the Opposition peddles a number which has no validity whatsoever. Senator Messner, the Opposition's tax spokesman has been talking about $21 billion. The Leader of the Opposition is talking about $8 billion. It has no status. He does not seek to defend it. He talks about it so that if he ever got the opportunity to get to an election-that is, if he can live through the long knives to get to the line-he could run around saying: `Don't worry about costing the Opposition's policies. There is $8 billion which the Government has not collected. We will pay for it all with that'. The fact is that the $8 billion is a total furphy. I challenge the Leader of the Opposition now to substantiate the $8 billion and the $21 billion and to ignore the indication of my colleague the honourable member for Banks and Chairman of the Committee that the $2 billion which the Committee referred to is the same $2 billion which is in the White Paper and which is being attacked by the Australia Card, substantiation and the prescribed payments system. I ask where is the $8 billion, which I know the Leader of the Opposition will rip out later as throughout the year he goes about spreading these falsities on any radio station that will listen to him. He will say: `We do not need fiscal discipline. We do not need a decent tax policy. We will get all the cash money the Government has not collected'. The fact is that it does not exist. It is a furphy. Let the Leader of the Opposition now explain where the $8 billion is and let him at least accept that the personal explanation he made the other day, in which he said that none of the money mentioned by the Committee was covered in any way by the Government's legislation, was wrong. Let him eat his words now that the Chairman of the Committee has said that it is precisely the same pool of funds that was mentioned in the White Paper. Mr EVERINGHAM —My question is directed to the Treasurer. Is the Treasurer continuing to claim Sydney as his place of residence while actually living in Canberra? If so, will the Treasurer confirm that, in addition to the $17,600 of tax-free travel allowance claimed by him from July 1985 to May 1986, he had claimed $9,100 more in travel allowance since May? If not, has the Treasurer now repaid, or will he repay, the estimated $26,000 tax-free travel allowance he claimed through this rort between July 1985 and October 1986 alone? Does the Treasurer consider these activities to be part of the $8 billion cash economy? Mr KEATING —The honourable member pays me an enormous compliment in that as an organised question, organised by the honourable member for Bennelong, on this day he should get up to try again falsely to compound the corporate dishonesty on the other side of the House on this issue. Yesterday, on another personal matter against me, we had old dozy over there, the honourable member for Wentworth, up on a question about the VIP flights-- Mr Carlton —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. I would have thought that personal abuse was uncalled for. Madam Speaker, I ask that you ask the Treasurer to withdraw. Madam SPEAKER —I did not hear what the Treasurer said. I ask him to withdraw it if it is offensive. Mr KEATING —I was implying that the honourable member for Wentworth was like a lizard on a rock-alive, but looking dead. Madam SPEAKER —The Treasurer will withdraw. Mr KEATING —Any offence intended is withdrawn. It is very interesting that when the honourable member for Bennelong sent the honourable member for Kooyong to what he thought was his political grave it was on the basis of what he thought was morality and issues of substance in public policy. It is very nice to think that the only attack the Opposition can make on the Government's policies in relation to my portfolio is against me. The tactic is sanctioned by you know who, Honest John sitting opposite. I have answered all I have to say on the question of travelling allowance. I have one home in this country and that is in Sydney. It is my principal place of residence. Perhaps when the honourable member for the Northern Territory goes back to live in the Northern Territory he might be able to answer the question with some credibility about where he lives and why he lives there. Mr LAMB —Did the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs see the demonstration of boomerang throwing outside the Parliament today promoting the new Gangulu Aboriginal boomerang factory? Is he aware that plastic Brazilian imitation boomerangs are being marketed in South America as a local product called Bumerangs? Can the Minister investigate how world-wide protection can be given to this traditional Australian weapon or artefact and at the same time give a `boom' to Aboriginal and fauna products in Australia and take the `bum' out of inferior overseas imitations? Mr HOLDING —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. Unfortunately, a previous engagement kept me from seeing what was, I am told by a member of my staff who watched it, the very creditable performance of boomerang throwing engaged in by the honourable member for Hughes, the honourable member for Streeton and the honourable member for Capricornia who, I ask honourable members to note, have returned intact after using what was originally designed as a weapon. I do not know whether honourable members opposite, if one exposed them to any sort of weapon, would necessarily emerge intact at the moment. I am indebted to the honourable member for Streeton for informing me about this South American product which is being marketed as a bumerang. For my sins, when I first heard of it I thought that it was some kind of exotic South American enema. I was wrong about that. The question raised by the honourable gentleman is of some importance. The problem has been looked at by my Department over the years. The problem is that many indigenous people, particularly hunter gatherers, used various forms of bent sticks as a method of procuring food. It is only in Australia, however, that the design and technology has been developed to the extent that it has. We cannot really protect the name boomerang because in Western Australia, for example, the same product was described as a kylie. It was used essentially for fishing. However I am indebted, as the House ought to be, to the activities of the honourable member for Capricornia who almost single-handedly obtained a grant from the Queensland Government, when he had more ecumenical relations with that Government, to establish a co-operative Aboriginal factory which now employs a large number of Aboriginal people and produces a large range not merely of boomerangs but of artefacts of all kinds. It produces nulla-nullas. That is a weapon that I commend to the Leader of the Opposition in the present situation. It is much favoured by the Leader of the National Party. I would be happy to organise that for the Leader of the Opposition if he felt that it would help. It is important that Aboriginal people are now being very successful in marketing their products. There was a very successful exhibition arranged by the Neimann Marcus store in Dallas, Texas, essentially for an Australia week. It was a major marketing exercise in which a central part was the exhibition of Aboriginal arts and crafts, which was an absolute sell-out, so much so that Neimann Marcus is looking to reproduce that in other stores across America. This Government is concerned to see that manufacturing industry at every stage is developed so it is important that products which really are identified with Australia, such as boomerangs and, despite the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, koala bears, ought to be developed so that synthetic and essentially inferior products are not sold to tourists coming to Australia. We cannot do that by law but the best way of doing it is by seeing that the whole marketing of these indigenous products is updated and handled in a way which secures a very important aspect of the tourist market. I am also told, and I would like to finish on this note, that the Gangulu boomerang factory manufactures not merely boomerangs and other products; it is into new forms of design. It is producing a much heavier boomerang which goes in a straight direction, makes a whizzing noise and is guaranteed to be returned. It is called a Hawkerang. There is also one which goes fairly high but at the first puff of wind changes direction and disappears before one's eyes. That is to be called a Howardarang. . Mr TUCKEY —I address my question to the Minister for Health and remind him of the answer he gave to the honourable member for Tangney. I refer the Minister to clauses 40 to 49 of the Australia Card Bill, which place $20,000 fines on people who transact certain business with or for others but fail to report to the Commissioner of Taxation the identity card details of the second party. I also refer the Minister to clause 36 which he mentioned in his previous answer which allows those engaging in business with another to obtain a certificate signed by a prescribed person where it is not practicable for the relevant card holder to personally produce his or her Australia Card. What format will his certificate take? How does the Minister propose to guarantee the integrity of the certificates which he has just told the Parliament can be posted through the mail since anyone who accepts a forged certificate is liable to a $20,000 fine? Dr BLEWETT —As in many dealings between government and individuals arrangements have to be made where people are not physically able to present themselves. In this case, under this measure, we have made an arrangement which is quite normal in government business whereby eligible persons defined as community figures-just as in relation to statutory declarations and other statements they are defined as justices of the peace, members of parliament and others-will be entitled to verify that the person's card has been seen. That will be identified on a special form. I can only say that in a large number of activities, including the obtaining of passports, similar procedures are available for people who are not able to present themselves physically with the card. Mr HUMPHREYS —Has the Special Minister of State received advice from the Electoral Commissioner in relation to the last date on which a Federal election can be held? Mr YOUNG —I was walking down the corridor last night and was confronted by the toe cutter, Senator Reg Withers, who was mumbling to himself and counting: `One, two, three'. I asked what had brought all his about. He said: `We are not quite sure when to jump. It will depend when the election is held'. As someone who takes a great deal of interest in reimposing stability in Australian politics I thought that I would try to untangle some of the faction fighting in the Liberal Party. The only other bit of information that the toe cutter gave me was that Fred Chaney has been sacked as campaign director. I have been told by the Deputy Electoral Commissioner-if the honourable member for Kooyong has a pen he can take down these dates; if not, it is okay; I will send him a tape-that the first sitting of our current Parliament was on 21 February 1985. The expiry date of this Parliament is 21 February 1988. The last date for issue of writs, 10 days afterwards, is 2 March 1988. The latest date for close of nominations, 28 days after that, is 30 March 1988. The maximum period from the close of nominations to polling date is 30 days-giving a date of Friday 29 April 1988. So the latest polling day would be Saturday, 23 April 1988. It seems to me, I say respectfully to the honourable member for Kooyong, that gives him plenty of time. There are a couple of hurdles that he must watch out for. Firstly, tax cuts are very popular. There are a couple of lots coming on 1 December and 1 July. Everybody's pay packet will be a lot healthier in the middle of next year. The Prime Minister has not confided in me but I know that he wants to stay Prime Minister. These things will weigh heavily on his mind. The other thing we know from our research and the research of those opposite is that overwhelmingly the Australian people support the Australia Card concept. The honourable member has the ID card, tax cuts, and the economy turning around as predicted by the Treasurer. A great deal of stability has returned. We are knocking out all the rorts in the tax system and the Australian people are seeing more clearly now the great stability given them by government from this side of the House. The people really want the Opposition to clean up its affairs so that we have a proper parliament. The only other thing I heard last night-and I ask the honourable member for Kooyong to reconsider this because it would be of great concern to General Moerdani-is that he will make the honourable member for Denison the shadow Minister for Defence. I ask him to reconsider that, not only for his sake but for this great country of ours. Mr CONNOLLY —Is the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs aware that many thousands of Aboriginals are living in remote areas or according to traditional lifestyles and their identity has never been verified on State or Territory registers of births, deaths or marriages; they do not even hold low integrity forms of identification such as drivers licences, credit cards or stock exchange registers? Mr Simmons —Are they on stock exchange registers? Mr CONNOLLY —The honourable member will find a political boomerang soon that does not come back. How are such people to prove their identity for the purpose of the identity card or does the Government intend to exempt them from the provisions of the Act? Mr HOLDING —The first thing I should say is that this matter has been a matter of consideration by my Department of Aboriginal Affairs since the question of an identity card was first raised. It has been the subject of constant discussion between me and the Minister for Health, who is to have responsibility for this. I know it might come as a shock to the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs that Aboriginal people do know who they are. They not only have more confidence as to who they are but also they have more confidence as to their sexuality and their personalities than some of the honourable gentlemen opposite. Therefore, having regard to the processes which-- Mr Spender —I make an inquiry on a point of order. Is that kind of gutter conduct to be the norm? Madam SPEAKER —I must tell you that I did not hear what the Minister said. Mr Spender —He said that Aboriginal people were often more conscious of their sexual and personal identities than other people on our side of politics, or words to that effect. Is that kind of conduct to be allowed? Madam SPEAKER —The Minister will withdraw. Mr HOLDING —I am perfectly happy to rephrase that if it gives offence. Madam SPEAKER —Withdraw the first comment, please. Mr HOLDING —I withdraw. I certainly hope that the level of confidence of gentlemen on the other side of the House is as good as that of Aboriginals. That is putting it positively. The conversations and discussions that have taken place with the Minister for Health, who has responsibility for the implementation of the cards in question, are such that if the legislation is passed and gets into place the problems that have been mentioned by the honourable gentleman will be dealt with in the same way as the same problem was dealt with in respect of Medicare. Mr CAMPBELL —I address my question to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment and I remind him of my abiding interest in these areas. Is he aware of the unique geological formations underlying the topography of the La Trobe Valley? Is he also aware of the actions of the environmentally insensitive Cain Government that is allowing the rapacious mining of this unique strata? Will he move immediately to protect this national treasure and recommend the whole of the La Trobe Valley, like Kakadu National Park, for World Heritage listing? Will he also draw to the attention of the Victorian Government the damage being done to the ozone layer and the exacerbation of the glasshouse effect as a result of the actions it promotes and the fact that the Government could alleviate this damage by using relatively clean and safe nuclear energy? Mr COHEN —I thank the honourable member for Kalgoorlie for his question without notice. I am aware that the area of the La Trobe Valley is one of the oldest areas in Australia and I am very disturbed about the fact that it is going to be mined. 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 Beale,Mr Cadman,Mr Ian Cameron,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Hawker,Mr Nehl,Mr Reith,Mr Ruddock,Mr Shipton,Mr Slipper and Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia 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 Beazley,Mr Blunt,Mr Coleman,Mr Cowan,Mr Nehl,Mr Sharp and Mr Tickner. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia shows that: in this International Year of Peace, 1986, the world needs a Nuclear Test Moratorium by the United States, the Soviet Union, France and other nuclear-testing powers that such a moratorium would create a favourable climate and basis for the negotiation of a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty that such a Moratorium and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty would be the first vital step to nuclear disarmament impede the development of new nuclear weapons decrease the reliance upon an unstable nuclear strategy inhibit the spread of nuclear weapons. Your petitioners therefore ask that the Australian Government be urged to 1. Use its influence with the United States Government to encourage it to join the moratorium on nuclear testing begun by the Soviet Union on 6 August 1985. 2. Use its influence in all forums to encourage other nuclear nations to join the Nuclear Test Moratorium. 3. Use its influence in all forums to encourage non-nuclear nations to demand the establishment of a nuclear Test Moratorium and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. by Mr Hand,Mr Hollis,Ms Jakobsen,Mr Kent and Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. And, to the Australian Government. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out that a comprehensive ban on all nuclear weapon tests in all environments for all time would be a vital first step towards: inhibiting the addition of more and more sophisticated and destabilizing nuclear weapons to the world's arsenals; arresting the extension of the arms race to outer space; upholding the provisions of existing treaties and agreements. Your petitioners humbly pray that: 1. The Australian Government (a) take new initiatives to encourage all member states and the United Nations-especially the Governments of nuclear weapon states-to conclude at an early stage a treaty banning all nuclear weapon tests in all environments for all time, (b) call on all nuclear weapon states to declare an immediate moratorium on all nuclear weapon tests pending conclusion of a CTB. 2. All Federal Members of Parliament and Senators make strong representations to the Australian Government to act towards these goals. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Maher. 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 Hollis,Ms Jakobsen,Mr Kent,Mr Milton and 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 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 Nehl. 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 Reith. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the Fringe Benefits Tax is an iniquitous and unjust impost which will further damage the Australian economy and further increase costs to employers. The Tax will: (1) further increase the level of unemployment; (2) increase the administrative costs and overheads for business and Government; (3) particularly disadvantage small businesses and farmers; and (4) act as a disincentive to those who are the most productive and skilled; and we the undersigned call upon the Government to immediately repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax. 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 the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth that: The Hawke Government's Fringe Benefits Tax is a vicious, punitive tax that unjustly affects employers, will have a major impact on small business and farm profitability, and will result in increased unemployment. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Parliament to: Repeal the legislation establishing the Fringe Benefits Tax. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth that whereas: They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Give a speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a Referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Charles,Ms Mayer and Mr Reith. 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,Mr Kent and Mr Wilson. 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. 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. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth. 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 Reith and Mr Shipton. 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 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 Reith. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That many Australian wage and salary earners and self-employed persons do not enjoy secure retirement incomes provided by superannuation; and That the Government issued in December 1985 guidelines for the implementation of the proposed productivity decision by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and draft operational standards for superannuation schemes. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. Guarantees to every employer and employee the right and freedom to select the superannuation scheme of their 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 control with adequate security of investments. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned shows: that we the citizens of the Illawarra Region condemn the decision to close the Wollongong office of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and that we respectfully request that this decision be reversed immediately. 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 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 remuneration 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% of the workforce. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. 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 are gravely concerned 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 1983, 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 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 Hand. 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 humbly pray that you will oppose the Bill of Rights, support the 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 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 medicines 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the many anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions brought to its notice, the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled, the petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth opposition to cuts in English as a Second Language (ESL) teaching, the scrapping of the Multicultural Education Program, the amalgamation of the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), and the abolition of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs (AIMA), as announced in the Federal Budget of August 19, 1986. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government will review and reverse its decisions on these matters. And your petitioners, in duty bound, will ever pray. 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. 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 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 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 6 August 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor government's productivity- superannuation accord with the ACTU and its support of the superannuation claims of the trade union movement will create an imbalance in industrial power and distort the future development of the Australian economy. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject the superannuation claim of the trade union movement, and allow superannuation to develop without trade union domination. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Bill of Rights Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Amendment Bill and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill, if passed by the Parliament, will undermine human and civil rights in Australia; will attack the institution of the family in our country, and will destroy States Rights and the federal nature of our Commonwealth. Your petitioners humbly pray that: The Parliament rejects these Bills; abolishes the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and moves to withdraw ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That we the undersigned are totally opposed to the introduction of a $2.00 fee on prescription drugs for pensioners; 2. That the impact of such a fee will be particularly felt by the chronically ill elderly who will be faced with a $2.00 burden with the purchase of each Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme drug; Your petitioners therefore urge that the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth ensure that prescriptions drugs continue to be provided to the pensioner population without the $2.00 fee on each prescription. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Reith. 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: 1. That we the undersigned are totally opposed to the introduction by the Hawke Labor Government of a $2.00 fee on prescription drugs for pensioners; 2. That the impact of such a fee will be particularly felt by the chronically ill elderly who will be faced with a $2.00 burden with the purchase of each Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme drug; Your petitioners therefore urge that the House of Representatives and the Hawke Labor Government ensure that prescriptions drugs continue to be provided to the pensioner population without the $2.00 fee on each prescription. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That the proposed introduction of compulsory identification (ID) cards should be reconsidered and rejected because the system: (a) is not a cost-effective method of reducing tax evasion and social security fraud and, to the contrary, in the form proposed will facilitate such evasion and fraud. (b) will constitute an unwarranted infringement of individual privacy by the aggregation of a wide variety of personal information of a private nature; (c) will cause a further large and costly growth in the bureaucracy and burden on the taxpayer; and (d) cannot be guaranteed against misuse for purposes other than for which their introduction is stated to be intended and in fact provide the opportunity for blackmail and other forms of misuse. And your petitioners humbly pray that the problems which identification cards are intended to reduce should be attacked by other, more effective and less obnoxious methods. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Reith. To the Speaker and Honourable Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament Assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: By cutting E.S.L. 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 E.S.L. and Multicultural education funding. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned that Australia's important horticultural industry is being severely disadvantaged by unnecessarily rising production costs. Many Federal and State Government regulations, excessive taxes and charges are damaging the ability of horticultural growers to maintain supplies of food and plant products to Australian families at a realistic cost. Widespread unemployment will result if horticultural producers are further depressed. The undersigned humbly petition the Parliaments of Australia, its States and Territories, to take all measures within their powers to reduce the burden of imposed costs and regulation, allowing Australian horticultural growers to develop production potential so the nation, as a whole, can share the benefits of the resulting growth and prosperity. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the 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 Dr Theophanous. 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: We the undersigned residents of Australia deplore the decision by the Federal Government to amalgamate the SBS with the ABC. At present there is no guarantee that the principles of multicultural broadcasting will be maintained at any level of the ABC administration. An independent and strong SBS should be retained. We therefore pray that the amalgamation of the ABC and the SBS be opposed. by Dr Theophanous. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth, do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government: Take the action necessary to create an Australian republic on or before 1st January 1988. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned express our deepest concern over the Government's discriminatory policies on overseas students which were contained in the 1986/87 Federal Budget. We register our strongest outrage and opposition to: 1. The introduction and subsequent increase of overseas students charge imposed on overseas students. 2. The proposed imposition of fees to secondary and TAFE overseas students. 3. The restrictive quota system on the tertiary institutions entry. 4. The heavy-handed deportation of overseas students who fail to pay their fees in time. The overseas students program is an important education program to promote international goodwill and peace, especially among nations of Asia and Pacific region. The above mentioned policies have adverse effects on the objectives of the overseas students program. Your petitioners therefore urge that the overseas students policies in the 1986-87 Budget be immediately reviewed. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600. We your petitioners, humbly showeth: That the wildlife species, in this case-the kangaroo, have a right to exist and flourish independently of human needs. For this reason alone we should not regard the kangaroo as a human resource nor contemplate commercial exploitation simply because more offspring are born each generation than can hope to survive. Permissible cropping rates are unknown and the means of enforcing controls or protective legislation is completely ineffective and inadequate due to the widespread nature of the industry. All Australians have a responsibility to our already declining wildlife. We your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will: 1. Ban the exports of products made from kangaroos. 2. Take action to see that State Governments prohibit the commercial killing of kangaroos. by Mr Tickner. 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 Hand,Mr Jenkins,Mr Kent,Mr Milton and Mr Tickner. 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 utilize 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 O'Neil 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 the Western Sydney State University in conjunction with the New South Wales Government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. 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 assembled in Parliament. The Petition of certain residents of the State of Western Australia draws to the attention of the House that the Government has increased wholesale sales tax another 10% under the 1986-87 Budget, resulting in a 20% Sales Tax on wine. This tax was introduced at a time of a record trade imbalance between our wine imports and exports and will further exacerbate that problem. Your petitioners therefore ask that the Government cancels the 20% Sales Tax before it causes a further contraction in our wine industry, with consequential loss of exports, and employment in the wine and tourism and retailing industries which are currently operating in Western Australia. by Mr Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain residents of the Northern Territory of Australia draws to the attention of the House that the Fringe Benefits Tax Legislation recently passed by Parliament is unfair and will prejudice the current working conditions of all Territorians. 1. It will increase both personal and company taxation. 2. It will undermine employment levels through reducing profitability and international competitiveness of industry. 3. It will result in price increases. 4. It will force employers to withdraw voluntary incentives to employees paid over and above existing payments. 5. It endangers stable industrial relations because of the potential for forced withdrawal of Fringe Benefits. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House take such action as is necessary to rescind the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986, the Fringe Benefits Tax Act 1986, the Fringe Benefits Tax (Application to the Commonwealth) Act 1986 and the Fringe Benefits Tax (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1986. by Mr Everingham. 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 earning or producing assessable income should be allowable deductions. That the proposed Capital Gains Tax is an unwarranted burden on the rural sector, which will severely affect its long-term viability. That the delay by the Government in introducing the legislation into Parliament is causing confusion and hindering farmers in the organisation of their affairs. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government introduces the Capital Gains Tax legislation without delay and that the Australian Democrats join with the Opposition to defeat the proposed legislation. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker 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 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 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 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 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 dependent 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 inequitable 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 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 electorate of Fisher respectfully showeth: 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 therefore pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Seek means available for the protection of the people's interests to reverse this outrage and preserve the democratic traditions of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher respectfully showeth: 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 public 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 the Federal Division of Fisher 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 Representatives, 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 the State of Queensland 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 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 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 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 that: The proposed capital gains tax penalises small business, discourages long-term investment, hinders capital formation and will freeze existing investment patterns and limits the investors' ability to adjust to changed market conditions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Immediately abandon its ill-considered capital gains tax proposal. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they oppose the construction of any additional nuclear reactor at the Australian Atomic Energy Establishment at Lucas Heights in N.S.W. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government of Australia will not construct an additional nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The disastrous impact of the failure of Labor's health policies on Australian families. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr PORTER(Barker)(2.56) —Today, sadly, another of the Opposition's predictions has been proved correct. We have consistently predicted that the Hawke Government's Medicare policy would lead to a breakdown in the public hospital system resulting in queues and deaths. Today we have further proof that we were right. The Medicare policy has forced 1.8 million Australians to give up their private health insurance and rely on the public hospital system. The nation's public hospital system just cannot meet the new demand for beds. Under the Labor Government's health policy queues have trebled. The Government's Medicare policy has directed patients away from private hospital beds into the public hospital system. I repeat, the public hospital system cannot cope with the demand. The chaos in the public system is such that Australians are dying waiting for a hospital bed, as a result of this Government's health policy. Never before in this country's history have we seen such a national health crisis. In every State the situation is the same-long public hospital queues and, regrettably, deaths. Today in Sydney we have the depressing proof of the outcome of the Hawke Government's health policy. A news- paper headline reads: `21 die while on surgery list'. The article underneath states: The NSW Association of Cardiac-Thoracic Surgeons say that an average of two people have died from heart attacks or heart related conditions each month this year while waiting for non-urgent cardiac surgery. The Association also says that patients who need cardiac catheters-an examination to determine the severity of cardiac disease-could now have to wait up to several months. The article goes on to say: The Secretary of the Association, Dr Duncan Thompson said a survey of cardiac surgeons had shown a total of 21 patients waiting for elective cardiac operations had died this year, but he believed the figure could be twice that. The situation in Sydney is a disaster. Last week we learnt from the same newspaper that at least 30,000 people in New South Wales were waiting for a public hospital bed. Regrettably, the situation is the same in Melbourne. Similarly queues have grown dramatically in the other States as a result of Medicare. As I have said, under Labor the queues have trebled. One hundred thousand people are now waiting for a public hospital bed and there are empty private hospital beds in the private hospital sector-100,000 people waiting for a public bed and empty private hospital beds. Regrettably, as in Sydney, deaths are occurring among those in the queues for public hospital beds in the other States as well. Let me come very close to home, the area where the Commonwealth Government has total responsibility for the public hospital system, the Australian Capital Territory. A couple of weeks ago there was a headline in the Canberra Times which read: `No room at hospital so patient died, doctor says'. The article, sub-headed `ACT shortages killing people', states: A Canberra doctor says the city's chronic shortage of health services is killing people. The doctor said one of his patients died of cardiac arrest last week soon after being admitted to the casualty ward of Woden Valley Hospital. He had been trying for ten days to have the patient, a woman with a heart failure, admitted to hospital, and had been told daily that there were no beds at any of Canberra's three public hospitals. What has this Government done under Medicare? It has forced 1.8 million people out of private care into the public hospital system, which cannot cope. The plain fact is that the Government's health policy has failed. The situation is now much worse than it was at any time before Medicare was introduced. Time and time again we have told the Government that this could be the outcome of its Medicare policy of forcing people to give up their private hospital insurance and trying to stuff them into a public hospital system which just could not cope. That policy will not, and has not, worked. The public system cannot cope with the demand. Many of the reported deaths in queues are the result of the stubborn, stupid and cruel refusal of this Government to change its disastrous and insane Medicare policies. One just cannot take 1.8 million Australians out of the private hospital sector, shove them into the public hospital sector and expect the public hospital system to cope. No doubt the Federal Government will try to blame the States. Whilst the efficiency of administration varies between the States, nevertheless, the dramatic and substantial growth in public hospital queues since the introduction of Medicare has occurred in every State. I must add that it is much worse in the Labor States. The queues have trebled. There are 100,000 Australians awaiting public hospital beds and, as I said, there are empty private hospital beds. Pressure on public hospital staff has increased to such an extent since the introduction of Medicare and the growth in the public hospital queues that many nurses have not been prepared to tolerate the additional pressure. Do honourable members know how many nurses resigned in the first year after the introduction of Medicare? Ten per cent of nurses in the public hospital system resigned. Mr Carlton —That is a vote of confidence in the Minister. Mr PORTER —That is a vote of confidence in the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett). They left the public hospital system. Public hospital staff are demoralised. Industrial disruption is at the highest level that this country has ever seen. The disruption does not involve only the nurses. All sorts of people involved in the public hospital system have taken action against this Government. Doctors withdrew their services. Now the nurses in three States are on strike or have applied bans. Previously, others in the public hospital system-all suffering from the stress of the Medicare burden-have taken industrial action. The standard of service has deteriorated and some of the best doctors, regrettably, have been driven out of the public hospital system. Australia deserves better than a Third World health care system. The queues are growing and the number of deaths is growing. The pain, agony and suffering of Australians waiting in the public hospital queues is being reported in our papers every day. One does not need to look very far. In Adelaide, it has been reported that an elderly patient has been denied surgery. Another report states that 120 cases a month are being turned away. On the front page of the Sydney Sun there is this headline: `Sydney hospital crisis-tiny victim'. That case involved a tiny baby. The headlines go on and on. Australians deserve better than this. Before Medicare we had a good public and private health system. Now we have a private health system with spare capacity and a public hospital system that cannot cope-all as a result of Medicare. We have a national crisis and this Government is doing absolutely nothing about it. We have not had one comment from the Minister for Health or the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) as to the action this Government is taking to redress the problems they have created. Mr Hodgman —They call him Dr Death. Mr PORTER —Indeed they might. The Government has the responsibility, in the face of this disastrous situation, to take swift, decisive, remedial action. I call on the Federal Government to do two things. The Minister and the Prime Minister ought to call an immediate, top level crisis meeting of Health Ministers to establish a plan to provide treatment and hospital beds for the 100,000 Australians currently waiting for them. This crisis health summit must include all State Health Ministers. That action, of course, is for the short term. In the longer term, and to assist in removing the long term queues, the Government must reverse its Medicare policies. It must allow people to opt out of Medicare and go back to the private health sector, where treatment is available-and available now. It is only in this way that we will see a restoration of a balance between the demand for private hospital beds and the demand for public hospital beds. We need to return to the good old days, that is, the pre-Medicare days, when patients could actually get into a hospital bed when they needed one. This Government must cease its attack on the private health sector. Over the last three years it has done everything possible to force up the cost of private health insurance. It has removed tax deductibility of private health insurance premiums. It has whipped $99m out of the $100m reinsurance trust fund. In this Budget it has ripped $140m out of the private hospital system. Little wonder that 1.8 million Australians have been forced to give up their private health insurance. Honourable members will recall that the Prime Minister promised that under Medicare nine out of 10 Australians would pay less for the health needs of themselves and their families. That promise, of course, joins the growing list of prime ministerial broken promises. Before Medicare was introduced, the average wage earner paid $9.66 a week for family cover, after the tax rebate was taken into account. The same wage earner who has maintained the same family health cover is now paying $14.30 a week. In other words, the average wage earner who has maintained the same health cover as he had before Medicare was introduced is now paying almost 50 per cent more for that cover. Mr McGauran —How much? Mr PORTER —Fifty per cent more. We all know that the cost of Medicare is going through the roof. The Government has had to increase the levy by 25 per cent to try to cover some of the Medicare cost blowout. Not only is the taxpayer having to pay increased taxes in order to feed the Medicare monster but every Australian is paying more in personal health costs. The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports that personal health costs have increased by over 16 per cent in the year to October. Honourable members will remember that inflation was about 8 per cent for the year. So personal health costs are running at twice the rate of inflation. What is more, worse is ahead. As a result of the August Budget personal health costs for pharmaceuticals, health insurance and doctors' visits will increase substantially-so much so that the increased weekly personal health cost for the average family wage earner is likely to be about $4 a week. So much for the tax cuts on 1 December. They have already been eaten up by this Government's health policy, let alone all the other costs it has imposed on the Australian community. The Australian population is paying more for health and getting less. The Government has consistently argued that one of the major benefits of Medicare is that under Medicare up to two million people who were not previously covered have obtained health insurance cover. The figure is questionable because it includes Queensland, which has a free public hospital system. Nevertheless, the point is that, even though those people might now have their green-and-gold Medicare card, all they have been given by the Government is a ticket to nowhere. Australian people have never before been denied access to the health system as they are today because of the Labor Government's Medicare program. For too many Australians seeking public hospital treatment, the Medicare card is not worth a brass razoo. Their big brother national Medicare health insurance scheme is not delivering the goods. Instead, we have queues and deaths in our public hospitals. If the Government is serious about doing something about this tragedy it must change the Medicare program; it must restore the balance between the public and private hospital system; it must allow people to opt out of Medicare; it must face the crisis that it is in our public hospital system now; it must make changes now. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(3.11) —The speech we have just listened to is clear proof as to why the health policy of the shadow Minister for Health, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), or the Opposition is not seriously considered by those involved in the health problems of this country. The whole of his speech was based on a refusal to examine the facts of our public hospital problems. He simply put them down to his ideological obsessions, that is, he blamed them all on Medicare. The honourable member has just said that Medicare is to blame for the fact that nurses are struggling for higher pay and better career structures. Somehow Medicare is responsible for that. Medicare is somehow responsible for the fact that we have developed life saving, but very expensive, technologies which have made many more things possible in our hospitals. Medicare is to blame for new life saving drugs having been discovered and Medicare is to blame for the New South Wales surgeons demanding massive increases in their earnings. None of those things, except possibly the last, is directly related to Medicare in any way. The surgeons dispute may possibly be related to Medicare because honourable members will remember the despicable sight of this Opposition supporting the only group of strikers that has ever-- Mr Porter —It is all a great coincidence, is it? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr Porter —Medicare comes in and we have a crisis, and it is a coincidence. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Barker was heard in silence. Mr Porter —I regret that. He is so outrageous. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Barker will withdraw that remark. Mr Porter —I withdraw. Dr BLEWETT —The honourable member for Barker completely perverted the facts and denied the logic. He said that the nurses trouble in Victoria was the result of Medicare, that the fact that so many more operations are possible in our hospitals now is the result of Medicare. It is nonsense; the honourable member knows it is nonsense and, indeed, most of the people involved in health in this country know that it is nonsense and take no notice of his absurdities. Let me deal with them one by one. The honourable member said that there are empty beds in private hospitals and queues in public hospitals. There have always been empty beds in private hospitals and there have always been queues in public hospitals. The most interesting point is that the occupancy rate in private hospitals today is higher than it was under the last year of the coalition's health scheme. Yet the whole of the honourable member's argument was based on all the private hospital people fleeing from their private hospitals into public hospitals, but today there are more bed occupancies in the private hospitals than there were when the old Liberal schemes existed. Private hospitals have not been handicapped by Medicare. There has not been a flight of patients from private hospitals to public hospitals. The basic dishonesty of what the honourable member said is that 1.8 million people have been driven out of the private hospital system. It is true that 1.8 million people have given up their private insurance but the honourable member never told us that more than half the private beds in this country are in public hospitals. Simply for one person, who is treated as a private patient in a public hospital, to change over to being treated as a public patient involves no further impact on the public hospital at all. His kind of slippery logic is that because 1.8 million people have dropped out of private insurance somehow people have dropped out of private hospitals. However, in fact, there are more people in private hospitals today than there were before Medicare was introduced. No one supports the notion of the honourable member for Barker of Medicare induced queues. At the Health Ministers Conference in April-Liberal Party and National Party as well as Australian Labor Party people were there-we discussed the hospital waiting lists and the ways we had to address the problem. Not one State Minister claimed that Medicare was responsible and several put on record that their hospital waiting lists had nothing to do with Medicare. Let me now refer to the nurses. This year the Royal Australian Nursing Federation Council denied media reports which blamed the length of public hospital waiting lists on Medicare. It said that some of the problems arise out of the nursing situation but that had nothing to do with Medicare. The shadow Minister knows that fact very well. He tried to persuade the Canberra nurses that their problems were due to Medicare, and they booed him down. The nurses have real grievances about the structure of their work, their working conditions and their pay. Again, those matters are nothing to do with Medicare. The Tasmanian Minister for Health, a Liberal Minister, has recognised that waiting lists are caused by bed shortages, nursing shortages and inappropriate accommodation of aged people in acute hospitals. A spokesman for the Queensland Minister for Health-again he is not a friend of the Government-has claimed that there is no evidence for any increase in the waiting list times for elective surgery in Queensland since Medicare. I can go further. The honourable member for Barker has never bothered to read the reports that have been put out by two governments-South Australia and Victoria-which have really studied the waiting list problem. The South Australian report stated: Admissions in the State's hospitals have increased, albeit slowly and nothing like what might be expected had there been a Medicare effect. None of these statistics point to a dramatic, or even strongly evident, Medicare effect as having occurred in either the major hospitals or Statewide. Similarly, the Victorian report analysed the problems and identified the issues that were causing them. Bed closures was one issue because the hospitals could not get sufficient nurses. Mr Porter —Why couldn't they? Dr BLEWETT —Because for 10 years nurses have been underpaid and neglected in this country. The honourable member's Government did nothing about them and if the honourable member had understood the matter he would have seen that these problems were beginning to arise. Mr Porter —Just answer the question. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -The honourable member for Barker will cease interjecting. Mr Porter —Why did they suddenly resign after Medicare? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Barker. Dr BLEWETT —Let me deal with that quite false statement. Nurse resignations have been rising right through the late 1970s and the early 1980s because of mounting dissatisfaction with their conditions and pay. One needs merely to ask the nurses what the reasons are for the problems they face in the hospital system. We have to identify the problems in the public hospital system rather than spout the ideological nonsense that comes so easily to the honourable member for Barker. They are primarily the problems of bed closures due to nursing shortages. In some cases we have particular shortages of surgeons. I am afraid some of the shortages are politically motivated. We are short of orthopaedic and ophthalmic surgeons in our public hospitals. Finally, there is the major issue of the expansion of technology. The extraordinary thing that the honourable member opposite never takes into account is that technology has transformed what hospitals can do. Fifteen years ago hip replacements were a very rare operation. Today they are the most common operation performed on people over 65 years of age and that is because the drugs and the technique have been transformed in 15 years. Let me tell honourable members what has happened in five years with an expansion of technology. General surgery in our country has increased by 77 per cent in five years; ophthalmic surgery has increased by 99 per cent; thoracic surgery has increased by 45 per cent. I will give some particular examples. The number of lens extractions in this country has increased by 320 per cent in five years; the number of hip replacements by 30 per cent in five years; open heart surgery by 41 per cent and pacemaker operations by 51 per cent. We have great demands on our system because we have had a massive explosion in technology which makes so many more things possible. When comments about public hospital waiting lists are made, let us look at the real reasons. Very few of the problems are to do with Medicare but a lot are to do with the problems we have in the nursing sector, some are due to shortages we have in particular surgical areas and the overwhelming number are due to the great expansion of demand simply because of technological changes that took place through the 1970s into the early 1980s. Those factors produce problems and we accept there are problems in the system although I would have thought that even this shadow Minister, who belongs to a party which is always proud to boast of federalism, would acknowledge that the issue of nurse working conditions and nurse working structures is primarily the responsibility of the States and that the administration of the public hospitals is primarily the responsibility of the States. The Commonwealth can be helpful and supportive but the major responsibility in that area lies with the States. Let us just briefly take the honourable member's second charge-that is, his claim about health costs. There are a number of health costs which he noted. Increases in the Medicare levy will add $1 a week to the expenditure of families grossing $400 a week. It is important to point out, of course, that the levy is a charge across the community because of the changes we made as a result of decisions in the Budget. Secondly, there is an average increase of $1.36 a week for people on private health insurance. Of course, if one is with Medibank Private the increases are very much less. But only 50 per cent of the population take out private insurance. The honourable member has grossly exaggerated the increased costs of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. It will cost on average 48c a week extra for a family. The honourable member does not acknowledge at all that in fact this new scheme addresses the family problem. For the first time we have a protection for families in need of medicine and for those with chronic illnesses. Once a family has had 25 prescriptions it receives free of charge all other prescriptions for the rest of the year. This is an imaginative way of addressing a long-standing problem. Although these costs will absorb some of the tax cuts, the suggestion that they are going to take away the $6 tax cut for people on $400 a week or the $7 a week tax cut for people on average weekly earnings is not correct. Of course there are some extra costs. We have had to impose extra costs right across the community as a result of the very difficult challenges that face the economy at the moment. But the kinds of exaggerated statements that again have been made by the honourable member for Barker make no contribution to and show no understanding of the more general economic problems that this country faces. This matter of public importance is related to health and families. Just let me say positively what we have done for families. We have provided universal health insurance in this country; that is, everyone has access to medical services, even if there are some delays in the public hospital system. That compares with the position three years ago when in fact two million Australians had no access to medical services. They had no cover and they could not go to see their own doctors without having to foot the whole bill. We have introduced a universal system. Secondly, the Opposition attacks our bulk billing procedures. The bulk billing procedures in this country advantage families with few resources. The relatively less well off families who are treated by their doctors and bulk billed and therefore have no family costs are very much advantaged by this arrangement. Indeed, a survey of Sydney doctors shows overwhelmingly that doctors in the poorer and less affluent parts of Sydney bulk bill. The people in those areas are getting necessary medical services for which they are not being charged. Of course, this Opposition will remove that direct billing for those poor families unless they can produce some kind of card that will identify them as pensioners. Otherwise, bulk billing will be denied to families by the Opposition's proposals. We recently introduced uniformity for all doctors across this country. Honourable members opposite did nothing about that issue for over a decade. We said that it is only fair that a doctor in Perth doing the same thing as a doctor in Sydney should be paid the same amount. We believe that the principle of uniformity across the country will make it easier for doctors to charge families responsibly. For the first time this Government has paid into the public hospital systems of the States $50m a year to upgrade their equipment. The Opposition, when in power, did not make a single contribution related specifically to equipment. This Government, in tackling these very difficult problems, has initiated a program whereby every year $50m goes into the State public hospital systems to help upgrade their equipment. Let me show what this Government has done for the public hospital system. The previous Government in its last year of office paid $1,261m to the State public hospital systems. This year we are paying $2,713m. In four years we have virtually doubled the payments to the public hospital systems. Finally, the pharmaceutical benefits scheme that we have introduced is, as I said before, designed particularly to help those families with chronic illnesses. Families with children who often need a lot of medication will benefit from the scheme by being able to receive free all prescriptions in excess of 25 a year. It was this Government which introduced a national campaign against drug abuse because of health concerns, particularly in relation to young people. All we have had from the Opposition is carping criticism. It was this Government which took on board the need to see that all of our children were inoculated against measles. That was another initiative undertaken and paid for by this Federal Government. When we look at the positive things that this Government has done for families, when we look at the illogic that underlies the whole argument about waiting lists, we can reject this proposal without difficulties. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(3.26) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will amend the Australian Industry Development Corporation Act 1970 by providing for the current Commonwealth statutory guarantee on borrowings and raisings by the Australian Industry Development Corporation to become optional at the Corporation's discretion. The guarantee was provided to the Corporation as a part of this Government's amendments to the Corporation's charter in 1983. The proposed amendments arise from the Government's intention to levy a charge in respect of the guarantee on borrowings or raisings by the Commonwealth's business enterprises. The levy would have had an adverse impact on the Corporation as a financial institution if the levy had applied to all the Corporation's borrowings and raisings. Therefore, in consultation with the Corporation, the Government decided that all new borrowings and raisings made by the Corporation on or after 8 October 1986 will only be guaranteed by the Commonwealth if the Corporation decides that the Commonwealth guarantee should apply to those borrowings and raisings. The statutory guarantee of the Commonwealth will of course continue to apply to all borrowings, raisings and other liabilities of the Corporation entered into prior to 8 October 1986. This initiative acknowledges the commercial strength of the Corporation and its ability to stand on its own two feet-to coin a phrase-as a successful government owned development bank. Despite the difficult economic environment, the Corporation has recently reported a record after tax net profit of $19.1m. This demonstrates the Corporation's continued effectiveness in financing industries vital to the Australian economy. The Corporation has responded well to the Government's 1983 initiatives and, since the Government came to office, the Corporation has grown very rapidly. For example, total assets at 30 June 1986 amounted to $2,167.4m compared with $768.1m at 30 June 1982, an increase of 180 per cent. The Corporation is to be congratulated on its achievement and the Government looks forward to continued strong growth in the Corporation's activities. Of course, this growth was made possible by the Government's 1983 initiatives to increase the Corporation's authorised capital to $150m and to provide regular contributions of capital. Paid up capital now stands at $100m compared with $62.5m at June 1983. The Corporation's gearing ratio was also increased at that time to 15:1. The passing of this Bill will further enhance the Corporation's ability to respond positively to government initiatives in industry policy. I present the detailed explanatory memorandum to the Bill which has been circulated to honourable members. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Cadman) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(3.30) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the imposition, from 1986-87, of an annual charge on borrowings or other raisings of money by Commonwealth semi-government authorities which are guaranteed by the Commonwealth. This charge, which the Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced in the Budget Speech, has regard to the favourable interest rates paid by Commonwealth authorities due to the fact that their borrowings are guaranteed by the Commonwealth. The main consequence of the charge will be to ensure that the effective cost of borrowings to authorities is more directly comparable with that faced by private sector borrowers, thus ensuring that authorities take full account of the cost to the community of their investment decisions. Similar loan guarantee charges have recently been announced by the New South Wales and South Australian Governments in respect of semi-government authorities in those States. This Bill provides that when a Commonwealth authority borrows money, or raises money otherwise than by borrowing, and the Commonwealth guarantees that borrowing, the Treasurer may determine that a charge, not exceeding 0.5 per cent per annum of the amount borrowed or raised, is payable to the Commonwealth for the guarantee. The authority may also be required to provide to the Treasurer information relating to the amount of the charge for which it is liable. The authorities which may be liable for the loan guarantee charge may be considered in two groups, Commonwealth financial institutions and other Commonwealth business enterprises. In relation to borrowings or raisings of money by Commonwealth business enterprises, other than financial institutions, while there are some instances where Commonwealth guarantees are provided automatically by force of laws of the Commonwealth, in most cases the Treasurer is empowered, at his discretion, to provide Commonwealth guarantees. It will be open to these authorities, where guarantees are provided at the Treasurer's discretion, to decide whether it is in their financial interests to seek the provision of a Commonwealth guarantee in respect of a particular borrowing or raising. The Government has decided that in respect of these authorities, the Commonwealth guarantee charge will be set at 0.5 per cent of the outstanding amount of guaranteed borrowings or raisings undertaken on or after 1 July 1986. Special arrangements will apply in the case of Commonwealth financial institutions: The Commonwealth Bank of Australia, the Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia and the Commonwealth Savings Bank of Australia-the Commonwealth Bank-and the Australian Industry Development Corporation, the AIDC. At present, all moneys payable by these authorities to any person other than the Commonwealth are automatically guaranteed by the Commonwealth. Under the Australian Industry Development Corporation Amendment Bill 1986, which has just been introduced by the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) who represents the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button), it is proposed that the AIDC itself will be empowered to determine whether any borrowing or raisings of money made by it after 8 October 1986 are guaranteed by the Commonwealth. Where borrowings or raisings of money by the AIDC on or after 1 July 1986 are subject to a Commonwealth guarantee, the Government has decided that the Commonwealth guarantee charge will be set at 0.5 per cent per annum. All moneys payable by the Commonwealth banks, other than to the Commonwealth, will continue to be guaranteed by the Commonwealth. However, the Bill provides that in the case of the Commonwealth banks, the Commonwealth guarantee charge will be payable only in respect of borrowings or raisings of money which in the opinion of the Treasurer are overseas borrowings. This reflects the Government's intention that the Commonwealth guarantee charge should be confined to borrowings or raisings of money in which the provision of the Commonwealth guarantee confers an interest rate benefit on the bank relative to other major Australian banks. It is considered that this applies only when the banks undertake long term borrowings or raisings of money in overseas financial markets. Having regard to the size of the interest rate benefit, the Government has decided that the Commonwealth guarantee charge will apply only to long term overseas borrowings by the Commonwealth banks at a rate of 0.25 per cent per annum. It should be noted that while this Bill provides for authorities to provide information to the Commonwealth relevant to the calculation of the Commonwealth guarantee charge, it would not permit or require any information to be provided which would breach the present fully confidential relationship between Commonwealth financial institutions and their customers. The Commonwealth guarantee charges to be imposed under this Bill are estimated to raise revenue for the Commonwealth of $3.4m in 1986-87. I commend the Bill to the House and in so doing I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Cadman) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Hurford) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(3.35) —Over the last few days in this Parliament we have heard about the dire circumstances that Australians have found themselves in, with the economy in tatters, with a government that is prepared to run at any scare, pick up any diversion and follow any trail to take away the attention of the Australian people from the problems that are deep within the Australian Labor Party itself and deep within the Australian economy and the management of this country. The Government has brought about circumstances which, at other times, would be regarded as a recession. Just look at the deficit it has produced within the last 24 hours. It is terrible. The trade balance of Australia is shot. The tax system is in tatters and the Commissioner for Taxation has been forced out into the streets to defend a process of gathering tax and a tax system which he alone does not support, which most honourable members of the Government do not support and which the Treasurer (Mr Keating) himself does not support. It is interesting that members of the ALP have given the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) this advice: `Become a larrikin again and keep Paul quiet'. He has been told to keep the Treasurer out of any action or any comment. We only have to hear the Treasurer's vile tongue, such as over the last few days, to see how he will lay words and descriptions to anyone about anything but he will not deal with the real responsibilities that he has before him. He has made a shambles of the fringe benefits tax. Australia now, despite promises, has a capital gains tax, the details of which are only just becoming apparent to the Australian community. That Treasurer has sought to justify all of those claims, all of those taxes and all of those changes as being the greatest change to the taxation system since Federation. It is simply not true. The system is in a mess, and nobody understands it. Across that confusion the Government has laid an identity card system, the like of which is not appreciated by any Australian. Few people understand yet what is in store for them. Few of them understand the compliances that they must accept. The Government wants to make honest Australians produce information about themselves, to be held by government authorities in a way that has never been done before. It is an attempt by the Government to gain information on 99.9 per cent of the community and to control them. That process has been adopted to gain information on the 0.1 per cent of tax avoiders and social security cheats. As I demonstrated to the House last night, the claim that this card will do anything to control illegal migrants is completely fallacious. There is no part of this card that the Government is bringing forward which will do anything to control the movement of illegal migrants, nor will it do anything to aid in their detection. Let us look at the Government as it stands-the Treasurer and the Prime Minister. One does not like the Parliament and does not know how to make decisions. He is a person who likes to be popular and adored by all, but he is not prepared to make the sensible decisions on the information that is offered to him. The other is a man who is so remote, so wrapped in his own wealth and cocoon that he does not understand what the average Australian is like. He does not go to those suburbs which he represents to understand what those people think of him or of the Government's policies. My honourable friend nods in agreement. Last week the Treasurer faced a meeting of small businessmen and I do not believe he realised the chaos that this Government has created for simple, honest people who are seeking to make a way for themselves and their families. Here we have Government members led by the nose, by these two men, who they seem to think are beyond reproach. The imagination that is used to present the Government's case defies description. Not only must there be imaginative approaches to the presentation of its hopeless decisions, but they must also be backed by massive government publicity campaigns, supported by the taxpayers. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MOUNTFORD(Banks)(3.40) —For a number of years, I have expressed concern at the safety of the Bankstown Airport and possible alternatives for its operations. My particular interest now is in the training operations conducted there in the light of the PA32 crash on 17 August this year. What this tragedy has shown is that no matter how well trained and experienced the pilots, no matter how vigorous the safety checks, there will still be unavoidable incidents, which can end in tragedy. The Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) points out that over 21,000 movements take place per month at Bankstown, a statistic which highlights both the importance of the airport and the high standards of safety which operates. That should come as no surprise to honourable members-Australia has one of the most enviable air safety records in the world, which should stand as a tribute to successive Ministers for Aviation, the Department of Aviation itself, and the thousands of pilots and grounds staff who operate the aircraft. But what the 17 August accident points out is that even the best air safety precautions cannot prevent accidents altogether, and when they occur those accidents can be quite devastating. In that instance we had a fully laden plane required to make an emergency landing following a mechanical fault. The plane, I believe, had been thoroughly checked beforehand, and complied with all safety and mechanical inspections required. The pilot had a commercial pilots licence, and so was thoroughly acquainted with the proper procedures. Yet under the circumstances he was unable to make an emergency landing, but crashed into a factory at Chipping Norton. The pilot and four of his five passengers died. I want to leave to one side for the moment the issue of flying in general at the airport, and concentrate on just one aspect-pilot training operations. My contention is this: If a trained commercial pilot has difficulty in following emergency procedures, what chance do trainee pilots have? My own interest in this issue is a very practical one. Although the entire airport is within the electorate of Blaxland, pilots who are practising their take-off and landing procedure use runway one-one right or two-nine left, and then fly a circuit predominantly over the electorate of Banks. If anything goes wrong on one of these touch and go circuits, there is a good probability that the pilot would be looking for a landing site in the middle of my constituency. What options does a trainee pilot have? If he takes off on runway two-nine left, and suffers an almost immediate engine failure, he can try for Riverwood golf course directly ahead and below. But if the incident occurs a few seconds later, he could try for a park area much further to the right, forcing him to cross the flight paths of runways centre and right. Should he be taking off on one-one right, and suffers an immediate power loss after take off, there is some area just beyond the perimeter road, but should he hesitate for a moment, or should the failure take place a little later, he could try for the Bankstown showground. In any of these circumstances, I emphasise that the pilot may only try for one these areas. The experienced pilot of the PA32 on 17 August no doubt tried also to find a safe landing site. He believed he could make it back to the airport, but he was wrong. Do we then expect a student pilot to analyse an engine failure, work out his available flying time, select a field and make for it, all in the few seconds in which such an incident takes place? Even assuming that he could, in all of the areas I have nominated, there is much doubt as to whether the areas would be suitable anyway. First, they would be too short. Secondly, we all know that golf courses, picnic grounds, and parks are not level areas. There are trees, ditches, some buildings and enclosures which make them just as dangerous for landing as a residential area. Finally, I think it is false to assume that parklands and the like are safer from the point of view of loss of life. Such places can be full of people, especially on a weekend, none of whom is really expecting an aircraft in distress to come crashing down in their midst. I shudder to consider the prospect of an aircraft forced down in a crowded park on a Sunday in the middle of a football match. It could be even worse than such an accident in residential or industrial areas. What all this talk of emergency procedures ignores is the reality of what a pilot really would do. We can teach pilots to take certain action. It is unknown whether in the heat of the moment they would actually do it. I could well understand the plight of a nervous student on his first solo panicking when he suffers an engine failure, whether it be on take-off, final approach or mid flight: It is anyone's guess what the damage will be. For all these reasons I would argue that pilot training should be moved away from Bankstown. It is in the best interest of the residents, and of the pilots themselves. Less than half an hour away by car, Hoxton Park provides a field in the middle of the pilot training area which offers good open space all around for any emergency. I believe a move now, executed sensibly and responsibly, could allow the pilot training facilities to be relocated without loss of jobs in the industry, and with a minimum of inconvenience to student pilots. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MILES(Braddon)(3.45) —Today we have seen the Government gag the debate on the Australia Card and this just shows the approach this Government has to major legislation in Australia. It did the same with the Australian Bill of Rights Bill and it is doing the same with the identification card. It does not want the Australian people to know about it; it wants to keep it under wraps. But like the Australian Bill of Rights Bill and the fringe benefits tax, once the people know what it is all about they will rise against it. This Government has a deep-seated desire to control people's lives. It is not interested in the small people in the community. Its taxation policies and attempts to socially engineer people by the discarded human rights Bill indicate its clear intentions, to say nothing of its willingness to work with radical unions and the big power blocs such as the Australian Council of Trade Unions. As an Australian Labor Party branch president said to me recently, it does not care about the small people, it has forgotten its people and has lost touch with the grass roots of society. Who imagines in his wildest dreams that it will be the weak, the widowed, the fatherless, the poor, the quiet or the patient, or the tolerant, who will benefit from this card? Let us take a family which rushes its collapsed elderly grandmother to a hospital which requires her card to be produced on admission, but the card cannot be found. Imagine the bureaucratic nonsense that will occur while it is explained that she cannot be admitted because she does not have a card. The illustrations and examples are endless. As the fringe benefits tax imprinted on people's minds that this is the Government of unintended consequences, so too will the Australia Card legislation, if passed. If the Labor Party were really concerned for the blue collar workers and for the little people it would not have increased taxes by 17 1/2 per cent even with the tax cuts which are due in December this year and in July 1987. With an Australia Card we will find that a bureaucracy will burgeon and the ordinary taxpayer will be left to foot the bill. Can Australians remember a Labor Government efficiency measure ever reducing tax? The central fact is that regardless of the rhetoric, this Government is the biggest spending and the biggest taxing Government since the war. This legislation will spawn a new generation of tax investigators who will use the computer networks, bought with taxpayers' money, to monitor taxpayers. A dossier on every man, woman and child will be developed. Let no one be mistaken: The ultimate effect of the Australia Card will be to increase the burden of taxation and provide the opportunity of Australian government officials to pry into the lives of freedom-loving Australians. It will not be the poor or the middle-class income earners who will be able to defend their privacy from intrusive government, but rather it will be the cunning and the criminals who will run free. So long as the system works to control the lives and minds of people, this Government will be happy. Satisfaction for Labor governments is a system that controls the minds and the lives of people. We saw it in the Bill of Rights legislation and we can see it being dished up again under another name. Let it be quite clear, the Opposition has no truck with people who defraud or rip off the system. As the shadow Minister for Health, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) has outlined, we will steadfastly and resolutely pursue the rip-off merchants who steal the hard-earned taxes of others by defrauding the system. The Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, which investigated the proposal, rejected it along with many other people in Australia. If the Opposition believes taxes and fraud could best be dealt with by the Australia Card proposal it would hold some attraction even given our concerns about privacy. The fact is we do not. But like so many other legislative proposals put forward by this Government over the last three years, it is flawed, ill-conceived, expensive, bureaucratic and an affront to the honesty and the integrity of the overwhelming majority of Australians. Mr PUNCH(Barton)(3.50) —Earlier this week in the Sydney Morning Herald Mr Andrew Hay, perhaps the ugliest face of the New Right across Australia and Chairman of the Australian Federation of Employers, announced that the New Right would be `creating cells to campaign against Labor members in marginal seats'. After some investigation I have done with the Australian Electoral Office I believe that, using a loophole in Australia's electoral laws, hundreds of thousands of dollars-perhaps even millions of dollars-of New Right cash will be channelled through front organisations across Australia to try to defeat the Labor Government with at least the knowledge, if not the organisation, of the Liberal Party of Australia. Honourable members would know that essentially three criteria are required to be met for the disclosure of campaign funds. First, the campaigning or other activity must receive $1,000 or more in donations from business. Secondly, there is a critical relationship between the issue of the writ and election day. Thirdly, campaign gifts of $1,000 or more must be received between the issue of writs and election day. There is also a dramatic distinction between political party donations and other forms of campaigning done by third parties. Even where donations go directly to candidates of the Liberal Party, only the names and addresses of the managing body of the front organisations need to be disclosed if they are unincorporated. I believe that because of my active concern and stand against the New Right I am a target. The fact that I am also in a marginal New South Wales seat convinces me further of this. As the co-Chairman of the Anti-Privatisation Committee in New South Wales, made up of Labor members of parliament and the New South Wales Trades and Labour Council, to repeat a criticism I have made for months on end in my articles in the Australian and in previous speeches in this place, I believe that I have been singled out and that two fronts, with the knowledge of the Liberal Party, have been formed in my electorate. The Small Business Peoples' Movement announced on 7 August this year that it planned to challenge three candidates at the next Federal election: The honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating), the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee), leader of the wets in the Liberal Party, and my humble self. The Small Business Peoples' Movement has a direct and obvious link to the Liberal Party. Its Chairman and spokesman, Mr Paul Greenwood, I have learnt, is a member of the Mosman Branch of the Liberal Party. So North Shore Liberals, posing as representatives of the business community in my electorate, are coming down to stooge my people and seek donations. What is more, we have seen a fake pensioner organisation called Greypower established. At its last meeting, which I addressed, only 26 people were present, several of whom came from Parramatta, Wollongong and the eastern suburbs. This organisation, importantly, has publicly announced in the local area that it intends to raise $8,000 in cash to campaign against both me and the honourable member for St George (Mr Dubois). Like the other fake organisations and Liberal Party fronts, these organisations will be used to channel money into trying to defeat the Labor Party without a full disclosure of who exactly is behind the cash. The ugly face of the New Right is attempting to hide its cash and its cash contributors. The interesting part about all this-which leads me to conclude that the Small Business Peoples' Movement is definitely part of a broader New Right formula-is that it is after the honourable member for Goldstein. It regards him as some sort of threat to free enterprise, about which honourable members on this side of the House could hardly speculate, and is after him, too. This is not the first time that such dirty tricks have been played in my electorate. In the 1983 election one of the candidates, Mr Barton, was nominated by a well known Liberal Party member who during the election displayed a Liberal Party sign in her front yard, while at the same time nominating a supposedly independent candidate. The difference is that on this occasion the dirty tricks are coming from people outside my electorate-North Shore Liberals and fake pensioners. I will not back down. Indeed, I have taken the unusual step of writing to every one of my colleagues in the Federal parliamentary Labor Party and my friends and supporters right across the nation to ask for their cash to fight this campaign. I shall not be intimidated by the faceless financial contributors of the New Right. The local people will stick with me because I will support the local interests. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(3.55) —Earlier in this adjournment debate I listened to the honourable member for Banks (Mr Mountford) speaking about Bankstown Airport. It rekindled my mind as to the problems that I see, problems that are seen by many people in the Sydney metropolitan area and throughout New South Wales, with respect to the development of Sydney Airport. Coming from an electorate in rural New South Wales as I do, it concerns me greatly that more is not being done with respect to either the building of a new airport at Badgerys Creek or the construction of an extra runway at Sydney Airport. This matter concerns me because of the inability of Sydney Airport to cater for the numerous extra aircraft, large and small, arriving there. In recent weeks I have personally experienced a number of delays in the air of up to half an hour when large and small aircraft have been unable to land, and when aeroplanes have been subject to delays in take off. If the city of Sydney and the State are to be catered for by an international airport, which they must have, and if that airport is to be capable of meeting demands, it is only realistic for the Government to take some action very soon, either to proceed with a new airport or to construct an additional runway at Sydney Airport. Because of the restriction of available funds, which will continue to apply over the years to come, it may be some time before the resumptions for the land concerned will be able to be completed, the people concerned paid, and the necessary planning to cater for the future of the airport carried out. The airport will have to be built after that. Quite a few years will elapse before we shall see a new airport for Sydney. Because of the speed at which people wish to travel nowadays-fewer are travelling on trains; they want to fly, to reach their destination quickly-there is concern that there will be greater demand, and Sydney Airport will have to keep up with it. I am sure that all of us are anxious to see that something is done there. This matter has been raised previously. I would recommend the construction of a new east-west runway at the airport. Mr Cadman —Hear, hear-north-south. Mr Cobb —A very sensible suggestion. Mr COWAN —I know that the honourable member for Mitchell and the honourable member for Parkes are concerned about this matter, too, but I understand that there is room for such a runway at the present airport. Money is being spent on taxiways and so on around the airport, but there is room there for this runway. The cost involved-about $100m, or a little more-is a necessary expenditure because it will be productive. More aircraft are coming into the area from country districts throughout the State, and passengers do not want to be diverted to Bankstown. I am sure that the honourable member for Banks, were he still in the chamber, would agree that people do not want more activity taking place at Bankstown. It would be a nuisance to the residents, and might be a danger to them. It is a much further distance for people to have to travel into the city from Bankstown to do their business. I appeal to the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris), who is a sensible man and knows what the problems are, to look at this matter very realistically and do something about the construction of an extra runway at Sydney Airport. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga)(3.59) —I draw the attention of the people of Australia to a very dishonest and paranoid book that claims to review the subject of peace studies in our schools. I also put on record information about its author so that people may judge for themselves his so-called expertise in this area. The book is titled Operation Peace Studies and subtitled War in the Classroom, written by one Pat Jacobs. In the introduction, Jacobs is described as: `The pen name of a former government intelligence analyst with a special interest in political terrorism and subversion'-quite a build-up for someone commenting on peace studies courses. If it were revealed that Pat Jacobs is in fact Andrew Campbell, a discredited ex-agent of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, who was planted in one of our top security organisations, the Office of National Assessments, to destabilise it, the book would receive the ridicule it deserves. But using his alias and paranoid fantasies his book has become a best seller among extreme right wing groups and the anti-peace rat-bag fringe. Let us look first at the claims of this book, then at the figure who authorised and wrote it. The basic theme of the book is that peace studies are a KGB plot orchestrated from Moscow. Campbell claims that the advocates of peace studies are committed Marxist revolutionaries, anarchists, communists and leftist fellow travellers and radical educationalists who regard peace studies as a new form of institutional subversion of the foreign and defence policies of the capitalistic system. That is a pretty heavy claim. He says that peace studies proponents are hostile to free societies and promote the Soviet Union's foreign policy. He claims that peace studies activists constitute a complex threat to the emotional and psychological development of Australian school children. He states: `A school child indoctrinated in peace studies from primary school to the completion of secondary school will be psychologically unprepared for adult life in the real world'. Campbell finds that the source of this pernicious literature, aimed at the total destruction of our society, according to him, is Moscow. He claims that themes, targets, symbols, slogans, timing or campaigns are all co-ordinated by Moscow. He also finds that teachers are involved in this plot, and not only State teachers. He also claims that this plot has penetrated into the private school system more rapidly than in government schools. This has happened, of course, because they are `supported by the Marxist dominated Christian Church'. The book goes on in this vein, attacking the church, schools, teachers and recording endless meaningless meetings, listing who attended, and somehow concluding that this is evidence of a conspiracy. I suppose his attitude is summed up in the claim that `the totalistic objective of peace studies is a new variant of the totalitarian method of capturing and remoulding the hearts and minds of the young for political purposes-the power of which was realised with horrifying effect by Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin'. So who is Andrew Campbell, writing under the name of Pat Jacobs, who is spreading such hysteria around the community? Andrew Campbell was recruited to ASIO in the mid-1960s. He spent his time reporting on the activities of student groups and other young people opposed to the Vietnam war. He was well known around the Carlton area of Melbourne for his fantasies and living in a different world. In 1978 he applied to become a public servant but, unfortunately, he failed to inform the Department of very significant elements of his medical history. Out of concern for his privacy, I will not further describe his problems, but information is available. Not knowing his past medical history, Campbell was given a job in the Office of National Assessments, one of our top security organisations, as an intelligence analyst. There is evidence that he was in fact used by ASIO to destabilise the ONA because of disputes that were occurring between some of our security organisations at that time. When his obvious incompetence and strange behaviour became apparent, he was removed from the position and classified `generally unsuitable' for assessment work. It was then that Campbell began making a series of accusations aimed at ONA and its Director, Mr Bob Furlonger, and a confidential document went missing. Prime Minister Fraser expressed confidence in the organisation, but Campbell decided to go public and made accusations against other officers of ONA, suggesting that they were in fact agents of the Russians. He became a media celebrity with a supposedly much more fascinating earlier life than he had. He told the Age newspaper that he was a poor working class lad from Fitzroy, leaving school at the age of 15 years and studying at night school. He said that his parents were practising communists and his upbringing had been Stalinist. In fact, he was born in middle class Ferntree Gully, his father was a senior public servant in the Victorian Treasury for many years, he was private school educated and his parents were never communist. The Age had to make a public apology to Campbell's parents. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr EVERINGHAM(Northern Territory)(4.04) —In the Senate yesterday the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) tabled statutory declarations from two employees of the Australian War Memorial, Dr Michael McKernan and Dr Margaret Browne, which were purported to rebut my comments on this matter last Tuesday. Dr Margaret Browne agrees that she accepted $1,600 payment for two books in the Australians at War series, and identifies Mr John Ferguson, the Australian War Memorial's publishing consultant, as the person who contracted her to write the books. Dr McKernan's statutory declaration contains carefully qualified statements, I believe, in an effort to mislead. For example, he states: `During the period for which I had sole responsibility for stocking the Memorial shop I did not place on sale any of my books in the field of Australian military history except . . .' Doubt thus remains about what period he is discussing. He does not disclose books he authored which may have found their way into the Memorial bookshop via another party or organisation. Dr McKernan says that the Director, Air Vice-Marshal Flemming, was fully informed of the publication activity at the Memorial and of the operations of the shop. He neglects to mention curt notes from the Director as far back as 1983 demanding information on why salaried staffers at the Memorial-notably McKernan himself and the researcher, Peter Stanley-were listed as authors of independent publications to be funded and/or sold though the Memorial bookshop. Dr McKernan does not mention the 4 July 1986 query from the Director regarding the Australian War Memorial souvenir book in which the Director pointed out that neither the research and publications committee nor the Council had specifically approved expenditure for the project, although a total of $33,067 had already been paid out at that time. Dr McKernan seeks to discredit the audit of Council resolutions undertaken by chartered accountants, Arthur Young. This report questions Dr McKernan's role in providing accurate information to the Memorial Council and committees. Arthur Young addressed around 30 instances where important facts did not go to the Memorial's committee or Council, and points out that this omission may have influenced Council decisions. In one such instance, in reference to the Australians at War series, Arthur Young reports: It was not disclosed in this item, nor in a subsequent information item to the same committee- that is, the research and publications committee- that three officers of the Australian War Memorial were authors of a series, written in a private capacity. The Arthur Young report states that the $69,200 guide to the Australian War Memorial project was mentioned as a Council agenda item for 28 August 1986 as having been endorsed by the research and publications committee on 11 February 1985, but that no record could be found of this publication being endorsed or discussed at the 11 February meeting, or subsequent meetings. The report further states: No reference was therefore made of an officer of the AWM- Peter Stanley- writing the publication in a private capacity. Dr McKernan states: The Australians at War series was designed to meet the Council's objectives of providing reliable accounts of various battles and campaigns in which Australians have participated. He claims that Memorial support for the series `lay in the guaranteed purchase of a certain number of copies of the books to enable the series to proceed'. However, the Memorial Council at no time knew of the guarantee-and certainly did not know that three of the authors were salaried Memorial staff. Dr McKernan admits that sales through the Memorial bookshop `have not been substantial'. In fact, 10 per cent of the original order has sold since 1984. The fact is that if the Memorial had not backed the series with $35,000 Dr Browne would have have received $1,600, Dr Susan McKernan would have have received $1,500 and Peter Stanley would not have been paid at all. Dr McKernan is vague about the history of the Peter Stanley publication, `A Guide to the Australian War Memorial', suggesting that he and Air Vice-Marshal Flemming worked closely on organising the project. Dr McKernan states that Peter Stanley was named as the author in the files brought to the Director's attention. It is my information that the relevant file contained only two letters from Mr Ferguson, in neither of which was Mr Stanley mentioned as the author. Dr McKernan states `I am not aware of the 35 major mistakes it is alleged to have been discovered' in the Memorial guide book. But it is a fact that the book was not put on sale because of these errors, and all the copies are held in storage at the Memorial. It is difficult to believe that Dr McKernan was unaware of the circumstances that led to the book not being offered for sale. The two statutory declarations, rather than denying allegations, in fact confirm that War Memorial employees, Dr Margaret Browne and Mr Peter Stanley and Dr McKernan's wife, Dr Susan McKernan, profited from their authorship of publications which would not have been published without the involvement and support of the War Memorial. It cannot be seen as a coincidence that Air Vice-Marshal Flemming's position was-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr FREE(Lindsay)(4.09) —I join this afternoon's debate to commend the Hawke Labor Government for all that it has done, and has planned, to provide additional opportunities in higher education in the Western region of Sydney. It was only a few weeks ago that the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) announced the provision of more than $3m for higher education institutions in my electorate alone for next year. This sum included more than $1m for the Kingswood campus of the Nepean College of Advanced Education, and the provision of $1.14m to Nepean College for additional places in 1987. I was very pleased to see that that college of advanced education had more new places allocated to it than any other institution in New South Wales. The Government has a firm and fine plan for the provision of additional opportunities in higher education in the western Sydney region. The plan has two prongs: Firstly, to continue to rapidly expand places in the advanced education sector and, secondly, to provide strong support for the development of a university presence in the region. In a speech yesterday week when the Minister for Education opened some new buildings at the Nepean College of Advanced Education she acknowledged the justice of the region's claim for the development of a university and expressed confidence that that development would go ahead. Of course, there are a number of options, concerning both the development of a model for development and also the choice of a site. Of the available models it is well known that the preferred option of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission is to establish a college of a metropolitan university, with a clear timetable for autonomy. I must say that this is the model that appeals to me. I have gone into the reasons for my support in some detail in the past and I do not intend to repeat them on this occasion, but let me simply say that for the reasons of cost, the status of the institution, the range of courses it would offer, the effective and efficient use of available resources and, finally, because the college path has historically proved to be a successful pattern of development in New South Wales, I believe that that model is worthy of support. On the question of the selection of a site, in the last week there has emerged within the region some healthy competition. That debate is developing and I do not intend to join that particular debate this afternoon except to say that it is very fortunate that the interests of the City of Penrith within my electorate happen to coincide with the national interest and I am sure that that will be recognised ultimately. Mr Cadman —Not necessarily. Where's Price? Bring Roger in. Mr FREE —The honourable member for Mitchell will keep. I express some confidence that the debate over the choice of a site will not become a distraction-I am sure it will not-from the overall interests of the region. That is being pursued with some vigor by the Chairman of the Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils, Alderman David March. I acknowledge the fine work that he has put in over the years in promoting the cause of the western Sydney university. While it is true that the Chinese have a saying that success has many fathers but failure is an orphan, I am sure when this battle is finally won that David March will be acknowledged as the father of the western Sydney university. I hate to inject a note of partisanship in this debate but I cannot let this opportunity go without noting that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) some weeks ago attended a function for small business people in St Marys in my electorate and when asked about his attitude to the development of a western Sydney university said that he opposed it. Where that leaves the honourable member for Mitchell and the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster) I am not quite sure. I note that today the honourable member for Mitchell had presented in this House a petition on behalf of his constituents supporting the establishment of a western Sydney university. Given that their Leader has said publicly that he opposes this development-I think that is a great pity because I have said in the past that I have welcomed the bipartisan support from the honourable members for Mitchell and Macquarie-I simply do not know where this leaves them. Do they repudiate their Leader or do they abandon the interests of their constituents? Mr CONQUEST(Hinkler)(4.14) —In Statement No. 4 of the Budget Statements 1986-87 on page 289 under the sub-heading `Non-alcoholic Beverages' this Government, in supposedly broadening the tax base, has given the primary industry sector another kick in the pants. The paragraph reads: The following presently exempt non-alcoholic beverages are to be taxed at a rate of 10% with effect from midnight 19 August 1986: packaged flavoured milk, all presently exempt fruit juice products (broadly, those containing not less than 25% by volume Australian fruit juice) and non-alcoholic wine and cider and similar beverages. Fruit juice products which are not presently exempt will continue to be taxed at a rate of 20%. A week after the Budget Speech was delivered, this Government passed a reference to the Industries Assistance Commission to look into the need to provide temporary assistance to the fruit growers. An interim report was to be provided within 45 days. A month later, the Australian Customs Service commenced an investigation into the alleged dumping of Brazilian citrus juice concentrates. These two actions indicate that there are some problems in the citrus industry. The Government has certainly acknowledged that. Certainly producers in the Hinkler electorate have been greatly concerned with the Brazilian concentrate issue for some time and will be anxiously awaiting the outcome of the dumping investigation. Given all of these factors, the Government, in its Budget determinations, has chosen to impose a tax on the fruit juice component of the industry's output. If the Industries Assistance Commission says that temporary assistance is required and such recommendation is accepted by the Government, we can only assume that it will be funded out of tax revenue collected from wholesale tax on fruit juice. It defies understanding: A situation where the Government is looking to see whether an industry needs assistance, but slugs it with a tax, and then may distribute some or all of that revenue back to the industry. Now let us look at the effects that taxing fruit juice is likely to have. If we draw a parallel with the previous year's tax on ice cream, which saw a 7 per cent reduction in sales of impulse lines since September 1985, it may be fair to assume that the increase in the selling price of fruit juice drinks will have a similar result. It has been the industry's contention that the Brazilian concentrate is being dumped on the Australian market. This cheaper dumped concentrate permitted producers of packaged fruit products to come up with a mix of imported concentrate and locally produced juice to arrive at the cheapest raw material input. This was achieved by ensuring that the Australian content was 25 per cent and the balance was imported, so that the product did not attract any wholesale tax. Local producers and juice factories were not happy with imported juice being used, but at least they were selling some of their juice. The situation now, that is, post-Budget, is different because of the impact of the 10 per cent tax on fruit juices. The juice mix to achieve the cheapest input to packaged products now can be obtained without any Australian juice being used at all. The tax has virtually wiped out our juice industry. A factory in the Hinkler electorate had a very large order for juice cancelled as a direct result of this Government's decision to impose this stupid tax. It is simply madness to tax an industry out of the market-place. I suppose that the only alternatives the industry can hope for now are that the IAC interim report will recognise its parlous position and that the Customs investigation will find the allegations of dumping are correct and that prompt remedial action will be taken. Citrus growers are not whingers. They are not looking for government handouts and they are doing something for themselves. They have in the past and will continue to do so. Earlier in October I visited growers and learned of their efforts to improve their product and to expand their export products. Growers went to Japan, self-funded, to inspect their fruit at its destination after the sea journey. They then brought a Japanese delegation back to Australia to view the orchards and the packing plants. I was happy to go to the Burnett district and welcome them to the area. These people are working very hard to sell their goods on overseas markets and are working diligently and conscientiously to improve the quality of their citrus products. The new juice factory referred to earlier offered tremendous benefits to the district's citrus producers and they cannot understand the action of a government which has proven so unsympathetic and unsupportive to their initiatives. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(4.19) —The Christian Brothers is a well-known international congregation with foundations in all major English speaking countries and in South America. It is an order well recognised and respected for its contributions over many years to education-more than 3,000 brothers teach almost 200,000 students on all five continents. The history of the Christian Brothers in Australia can be traced back to the evening of Thursday, 19 November 1868, when the ship Donald McKay dropped anchor in Port Phillip Bay. On board were four members of the Christian Brothers congregation founded in Waterford, Ireland, in 1802, by Brother Edmund Ignatius Rice. In the years that followed, the Christian Brothers developed schools throughout the length and breadth of this country. Today, there are more than 1,000 brothers teaching in over 100 schools in Australia. In the province of St Francis Xavier-Queensland and the Northern Territory-168 brothers live in 30 communities and operate 26 schools with over 13,000 students. The Christian Brothers are established in every Queensland diocese other than Cairns. I want today to pay particular tribute to the work of the Christian Brothers in my electorate. This year represents 75 years of ministry to the youth of Townsville and Thuringowa by the Christian Brothers. On 22 January 1911, Bishop Duhig of Brisbane officially opened the first Christian Brothers school in Townsville. Known as Our Lady's Mount College, it had 150 pupils on the first day under the watchful care of the Principal, Brother P. W. Nolan, and his staff of two brothers, E. Stanton and C. Mahoney. A fourth brother, F. Hogan, was added to the staff as the number of boys soon increased. From the outset the Brothers school worked to develop the highest standards in its pupils-in academic work and in sporting and cultural achievements. In this way it worked greatly to enrich the quality of life in the region. In insisting on high standards it was not hidebound or adverse to change; rather it acted wherever possible to enhance the opportunities for all. For example, in Townsville in April 1917 a special examination was instituted to mark the beginning of a new scheme to give scholarship holders two and a half years of preparation for the Queensland junior public examination. In August of that same year, Our Lady's Mount College enjoyed a visit from the Governor-General of Australia, His Excellency Sir Ronald Munro-Ferguson, who expressed his hope that the school would `prosper and send out into the world many distinguished citizens'. These hopes were amply fulfilled. For 58 years Our Ladys' Mount College recorded outstanding achievements in the education of youth. During this time, in 1952, the Brothers opened another school, St John Fisher's College, in the Townsville suburb of Currajong. In January 1969, Our Lady's Mount College had outgrown the site and was closed with the establishment of Ingnatius Park College in the Townsville suburb of Cranbrook. The first Principal of the new college was Brother D. H. Reid, himself a product of Our Lady's Mount College. Its present Principal is Brother Bob Fredericks, a distinguished Australian educationalist. Ignatius Park College, since its commencement, has continued to provide a Christian Brothers education of the kind described about a decade ago in these words: There has never been anything `flash' or exclusive or elitist about the education offered by the Christian Brothers Colleges in Townsville; rather have the ordinary things of teaching, learning, playing sport, putting on concerts and becoming Christians, been done rather well. Madam Speaker, I emphasise the enormous contribution of the Christian Brothers to the shaping and development of my electorate and throughout Australia. The Christian Brothers, by their joy and fulfilment in their simple lives, add credibility and witness to the gospel challenge to all mankind to follow the poor, chaste and obedient Christ. Surely the promise contained in chapter 12, verse three of the Book of Daniel will be theirs. I quote: The learned will shine as brightly as the vault of heaven, and those who have instructed many in virtue, as bright as stars for all eternity. I extend to the Christian Brothers the congratulations of the people of Herbert on their 75 years of devoted ministry to the youth of Townsville and Thuringowa and their fidelity to Our Lord Jesus Christ. Mr COBB(Parkes)(4.23) —In recent weeks in the electorate of Parkes I have become increasingly concerned at how the fringe benefits tax will affect the ordinary constituents in my electorate. Some weeks ago I started receiving letters from parents who were concerned about how the fringe benefits tax would affect the fees of the children who attend boarding schools both within and without my electorate. I must confess that at first I did not pay great attention to the letters but as they kept coming in I started to look into the matter. I rang around every boarding school within the central west and all the boarding schools within the metropolitan area of Sydney. I was rather shocked as to how this tax would impact on these schools. Madam Speaker, as you know, because of the way the fringe benefits tax is structured, these schools will have to pay fringe benefits tax on the accommodation that they provide to supervisory staff who look after the boarders. I do not think that by any standard of the imagination providing a bed overnight for supervisory staff looking after boarders could come under the definition of a lurk or a perk as the Treasurer (Mr Keating) would have us believe. But apparently these schools will have to pay fringe benefits tax on that. The estimates I have come from the schools that have worked out their sums, but many other schools are still in some degree of despair and chaos trying to wade through the Act with their accountants. The figures that I have range between $16,000 and $48,000 a year. Riverview College in Sydney claimed that it had to pay $30,000 extra and therefore to stay revenue neutral it would have to put up the fees for its boarders by 7.8 per cent a year. The research that I did indicated that overall boarding fees would have to increase by an average of $300 a year per pupil-quite a large sum of money. The parents who send their children to boarding schools are not all rich as Government members seem to imply from time to time. Families who send their children to these schools have considerable financial strains placed on them. They do this by choice, but in many cases they do so because there is no choice-they come from remote areas. I was talking to a parent recently who had to drive his child 72 kilometres to meet the school bus. The child then had to travel another 50 kilometres to school every day. Surely in this day and age children should not have to receive their secondary school education by correspondence. In many cases the wife goes out to work to earn enough bread to send the children to boarding school. I believe that this is an unintended consequence of the FBT that should be looked at and reversed. This quickened my interest and I began to look at how the fringe benefits tax would affect the councils in my electorate. I have 15 or 16 shire councils in my electorate or impinging on my territory. I was staggered when I saw figures that they came up with for their fringe benefits tax. I shall read out the sums paid by some of the councils in my electorate. The Bogan Shire Council will be up for $3,300 extra. Bourke and Brewarrina are faced with only small amounts, but in the case of Bourke it is still $1,400. The Cabonne shire has to pay $8,000, Cobar $9,000, Coonamble $1,300, Cowra $13,000, Dubbo almost $22,000, Forbes $3,000, Gilgandra $7,200, Narromine $3,000, Parkes just under $4,000, Warren between $4,000 and $5,000, Wellington $6,000, and so the list goes on. Every shire council told me that the administration costs and increased paper work that went with the tax would almost double the costs to the shires. It means that these costs will be passed on to the ratepayers or else the shires will have to cut back on their services-unless the Government compensates them which looks increasingly unlikely. The shires must pay fringe benefits tax on ridiculous items, such as the council employee who takes a car home at night because he may be called out during the night to service a sewerage breakdown. How is he expected to go to the council lockup yard at 2 o'clock in the morning and find someone with a key to get the car out? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(4.23) —On Sunday 19 November I had the great pleasure of visiting a truly exciting and innovative project-the restoration and rehabilitation of a number of steam engines and carriages by the Mornington Railway Preservation Society. The 160-strong membership has been working extremely hard over the past two years, rebuilding and refurbishing the old steam engines and carriages. I hasten to add that I am very proud to be a member of this enthusiastic group. I have not yet spent much time with the group, but my son has returned home from the steam engine K163 covered with carbon and dirt quite often. These people would have to be the most hard- working, diligent and enthusiastic group of volunteers with whom I have ever been involved. Their zeal and enthusiasm has to be seen to be believed. Two of the members, Bill Stemmer and Alan Parker, went to China recently and spent a large part of their visit in deliberations with the Datong steam engine plant negotiating the possible manufacture of parts for the steam locomotives that they are restoring in Australia. One engine, the K163, spent 13 years in Jubilee Park, Frankston, during which time thousands of children spent many happy hours playing on it. Indeed, my own three children have climbed and crawled all over it. I am pleased to say that the Federal Government has assisted the Society in the form of a community employment program grant which has enabled it to employ six full time people for six months. The Society believes that this grant has helped to stimulate the imagination of young people who have been working on this project and has taught them new skills. As well as the government grant, the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd has allocated a section of the old Cresco site at Hastings as a workshop and store for the Society. BHP has also provided a number of useful steel parts and has expressed the view that the project is contributing to a worthwhile future endeavour, that is, the tourist industry-a point of view with which I fully agree. The Society now has its biggest battle before it, that is, convincing the ministry of transport in Victoria to reopen a section of the Mornington line which has been closed for five years. The tourist potential of this line is enormous. I can envisage people on a day trip catching the steam train at Frankston, travelling to Mornington, spending a pleasant day there and then catching the new hovercraft back to Melbourne. This line could provide quite a considerable income for the Metropolitan Transport Authority. I urge the Victorian Minister for Transport to give this exciting project a fair go. I am certain that he will be very pleased with the end result. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 4.31 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 3785) Mr Langmore asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 14 April 1986: (1) Is he able to say which States and Territories set limits on building society interest rates; if so what are the maximum rates in each State and Territory. (2) What are the (a) ranges of and (b) average actual building society interest rates in each State and Territory. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am advised that legislation exists in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and South Australia for the Ministerial determination of interest rates on housing loans by permanent building societies. However, none of those States formally exercises legislative power, preferring generally to liaise with industry and to establish maximum rates on an informal basis. There are no statutory powers over building society interest rates in Western Australia, Tasmania, the Northern Territory or the ACT. Rates in Western Australia are the subject of discussion between the Government and industry. As far as I am aware, there are no informal arrangements in place involving Government in Tasmania, the Northern Territory and the ACT. The maximum rates charged by permanent building societies on owner-occupied loans up to $100,000 in the States and Territories, as at 30 September 1986 were as follows: New South Wales...15.5 per cent Victoria...16.0 per cent Queensland...15.5 per cent South Australia...15.5 per cent Western Australia...16.0 per cent Tasmania...16.0 per cent Northern Territory...16.5 per cent ACT...16.75 per cent (2) Permanent building societies commonly employ a tiered structure of loan interest rates-that is, the rate increases with the size of the loan. Actual interest rates charged for owner-occupied housing may vary between States and between building societies within a State. Details of the ranges and average of permanent building society interest rates on a State-by-State basis for various loan sizes are published in ABS Catalogue 5637.0-Building Societies, Australia. The Reserve Bank also publishes a national weighted average rate for loans of $30,000 in its monthly Bulletin. I refer the honourable member to these sources. The approximate predominant rates being charged on new loans as at 30 September 1986 were as follows: New South Wales 14.5 to 15.0 per cent Victoria 16.0 per cent Queensland 15.5 per cent South Australia 15.5 per cent Western Australia 15.5 per cent Tasmania 15.75 per cent Northern Territory 15.5 to 16.0 per cent ACT 16.5 per cent (Question No. 4068) Mr Hand asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 26 May 1986: (1) Will he seek approval from the US Government to declassify the (a) 9 annexes concluded between 1962-75 with the US Navy and (b) 3 annexes concluded between 1962-1975 with the US Air Force established under the Mutual Weapons Development Data Exchange Agreement 1962. (2) Will he release details of these annexes if they are declassified. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) Nineteen Annexes were established under the US/Australia Mutual Weapons Development Data Exchange Agreement (MWDDEA) 1962 in the period 1962 to 1975. The list of these Annex titles is classified as are most of the individual Annexes. These classifications were imposed by mutual agreement between the relevant US and Australian authorities in consideration of respective national security requirements because Annexes under this MWDDEA address aspects of current tactical operational materiel which are common to the Australian and US defence forces. They include topics such as target penetration mechanics, fracture mechanics of gun barrels and some aspects of tactical missile systems. Should Australia wish to declassify and release any of these Annexes, we would be obliged to seek US concurrence for this just as the US authorities would require Australian concurrence if they proposed such action. My Department will investigate whether any of these Annexes could reasonably be declassified and released. (Question No. 4325) Mr Duncan asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: Further to the answer to my question No. 3318 (Hansard, 5 June 1986, page 4850) relating to the International Executive Conference of the International Police Association, is the Government contributing any funds towards the cost of the conference. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No. (Question No. 4560) Mr Everingham asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 17 September 1986: (1) Did Qantas flight 2 land at Darwin airport at about 4 a.m. on 10 September 1986 because of engine failure. (2) How many (a) passengers and (b) crew were on this flight. (3) When were the passengers disembarked. (4) Was the time between landing and disembarkation longer than 3 hours; if so, why. (5) What action does the Government intend to take to ensure that such a situation does to recur. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am advised that Qantas Flight 2 made an unscheduled landing at Darwin at 4.05 a.m. after mechanical difficulties led to an inflight shutdown of the aircraft's number 4 engine. (2) (a) 391 passengers (b) 22 crew. (3) Passengers commenced disembarking at 8.20 a.m. and had all disembarked by 8.40 a.m. (4) The time between landing and disembarkation was approximately 4 hours. During this time the passengers were shown a movie whilst Qantas maintenance staff assessed the extent of engine damage. The decision to deplane passengers was taken at 7.30 a.m., after engineering checks revealed that the malfunctioning engine could not be repaired and would have to be replaced. Disembarkation could however not be commenced until 8.20 a.m., when the passengers had finished breakfast. (5) The decision as to when the passengers should be disembarked was a matter for the judgment and discretion of the Company. In this regard, I was advised that Qantas, in deciding when to deplane passengers, took into account that the Darwin terminal was unable to accommodate additional passengers until the passengers from an earlier Qantas flight positioning at Darwin had departed at 7.00 a.m. In these circumstances the Company considered passengers would be more comfortable remaining on board the aircraft. As regards the capacity of the terminal facilities at Darwin, it is not the Government's policy to provide terminal capacity for the rare occasions when unforeseen operations take place. However, the Government has reconsidered the development of a new international/domestic terminal and has commenced planning for new facilities in the south-west sector of the airport. It is anticipated that subject to normal budgetary considerations, construction should commence next financial year. This will provide additional capacity and would lessen the likelihood of the recurrence of a similar situation as occurred on 10 September 1986. (Question No. 4562) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 17 September 1986: (1) What are the prerequisites for attaining each class of commercial pilot licence including an Airline Transport Pilot Licence. (2) Does a prospective applicant for a First or Second Class Airline Transport Pilot Licence have to be employed by one of the 2 major airlines in Australia; if so, (a) why and (b) does this contribute to expectations that there will be a shortage of airline pilots licensed to fly with airlines in Australia in the near future. (3) If not, what percentage of successful applicants have been from (a) Ansett, (b) Australian Airlines and (c) other airlines. (4) Is a shortage of airline pilots anticipated in the near future; if so, what steps is he or his Department taking or considering to avert the problem. (5) If steps to avert the problem have not been considered, why not. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The four classes of commercial pilot licence are: Commercial (CPL); Senior Commercial (SCPL); Second class airline transport (ATPL); First class airline transport (ATPL). Details of the general requirements for pilot licences and the particular requirements for each class of licence are shown in Air Navigation Orders Part 40 available from my Department. A copy is held in the Bills and Papers Office. (2) No. (a) However unless otherwise approved by the Secretary, an ATPL is only issued to a pilot employed by an airline operating under the authority of an Australian airline licence. This procedure recognises that only those pilots employed by airlines need to hold such a licence. In Australia the normal procedure is for airlines to recruit pilots who hold Senior Commercial Pilot Licences and who meet other selection requirements. The airlines then train the pilots to qualify for an ATPL on the type of aircraft they will fly. Notwithstanding the above an ATPL may be issued to a pilot who meets all the requirements for an ATPL but is not employed by an Australian airline where the pilot would otherwise be disadvantaged. The most common cause is where an overseas operator states that possession of a current Australian ATPL is a pre-requisite for employment. (b) No. Possession of an ATPL is not a pre-requisite for initial employment with any Australian airline. (3) My Department has not been required to maintain statistics of this nature and the diversions of considerable resources would be required to extract the information from existing records. (4) to (5) The matter of pilot recruitment, training and availability is essentially one for the aviation industry to address although my Department continues to do all it can to support existing industry pilot training programmes. (Question No. 4717) Mr Fife asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 7 October 1986: (1) Are pony clubs, motor sports clubs and many other sporting clubs required to pay tax on their profits. (2) Are sporting clubs in which people are the sole participants exempt from paying tax. (3) Are racing clubs exempt from paying tax; if so, when was this exemption granted. (4) Does the Government intend to grant taxation exemptions to other sporting clubs in which people are not the sole participants. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Sections 23 (g) (iii) and 23 (g) (iv) of the Income Tax Assessment Act provide for exemption from income tax of a society, association or club which is not carried on for profit or gain to its individual members and is established for, or has as its predominant activity, the encouragement or promotion either of an athletic game or sport in which humans are the sole participants or of animal races. Pony clubs, motor sports clubs and many other sporting clubs do not satisfy the criteria for the specific exemptions outlined above. Nonetheless, as with non-profit clubs and associations generally, pony clubs and motor sports clubs already receive favourable treatment under the income tax law. They are free from tax on income received from members under the `principle of mutuality'. This principle recognises that members of an association, society or club do not make a profit from dealing collectively amongst themselves. Therefore, such organisations only pay tax on income from investments and from trading with non-members. In addition, a tax-free threshold of $416 applies in determining tax payable. This threshold is phased out over the income range $416 to $2,542. (2) Yes, provided those clubs satisfy the requirements for exemption set out in (1) above. (3) The income of clubs, societies or associations established for the encouragement or promotion of animal races is exempt from tax under section 23 (g) (iv) of the Income Tax Assessment Act. This exemption has been in force since 1 July 1985. (4) No. (Question No. 4724) Mr Andrew asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 7 October 1986: Does the Plant and Animal Quarantine Division of his Department permit entry of (a) kiwi plants (b) ``high risk'' species in vitro and (c) carnations from New Zealand with no requirement for post-entry quarantine; if so, is this apparent relaxation of Australia's quarantine standards warranted. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) Kiwi fruit plants and scionwood from New Zealand have been permitted entry subject only to fumigation to kill insect and other pests. This decision was taken by Plant Quarantine officials following an assessment of the risk of introducing exotic diseases on kiwi fruit plants that indicated there were no significant diseases affecting this crop in New Zealand. The decision was taken following consultation with the Chief Quarantine Officers (Plants) in all State agriculture departments. (b) The entry of some berry fruits and babaco from New Zealand as in vitro cultures is permitted. Entry was permitted following an assessment of the risk from stock originating from that country. Cherries in vitro are allowed entry from Canada and date palms are allowed from a nursery in England. (c) There has been no introduction of carnations from New Zealand that has not been subject to the usual requirements for post-entry quarantine. Regarding the question as to whether this apparent relaxation of plant quarantine standards is warranted, I would make three points. Firstly, there has been no relaxation of quarantine standards. On the contrary, quarantine controls over the health standards of plants that are permitted favoured entry are at least as demanding, in most cases more so, than the standards imposed on plants which pass through post-entry quarantine. Secondly, Plant Quarantine should not impose unnecessary impediments on the import of stock for the horticultural industry. A managed quarantine policy requires that competent scientists assess the health risk associated with the introduction of any particular consignment of plants and impose impediments commensurate with that risk. The third point I want to make is that sections of the horticultural industries believed that they are disadvantaged in competition with producers overseas. A significant volume of cut flowers is imported into Australia annually. Local producers are not in a position to compete unless they have access to new planting stock, both in a quantity and time frame that will allow them to produce flowers of equal or better quality. Similarly, fruit growers need to have access to new varieties to compete on international and domestic markets. Recent moves to improve access to elite planting stock that poses no risk through the introduction of exotic and serious pests and diseases is in the interest of all Australians. (Question No. 4766) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 15 October 1986: Will Essendon Airport, Victoria continue to remain open for similar reasons to those he gave the House (Hansard, 8 October 1986, page 1625) in regard to Bankstown Airport, NSW; if not, why not. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Essendon Airport has been the subject of a study for the purpose of determining the future role of the airport. The report of the study and the recommendations are currently under consideration, and a decision on the future use of Essendon Airport will be made in due course. With regard to aircraft safety checks the same procedures apply as those outlined in my previous reply to the question on Bankstown Airport. (Question No. 2530) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 19 November 1985: What is the procedure used in the Minister's Office to respond to petitions referred by the House of Representatives. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Petitions received which are of relevance to my Portfolio are referred to the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce and/or other Portfolio authorities. The views expressed in the petitions are drawn to my attention and taken into consideration in the development and administration of policies and programs in the same way as views expressed in direct representations received from other organisations and individuals. (Question No. 4536) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 16 September 1986: (1) Did Mr P. Sawyer, a former employee of his Department, in 1983 or at any time make suggestions to prevent the wrongful payment of social security benefits to prisoners; if so, (a) when and (b) what were the bases of the suggestions. (2) What was his Department's reaction. (3) Was an assessment undertaken: if so, will he make a copy of the assessment available. (4) Were the suggestions adopted: if not (a) why not and (b) what alternative action was taken. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (a) 6 September 1983. (b) He suggested that a daily compilation of Department of Corrective Services admission lists be compared with microfiche listings of all Social Security clients. (2) to (4) The suggestion was assessed in line with normal practice. The assessment indicates departmentally initiated comparisons of prisoner and social security records had been undertaken prior to the suggestion being received; the suggestion was considered to have merit; future departmental work programs would include such comparisons on a project basis. (Question No. 4592) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 18 September 1986. (1) When was the new simulator ordered for the Aviation Central Training College in Melbourne and what is the contract installation date. (2) Is the simulator now to be installed at the proposed college at Pialligo, ACT, if so, what is the earliest construction date which would permit installation of the simulator. (3) Is either party subject to a penalty clause in the contract for late installation of the simulator; if so (a) what are the conditions of the clause and (b) what is the penalty. (4) What is the contract price for the simulator and is it additional to the $10.8 million allocated for the construction of the college at Pialligo. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) An order was placed in June 1985 for an Air Traffic Control training simulator for the Department of Aviation's Central Training College for delivery to a site anticipated at the time to be in the ACT. Under the contract, the manufacturer is scheduled to commence installation of the simulator in September 1988. (2) It is planned to install the simulator in the proposed college at Pialligo. Completion of that part of the college which will house the simulator is required before September 1988. To meet this date the Department of Housing and Construction advised that tenders should be called in April 1987. (3) (a) The contract provides for liquidated damages to be recovered by the Commonwealth from the Contractor, ``Should the Contractor delay the offering of any item of the Supplies to the Commonwealth for Acceptance beyond thirty (30) days after the relevant due date . . . The liquidated damages are a genuine pre-estimate of damages agreed between the Commonwealth and the Contractor and are not a penalty. (b) The liquidated damages amounts agreed between the Commonwealth and the Contractor are: Simulator System...: $63,103 per month Simulator Spares...: $ 4,230 per month Simulator Documentation: $ 3,836 per month Training...: $ 2,234 per month Non-availability of the building in September 1988 would require installation of the simulator in temporary facilities to allow completion of the contract by the supplier and the system to be tested and operated to make full use of the warranty periods penalties from this course would include the cost of later re-installation in the Central Training College, estimated to cost about $100,000. (4) The contract price for the simulator for the Central Training College is currently $7,933,774. However, this figure is subject to fluctuations in currency exchange rates. The cost of this simulator was not part of the $10.8 million at June 1986 prices allocated for construction of the college at Pialligo. (Question No. 4598) Mr Reith asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 18 September 1986: (1) How many investigative teams have been established to verify efforts by the unemployed to obtain work and ensure that they were still entitled to benefit since his press release of 27 August 1986. (2) How many persons are in each team. (3) Where have the teams been established. (4) Which regions will the teams concentrate on. (5) Will the Minister provide a report to Parliament on the results of the work of the teams; if so, when. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) 5. (2) Each team consists of 6 field officers together with one clerical officer. (3) Two teams have been established in New South Wales, and one each in Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia. (4) Work has been undertaken in the following regions: Lismore and Dee Why (New South Wales), Box Hill (Victoria), Cairns and Gold Coast (Queensland), Fremantle (Western Australia). and the teams will move to other regions as is considered appropriate. (5) I will consider making details available when the teams have been established for a sufficiently long period to enable meaningful data to be compiled. (Question No. 4752) Mr Connolly asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 10 October 1986: (1) What mineral deposits are known to exist within Kakadu National Park, Stages I, II and III. (2) What is the estimated (a) size and (b) value of these mineral deposits. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) My Department is aware of about 150 mineral occurrences, prospects and deposits in the Kakadu region, which are shown on geological maps published by the Bureau of Mineral Resources. Published resource estimates are available for nine deposits in the region. None of these deposits is in the Kakadu Stage I or II areas, although the Park surrounds some of them. One (Coronation Hill gold and platinum deposit) is within the Gimbat pastoral lease and one (Gubberah Gossan zinc/lead deposit) is within the Goodparla Pastoral Lease. (2) (a) Published estimates of the resources identified in the nine deposits referred to above (with resource categories as published) are as follows: Jabiluka 1, 3,400 tonnes U3O8 (in situ reserves) Jabiluka 2, 204,000 tonnes U3O8 (in situ reserves); 380,000 ounces of gold (in situ resources) Ranger No. 1, 38,815 tonnes U3O8 (geological proven and probable ore) Ranger No. 3, 73, 838 tonnes U3O8 (geological probable ore); 12,213 tonnes U3O8 (geological possible ore) Koongarra No. 1, 13,300 tonnes U3O8 (mineable reserves) Koongarra No. 2, 2,300 tonnes U3O8 (geological reserves) Hades Flat, 726 tonnes U3O8 (reserves) Coronation Hill, 350,000-380,000 ounces of gold and unspecified platinum (demonstrated resources); 1 million ounces of gold and 170,000 ounces of palladium and 80,000 ounces of platinum (potential resources) Gubberah Gossan, 71,440 tonnes zinc (ore reserve) (b) One indication of value of a mineral deposit can be obtained by multiplying the quantity of contained mineral(s) by a price(s) for the mineral(s) at a particular time. Assuming the 1985 unit export value for Australian uranium oxide, 1985 unit exmine value for gold, lead and zinc and 1985 refined metal values for platinum and palladium, the value of deposits listed above is about $32 billion.