Tuesday, 18 November 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Yesterday the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) raised as a matter of privilege reports in the Melbourne Sun and the Brisbane Courier-Mail of 17 November purporting to reveal recommendations of the forthcoming report of the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception. The honourable member presented copies of the articles in question and referred to a similar article in the Burnie Advocate of the same date. In order for precedence to be accorded to a motion in respect of a complaint, two criteria must be satisfied. Firstly, a matter must be raised at the earliest opportunity and, secondly, the Speaker must be of the opinion that a prima facie case of breach of privilege has been made out. Clearly, this matter has been raised at the earliest opportunity. May's Parliamentary Practice states: The publication or disclosure of proceedings of committees conducted with closed doors or of draft reports of committees before they have been reported to the House will, however, constitute a breach of privilege or a contempt. That is from the twentieth edition of May, page 154. House of Representatives Practice states: . . . the publication or diclosure of evidence taken in camera, or the publication or disclosure of draft reports of a committee before their presentation to the House, constitutes a breach of privilege or contempt. That is from page 660 of House of Representatives Practice. There are a number of precedents in this House and in the House of Commons for the unauthorised publication of the contents of committee reports or proceedings being raised as matters of contempt. I have considered the remarks of the honourable member and examined the articles in question. Whilst there are differences between the articles referred to, there are many similarities. The articles, on their face, appear to reveal the private deliberations of the Committee and the substance of recommendations to be made to the Houses. It is clearly impossible for me to reach any conclusion as to whether in fact the articles do reveal the private deliberations and proposed recommendations of the committee. In the circumstances, however, and on the information before me, I am of the opinion that precedence to a motion in respect of the matter is warranted. I am prepared to accept a motion on the matter. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur) —I move: That the matter of the printed references to the proceedings and prospective recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception in the Sun News-Pictorial and the Courier-Mail of 17 November 1986, and similar references in other newspapers, be referred to the Committee of Privileges. In moving that motion, I have examined all of the issues associated with this matter. Yesterday, as I indicated in this House, three newspaper articles were brought to my attention. They were in the Melbourne Sun News-Pictorial, the Brisbane Courier-Mail and the Burnie Advocate. Since that time other newspapers that contain similar reports have been drawn to my attention. Those newspapers were the Hobart Mercury, the Adelaide Advertiser and the West Australian, all dated 17 November. In addition, two other articles, also purporting to reveal the substance of the deliberations of the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception have been drawn to my attention. Those articles appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald dated 18 November and the Weekend Australian of 15-16 November, in one edition-I think in Melbourne. I am concerned and disappointed that, although the Committee was able to deliberate for a fairly long period and in accordance with the Standing Orders, right towards the death, as we were about to make certain recommendations and hand down a report, the whole of the deliberations fell apart. I think that this really does reflect poorly on the question of privilege and what that therefore attracts to it within the House. A very close working relationship had been developed among all Committee members. A major issue of concern-that is of telecommunication interception-in the wider community was under very close examination. Therefore, I am most concerned that apparent reporting has taken place which talks about deliberations of the Committee-deliberations which had not been concluded. It also mentioned recommendations or dissents from recommendations which had not, in fact, been made. I believe, therefore, that the information provided to the particular journalist in question and subsequently in some of the other articles is misleading and in fact goes a long way to misrepresenting the views of those members who have worked so hard and so conscientiously on the Committee in question. I hope that members of the Privileges Committee take the matter all the way to try to nail the particular individual who has misrepresented the views of the majority of the Committee members-in fact, all the views of the Committee members-and has purported to represent the views as a Committee as a whole. I hope that this reference to the Privileges Committee leads to finding the person responsible and some positive action being taken. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party) —Madam Speaker, I want to raise just one matter with respect to this matter of privilege. Your report pertains to the premature release to the Parliament of the contents of a committee report. The honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) has just responded to this House in some detail. Obviously he might have some reasonable expectation that the matter might be one which is referred to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Privileges. I should say on behalf of the members on this side of the House that we would be most concerned if the advice to the honourable member of your report, Madam Speaker, were different from that which we received. My report was only that at 2 p.m. you would be replying to the privilege matter. I hope that Government members and Opposition members alike, if there is to be a report given by you, be it favourable or unfavourable, should receive the same sort of advice. I hope that the honourable member did not get premature advice that the matter was to be referred to the Privileges Committee. I accept that it was not. The honourable member is shaking his head, and I accept that. Madam SPEAKER —One would expect that the member who had raised the matter of privilege would be prepared to speak to it in the event that he did get the response that he got. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr SPENDER —I refer the Attorney-General to remarks by Senator Walsh in the Senate last night when he said of Sir Garfield Barwick that he was `the greatest facilitator of tax evasion that this country had ever seen', and that he brought down and influenced scandalous judgments in the High Court of Australia. The Attorney-General will understand that this is an attack not only on Sir Garfield Barwick, but also on other past and serving justices of the High Court allegedly influenced to bring down judgments described by Senator Walsh as scandalous. Will the Attorney-General dissociate himself and this Government from the disgusting attack made by Senator Walsh? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is in the nature of Parliament that members of Parliament are free to make whatever comment they like within the bounds of guaranteeing that people who are impugned have the right of reply. In this particular case, I do not think what the Minister said is new matter. My recollection of it is that it has been recycled in the Senate on more than one occasion-in fact, it relates to a period which goes back some years. I have no doubt that Sir Garfield Barwick would certainly be able to answer any imputation-- Mr Spender —Nearly blind and in retirement? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, even in retirement one is not silenced. I also want to make the point that one issue that has bedevilled the administration of the taxation laws is the interpretation of those laws during the 1970s. That was a problem. We make no comment as to who might have been responsible for the interpretation of them. But the facts are that, as a result of those interpretations, there was a massive evasion of tax. That is the problem that exercises the public mind and the public interest. Mr Spender —You are on a question of law. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for North Sydney, having asked his question, will now heed the answer. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Let me make it clear. Even on the question of law the High Court of Australia has looked at the situation again and has given opinions which I think give strength to what might be deemed to have been the original intention of the legislation when it was passed. So we do get a conflict of opinion over a period. The honourable gentleman was anxious to say that what Sir Garfield might have said in the 1970s could still be the interpretation of the High Court. That is not necessarily so. One of the problems with the administration of justice is that we have to guarantee that judicial comments are not brought into contempt. But, from the point of view of fair and valid criticism, they are not above that. That is the issue. It certainly does not carry the issue any further by having comments made when justices are in retirement; I give the honourable member that. But, from the point of view of whether they should be made, that is a matter for the Minister. On the basis of whether they can be answered, of course, that is a matter for Sir Garfield Barwick. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —Is the Prime Minister aware of suggestions that the Australia Card is inconsistent with the removal of unnecessary government regulation? Will the Government consider abandoning the Australia Card proposal in light of these suggestions? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for Stirling for his question without notice, particularly as I had the opportunity at the weekend of being in his electorate and seeing the magnificent job that he is doing there. As far as we are concerned, the stated policy on government regulation is that this Government will remove unnecessary, growth retarding regulation. Opposition members-Ha, ha, ha! Mr HAWKE —We get the substitute of hollow noise for thought. Let me just give by way of example the fact that after 7 1/2 years of neglect by the mob opposite we, for instance, have brought in a national food standards code which has removed the unnecessary duplication of regulation around this country and it is estimated by the industry that it will save this country $50m a year. That is an example of the sort of practical approach to deregulation followed by this Government. To some extent the test of unnecessary regulation will be whether the regulation serves some useful social purpose. In that respect it is crystal clear that the Australia Card serves a very useful social purpose. That social purpose is to avoid the continuation of tax avoidance and fraud in the social welfare system-a subject on which the Leader of the Opposition pontificates but on which he does his best in this House to stop our efforts. All members of this House will, no doubt, recall that yesterday in this place the Leader of the Opposition sought, unsuccessfully, to create a conflict between the Australia Card and the removal of unjustified regulation. In that sense I suggest that all honourable members would have considerable interest in a question asked of Mr Howard last year and his answer to that question. Mr Robert Brown —Have you got it there? Mr HAWKE —Yes, I will share it with honourable members. On 15 September last year Laurie Oakes asked the Leader of the Opposition a question. The question was very specific because it came after the Leader of the Opposition had indicated that he supported the idea of an ID card which led the perspicacious Mr Oakes to address this question to the Leader of the Opposition: If you support deregulation how can you support an ID card? That is a very specific question and this is a very specific answer by Mr Howard: I don't think there is any inconsistency, I mean the United States has had a social security card for generations and yet the United States economy is the most deregulated economy in the world. I don't think there is any conflict at all. Yet the Leader of the Opposition was in this House yesterday trying to suggest that there was a conflict. That is yet another example to add to the long list of the Leader of the Opposition's abandoning of his principles for purposes of political expediency. There was the fringe benefits tax, the capital gains tax, the assets test-all of those things-and most recently we have his cynical opportunism on the issue of the merger of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service. I note that the Leader of the Opposition's cynical grab for votes on this issue is coming undone. I would love to have seen his reaction to the announcement in today's copy of Australia's most influential newspaper, Il Globo, which nails him fair and square. It attacks him for his position, for his opportunism on this, and states very succinctly: John Howard's position is obviously contradictory. It is little wonder that people now are beginning to laugh with round contempt when they look at what was stated in the pamphlet entitled `meet Australia's next Prime Minister', introducing people to John Howard. What did the pamphlet state? Opposition members-Hear, hear! Mr HAWKE —Listen to the hollow and sparse hear, hears. The pamphlet contains a description of this man of principle, the man who does not go for expediency. It states: his forthright and direct approach to issues reflects his belief that it is more important to do what is necessary and correct rather than simply what is popular, easy or acceptable to special interest groups. It is little wonder that the Federal Treasurer of the Liberal Party of Australia, Mr John Elliott, has had something to say on the subject of the Leader of the Opposition and an alternative. Have honourable members not seen this? Let me share it with them. In the Sunday Press, the Federal Treasurer of the Liberal Party is quoted as saying: I've got strong views about the way this country should be run and a change of government wouldn't put it right. He also said: The Opposition hasn't got anything different to offer. They are the words of the Federal Treasurer of the Liberal Party. Do not let the honourable member for Kooyong think that he has an unimpeded run to the leadership because the Federal Treasurer was asked whether he might be available for the job. He said `not just yet' but he is keeping his options open. He said that he could not take over the job yet. He said: `Not right now. I've just had next year's VFL fixtures and I've got to work on rescheduling all my business trips to London'. So when he has finished rescheduling all his business trips to London, he might think about having a shot at the leadership of the Liberal Party. The simple fact is that the Federal Treasurer of the Liberal Party has joined the growing ranks of the Liberals who have abandoned the Leader of the Opposition because the Leader of the Opposition has abandoned all pretence to principle. He has become the cynical opportunist par excellence. The simple fact is that the Leader of the Opposition is a man alone; he is a man who has lost his principles, his integrity and his credibility. That is a judgment being increasingly made by the people of Australia and will be further reflected in the polls. Mr O'Keefe —I take a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could the pamphlet from which the Prime Minister was quoting be tabled for the amusement of the House as a whole? Mr HAWKE —Indeed, with all the appropriate parts underlined. Mr BLUNT —My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security and I seek a relevant answer to it. Is it a fact that the Director of Public Prosecutions in his annual report for 1985-86 has reported that many serious cases of welfare fraud are not being referred to the DPP simply because they have not been investigated, that a large group of welfare fraud cases are investigated neither by the Department of Social Security nor by the Australian Federal Police and that this unsatisfactory state of affairs can only undermine the deterrent value of prosecutions? I ask: Firstly how many such cases of welfare fraud remain uninvestigated? Secondly, what is the estimated loss to revenue? Thirdly, why has this scandalous state of affairs been allowed to continue for the last 3 1/2 years? Fourthly, how will the introduction of the identity card make any difference to welfare fraud when so many serious cases are not even investigated? Mr HOWE —I am delighted to get another question from the honourable member for Richmond on the identity card, albeit linked to the most recent report of the Director of Public Prosecutions, because if there is one thing that everyone in the House is clear on it is what the real view of the honourable member for Richmond is with respect to the identity card. Mr Blunt —Don't tell another lie. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Richmond will withdraw that comment. Mr Blunt —Madam Speaker, I withdraw that word and ask the Minister to quote accurately my views on the identity card. Mr HOWE —I can understand the sensitivity of the honourable member because on a number of occasions within this Parliament, publicly, he has made clear his position with respect to the identity card. He has also made it clear that he believes that the matter of social security fraud and overpayments ought to be of prime concern to the Government, and he has returned again and again to that question. The Prime Minister draws my attention to several quotations from the honourable member for Richmond on ID cards. The honourable member for Richmond on 8 June 1985 said: The introduction of a national identification system, using ID cards, offered benefits to the Australian people, which outweighed any civil liberties considerations. So let there be no question about it; his position is perfectly clear. He knows that the question of the identity card is crucial in terms of the Government's approach to overpayments and social security fraud, particularly fraud. Take, for example, just one case of a major fraud that occurred this year involving an amount of $400,000 and which resulted in a prosecution. Fortunately, as a result of action taken by the Department of Social Security, most of that money was recovered. That was a substantial amount. The person who committed that fraud manufactured 55 separate identities. Mr Porter —And you found them without an ID card. How amazing. You found them, so you can do it. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I had to speak to the honourable member for Barker yesterday, and I warn him again. He must heed the Chair. Mr HOWE —He was able to carry out that fraud because he was able to manufacture or have manufactured substitute identities which were convincing enough for him to receive various payments. Whatever else might be said about the ID card, it is an extraordinarily high integrity instrument in terms of establishing the identity of people. While many overpayments may occur that do not involve the question of identity, there is no doubt that in many, and perhaps the majority, of major frauds the question of identity is quite crucial, and there is no doubt in my mind that the identity card will be very relevant. The early part of the honourable member's question went to criticisms by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Mr Temby made a number of suggestions, one of which had to do with the training of field officers which originally emanated from the Department itself. He also drew attention-remember that this is his 1985-86 report-to a problem with guidelines with respect to the investigation of fraud as opposed to the relative responsibilities of the Department of Social Security and the Australian Federal Police. That is an issue that the Government has been addressing. Indeed, it is about to release guidelines which will make it clearer where the responsibilities of the Department of Social Security are appropriate and where the responsibilities of the Federal Police are appropriate in terms of the investigation of fraud. That proposal is not new; it is one that was brought to the Government by a relevant interdepartmental committee on which Mr Temby was represented as investigating that issue. As a result of that, the Government will make decisions in terms of whether it is necessary to refer additional cases to the Federal Police for investigation. As people would know, and indeed as the honourable member for Richmond knows, currently smaller cases of misrepresentation are investigated within the Department, and what are referred to the Federal Police tend to be the more systematic cases which involve large amounts of money. The relevance of the Director's report really goes to the need for clarifying guidelines. That is something that the Government is addressing, and I expect that new guidelines will be announced in the very near future. Mr DUBOIS —Has the attention of the Special Minister of State been drawn to the annual report of the Director of Public Prosecutions and in particular to the comments concerning welfare fraud? What action is the Government taking to overcome the problems referred to regarding Australian Federal Police resources? Opposition members-Didn't you hear the last question? Mr YOUNG —I just thought I would add to the misery of Opposition members by giving a few more facts in relation to my portfolio, in addition to the answers that have already been given by the Minister for Social Security. The first point to be made about the report is to note the enormous increase in resources which have been made available to the Australian Federal Police since we were elected in March 1983. There has been an overall increase of 21 per cent in the manpower allocated to the Australian Federal Police since 1983. Since the Prime Minister's commitment given at the 1984 election, between 1985-86 and 1987-88, staff in the areas in which the AFP deals with fraud will be increased by 27 per cent. So we are not talking about small increases in the number of police who are carrying out these duties. Mr Blunt —How many are typists, Mick? Mr YOUNG —Now listen, Charlie, fight in your own class. With all the decisions that the Opposition has made in the last week it does not need a party room to meet in; it should be meeting in an aquarium. It is like a school of jellyfish. Let me give some more facts. The second point is that it is not correct to say that smaller fraud cases are not pursued by the AFP, which is a point that I have made in this House on a number of occasions. In New South Wales in the last financial year the AFP investigated more than 3,800 cases of fraudulently negotiated cheques, from single sums of $150 to the multiple offences exceeding $14,000. I think we should also put the problem into perspective. The majority of social security fraud cases involve minor amounts. In 1984-85 the Department of Social Security issued 53 million cheques, of which only 17,308, or 0.03 per cent, were referred to the AFP as possible frauds. In the same-- Mr Spender —Well, there is no problem. Mr YOUNG —Be quiet, John. Go and drive your Rolls around the House, or something. No wonder the honourable member is crooked on the fringe benefits tax; I can sympathise with him. In the same year the total value of welfare payments was $14.1 billion, while the value of the cheques referred to the AFP was $2.7m. The fact is that, unless the Opposition believes in great big government or a police state, one does not have to go on employing more and more police in response to every problem. Late last year Mr Temby made a study tour of Britain and the United States of America. He commented when he returned that there was significantly less enforcement activity in respect of fraud in Britain than there was in Australia and that in the United States of America the potential for fraud on some large scale security type programs is not as well appreciated as it is in Australia. As with everything else that honourable members opposite left us to do, the Government is conducting an inquiry into fraud against the Commonwealth, which deals with the matter raised by the DPP; that is, what the relationship should be between the Department of Social Security, the AFP and, indeed, Mr Temby's office. Mr Temby himself is a member of the steering committee supervising this inquiry, as are the AFP Commissioner and the Secretary to the Department of Social Security. The report of this study, expected, as my colleague said, early in the new year, should provide a sensible basis for any further action. The Government has also introduced legislation to prevent this very type of fraud before it occurs-and at least on this the honourable member for Richmond agrees with us. I refer to the introduction of the Australia Card. At least one person opposite agrees with the Commissioner of Police that these moves are absolutely essential. It should be of some interest to honourable members opposite to know that 88 per cent of the Australian people believe there should be some sort of identification system. Sixty per cent believe it should be the Australia Card. Only 7 per cent of the Australian people believe in the stand the Opposition is taking-that there should be no identification at all. If honourable members opposite are serious in any way at all, when moving around this country, presenting themselves as representatives of the Australian people, allowing social security and other types of fraud to occur in this community and not doing anything about it, they will be overwhelmingly defeated on this as well as a lot of other issues. There can be absolutely no doubt about it. The only reason that Opposition members find themselves opposed to the Australia Card is the fact that they are in opposition and that we are doing this and not them. There is no intellect, there is no honesty, there is no decency in the stand they are taking. It is just another one of those wobbly decisions that honourable members opposite make in their party room at a time when they cannot present themselves as a proper alternative to govern this country. Honourable members opposite will get done on this issue, just as they will be done on all the other issues on which they take negative stands. If honourable members opposite are serious in talking about this question, why do they not line up with the law enforcement agencies which say that they need this card? They say that they need it to do their work. Have a look at the evidence of the AFP. The AFP says it would like the Australia Card. These are the sorts of things that the Opposition ought to be looking at, rather than wobbling around in the party room trying to find some position which will attract a few votes. Mr PORTER —Does the Minister for Health agree with security experts that the integrity of an identification system is only as good as the integrity of its weakest link? I remind the Minister that he explained yesterday that clause 36 sub-clause (2) of the identity card Bill states: A requirement that a Card be produced shall be taken to be complied with if there is delivered to the person to whom a current Card is required to be produced a certificate purporting to be signed by a prescribed person . . . Since in most cases the recipient of the certificate has no means of verifying the signature, nor of knowing whether the prescribed person actually checked the cardholder against his photograph, does not clause 36 leave the whole system wide open to abuse? Dr BLEWETT —As I have explained in previous Question Times on this particular issue, the verification procedure depends very much on the community leaders who would be granted the right of that verification. Again, it is a process that we use for another vital document in this society-the passport. We use very much the same process of verification there, for a high integrity document, and we have every confidence that those members of the community who would be entrusted with the appropriate identification and verification of the Australia Card-the photograph, the signature and the identity-can be relied on, as they have been relied on by all governments in relation to another high integrity document, namely, the Australian passport. Mr Tuckey —Are you going to publish a register of community leaders? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will cease interjecting. He will heed the Chair's warning. Mr HOLLIS —Can the Minister for Social Security inform the House of the progress made by the Government in dealing with welfare fraud? Opposition members interjecting- Mr HOWE —I thank the honourable member for his question and I understand the discomfort of the Opposition. It is possible, and indeed worthwhile, to answer such a question in the Parliament because the message does not seem to have got through to the Opposition, although I believe that it is getting through to the Australian public, that this Government takes questions of tax and social security and welfare fraud very seriously. Indeed, as I recall it, that is why the honourable member for Richmond made such a clear statement supporting the identity card. In the statement to which I referred earlier he said: Another majority benefit would be a reduction of fraud affecting government outlays, especially social welfare payments. Thus, the Opposition was saying that it wanted us, as a government, to take very seriously questions of fraud and overpayment, whether in tax or social security. Mr Sinclair —Then why don't you? Mr HOWE —The Leader of the National Party asks me why we do not. Let me run through some of the measures that we have taken this year, in order to remind the House of how seriously we have taken the matter of social security fraud. Earlier, during the answer of the Special Minister of State, I heard some interjections referring to the question of cheques. Who introduced the system of direct deposits as a measure designed to remove fraudulent dealing in cheques? It was also this Government which announced earlier this year the social security amnesty, which was a very successful enterprise despite the great deal of criticism that it received from the other side of the House. As a result of that, we were able to save $20m. We have taken a number of steps, which were announced in the course of the Budget Speech, for reviewing the long term unemployed and, as a result of adding a number of staff to the Department of Social Security, we have introduced a considerable additional number of checks on people receiving unemployment benefits. We have also introduced a new approach to the administration of the supporting parent benefit. It is unfortunate that, despite the steps that the Government is taking, the Opposition constantly misrepresents those steps in the form of Press releases that are put out by members of the Opposition. We have just had a question from the shadow Minister for Health. On 11 November he put out a Press release saying that the Government had eliminated the work test. That would have to be regarded as an outright lie. He said that we had not enforced Commonwealth Employment Service registration-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will withdraw that comment. Mr HOWE —Well, certainly it was a total misrepresentation of the Government's position. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will withdraw, and then he may continue. Mr HOWE —I withdraw. The shadow Minister said that we had not enforced Commonwealth Employment Service registration, in the very month that we announced that people who were not registered with the CES would not get their benefits. He also said that we had done away with personal lodgment of SU-19B forms or income statements for the unemployed, at the very time that we are making such statements compulsory and requiring personal lodgment for the first time for some years on a universal basis. When it comes to the question of fraud and overpayments, we are constantly assailed by the inability of members of the Opposition to convey in their Press releases even some basic understanding of what the Government is doing. Of course, what this gets down to in the end is the Australia Card, because that is the question that in many ways will be the touchstone of the Government's position, the clarity of the Government's position, with respect to its commitment to reducing fraud and overpayments. The position is that members of the Opposition have moved to an opportunistic situation in which they no longer are prepared to say what many leading members of the Opposition really believe. Let me make it clear that, whilst the Government has taken a number of steps, we believe that the Australia Card is an additional step that needs to be taken if we are to complete our overall strategy. Mr COBB —I refer the Minister for Health to his statement during Question Time yesterday that `a security device will be attached to the backs of particular batches of cards, again to prevent forgery'. Why is the digitised strip to be attached to the backs of only particular batches of cards? What proportion of cards will have a digitised strip? Will not the failure to attach a strip to all cards undermine the integrity of the card? Given that this security device will not be readable, will banks and other financial institutions have to acquire machinery for the purposes of validating the ID card? If not, what mechanisms will be put in place to prevent a forged ID card being presented for the purposes of opening an account to conduct a quick laundering operation in the process of organised crime? Dr BLEWETT —First of all, the honourable member has misunderstood what I said yesterday. The digital strips will apply to all cards and the security device will be on all cards. What I did say, however, is that that security device would not be the same on every batch of cards. In order to have as highly protective a mechanism as possible there would be different security devices on different batches of cards. One of the things I am saying is that that security device is just one of a number of protections in relation to the card. The authority itself will be able to read that card, pick up that device. It may not be possible in every case to immediately identify a forged card if it should turn up, but over time the device provided will protect the system against fraudulent cards just as it protects the present system against fraudulent bank notes. I made the point again yesterday that there is a range of protections, unlike any other card that we have in this society. The additional protections are digitalised photographs, which will be virtually impossible to alter, and digitalised signatures. There will also be identifying information on the Register if there should be some problem of contradiction between information supplied and that on the card. There is a whole range of protective devices which I believe will ensure that the card has the same integrity at least as the high integrity currency of this country. Mr BRUMBY —Has the Minister for Primary Industry seen Press reports of how the proposed Australia Card might affect farmers? Can the Minister advise the House whether those reports are accurate? Mr KERIN —I did see the report and I guess that my comments are more in pity than in anger because members of the Opposition obviously cannot resist the same old scare story tactics that they have been employing here. The whole assertion is demonstrably false. Clause 43 (2) of the Bill requires production of the card once only for all transactions through a particular marketing authority or produce agent. I repeat that where farmers are required to produce an Australia Card, this will be a once only requirement to enable the authority or agent to record the number. Subsequently transactions with that authority or agent will not require the production of a card. If one thinks about the administration of the interest rate subsidy scheme for drought, revolving the wool funds or giving money back for any purpose through the wheat fund-we recirculated $100m recently-having an identification card would be an enormous benefit to the authority concerned. With all the other things in train now, such as the computer aided livestock marketing and Ausmeat, a simple identification card would be an enormous facilitation to the primary industries. Farmers living in isolated areas-this follows from other questions to the Minister for Health-or farmers who could not reasonably be expected to attend the office of the marketing authority or produce agent will be able to sign a certificate of identity which will enable them to transact business with a marketing authority without physically presenting their cards. Further transactions can then be conducted over the phone or through the mail. The same thing applies with respect to other people. The Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia has said quite bluntly that he supported the Australia Card in the past. He said: The use of plastic cards for an effective means of identification would streamline the collection of tax revenue, imposing a greater accountability on that small minority of taxpayers who sought to evade their responsibilities to the community. I can only say that this recent change of heart fills me with pity rather than anger. I think it is a sorry day when he sells out on principles. Mr McARTHUR —My question is directed to the Minister for Health. Is it a fact that the identity card system cannot assist in the detection of the cash economy transactions where there is no requirement for the issue of group certificates, tax stamp sheets, et cetera, and where there is no documentary record of the cash transaction? Do the cash transactions excluded from the ID card system include all householder transactions under $10,000 including the employment of gardeners, painters, plumbers, electricians and other household handymen? Dr BLEWETT —As I explained again yesterday and I point out again for the honourable member's information, we did not say that the Australia Card will solve all of the taxation problems that this country faces. I admitted that its impact in relation to the cash economy would be mainly of an indirect form-that is, the argument that significant amounts of money in the cash economy usually come into the financial system at some point in time or, as I say, into the purchase of land and houses, which is why we are requiring the reporting of those particular events. Because the Australia Card will be able to trace this flow of money coming from inex- plicable sources, it will aid the whole audit process and have a major impact in relation to the indirect economy, but it will not solve all the problems we are facing in the taxation economy. Of course, when this Government made the decision to move down this path, it had to balance out all these issues. I ask the members of the Opposition simply to give some consideration to what the Age said this morning; that in tackling a very difficult issue such as this we have to secure a proper balance. What the Age said deserves repeating. It states: On balance, we believe, the honest citizen and conscientious taxpayer has much more to gain and little to risk through the introduction of the Australia Card and its strictly controlled identity register. Mr Howard's contention that the proposed identity card meant treating ``all Australians like cheats and criminals'' is nonsense. Only cheats and criminals have reason to conceal or falsify their identity when it is properly required for taxation and social security purposes, and they are robbing the community of hundreds of millions of dollars a year. That is the balance this Government has struck and will stick to. Ms McHUGH —My question is addressed to the Minister for Housing and Construction. Are savings banks fulfilling their lending commitment to the Government at current housing interest rates? Mr WEST —Yes. The savings banks are fulfilling their commitment to the Government. For the information of the House, total housing lending during the month of September was in excess of $1 billion and that included a figure of $710m from savings banks, up by 11 per cent for the month. Lending by permanent building societies was up by 8.4 per cent to $200m. That means that during the month of September the savings banks were lending at an annualised rate of $8.5 billion, whereas their commitment to the Government through the package was to lend $6 billion or more. Mr Beale —How about interest rates? Mr WEST —Obviously interest rates are the key to future lending levels and the key to future housing activity. But I am very encouraged by the recent downward trend in bank bill rates, which are now at 16 per cent, down by 2.5 per cent from 18 1/2 per cent 10 weeks ago. My attention is drawn to the fact that the National Australia Bank yesterday announced that its new loans to non-customers would henceforth be at the rate of 17 1/2 per cent. But I ask the House to note very carefully that over 80 per cent, according to the National Australia Bank's spokesman, is currently being lent and will be lent at the rate of 15 1/2 per cent. That means that the action of the National Australia Bank should not be seen as the first step towards general increases in the savings banks rate but rather should be seen merely as a means of stabilising that bank's particular lending portfolio. The National Australia Bank's profitability figures released the other day illustrate that it is not exactly in deep trouble. For instance, it returned a yearly profit of $304m, which meant that it is able to announce an increased dividend of 29c a share. I make the comment, in passing, that as the National Australia Bank is one of those corporations in Australia that frequently make calls to the Government to exercise restraint in spending and calls on the workers of Australia to exercise wage restraint, since it has been able to increase its dividend from a profitability for the year 1986-87 of $304m, I also call upon it to exercise restraint on housing interest rates. Arising from what I have just said, let me make three points: Firstly, if the National Australia Bank's action is a move in a campaign to force an eventual rise in the 13 1/2 per cent regulated savings bank rates, that campaign will not succeed because the Government is committed to the maintenance of the regulated 13 1/2 per cent rate. Secondly, as I have said-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr WEST —It seems to me that the Opposition has a lot to say about our policy. This comes from an Opposition that does not have a housing policy and does not have a policy about anything at all that I can observe-no policy at all. Let us look at what the Australian had to say the other day. It stated: Mr Howard's party needs desperately to have a solid identifiable alternative policy that has been well explained to the voters. It will go nowhere while it flounders around aimlessly failing to project a leader and the policies that are needed to back up that leader. As far as housing policies are concerned, the Opposition has nothing to offer the people of Australia. I might just say that, if any person in his right mind is inclined to take the 17 1/2 per cent loan offered to non-customers by the National Australia Bank I am puzzled. They should look around at what is available from other banks and other permanent building societies in Australia because, as I have shown, the savings banks and building societies in Australia, particularly in New South Wales, have ample money to lend at the current rate of 15 1/2 per cent. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —I remind the Minister for Health that, as Mr Meagher, Queen's Counsel, the former counsel to the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union has stated categorically, moneys in the cash economy are not put in the bank and are never declared. Does the Minister acknowledge that, in the cash economy, moneys used for purposes such as the acquisition of antique clocks or other objects d'art, as well as everyday household purchases which do not go through financial institutions, can never be detected? Dr BLEWETT —With reference again to the cash economy and to the Costigan report, Mr Costigan was so convinced that much of the money he was searching for could be traced through the banking system that he made a series of recommendations suggesting quite massive identification procedures in relation to bank accounts. Mr Spender —Mr Costigan has come out against the Australia Card. Dr BLEWETT —Mr Costigan disagrees with us on the Australia Card but there is no doubt that he believed that much of this black economy money did find its way into financial institutions and he proposed quite elaborate identification procedures in relation to bank accounts. Mr Spender interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister for Health will cease for a moment. I have twice asked the honourable member for North Sydney to heed the Chair. If he continues in the way he is going I will name him. Dr BLEWETT —A number of reports have also recognised the way much of that money goes into real estate. It is for that very reason that we are introducing the new reporting procedures for tax in relation to real estate purchases accompanied by the Australia Card. Dr CHARLESWORTH —My question is directed to the Minister for Trade. In light of the Pacific Rim Conference which started in Perth yesterday, will the Minister advise the House of recent developments in Australia's trade with nations of the western Pacific region? Mr DAWKINS —I was very pleased to be able to be in the electorate of the honourable member for Perth yesterday and to participate in the opening sessions of the PACRIM Conference which I think will go down as one of the most significant conferences dealing with investment and trade in our region. It is a very great credit to Western Australia, and particularly the Western Australian Government, that they had the foresight to put together that conference. There are nearly 400 delegates from a large number of countries. I suppose that the most significant point about the composition of the delegates is that not only were important people from countries of our immediate region there, for instance, China, Malaysia and a large number of other countries, but also a very large number of delegates from countries outside the region, particularly the United States of America and Europe because, of course, the United States and Europe, and in particular the companies there, recognise the importance and the dynamism of our region and the important part that Australia has to play in it. I was, therefore, very delighted to hear the statements of the Chairman of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd who spoke at the opening session. As reported today he said: Australia had become attractive for foreign investment. This is what Sir James told the conference. He said: . . . the depreciated dollar and the recently relaxed foreign investment guidelines make Australia a more attractive venue for overseas investment. Calling for more investment into Australia, Sir James said: There would seem to be mutually beneficial opportunities for such investment at present, particularly in export-oriented manufacturing industries. I therefore was a bit surprised to read the comments of one of Sir James's directors, one of his most recently acquired directors on the board of BHP. Yesterday John Elliott reportedly said, in the midst of a large number of other political statements about the Government: We-- I assume he means Elders IXL; maybe he meant BHP as well, but I would be very surprised, given the comments of Sir James-- have discouraged major international companies from making new investment in Australia . . . That seems to be a quite extraordinary attitude for someone who occupies the kind of position he does in business, but perhaps less surprising when one considers his political affiliations. But, so intrigued was I by his statements that I decided to refresh my research of what John Elliott had been saying about export opportunities in Australia. I recall that on 14 August he was reported as follows: Mr John Elliott told Australian businessmen yesterday that they have enormous and sudden new opportunities for exporting . . . He went on to tell the forum that, because of the dollar's depreciation, Japanese and United States companies suddenly had put Australia on the list as a potential off-shore manufacturing base. A little less than two weeks later he again entered into the fray on this issue and said something quite contradictory. He said that Australia would be the last place that his company would want to invest. At the end of the month, just a little less than two weeks later, when he was participating in the Australia Japan Business Co-operation Committee, he made this statement at the end of that meeting: Following the decline in value of the Australian dollar Australia is now a very cost efficient country in which to manufacture. The food processing sector in Australia is a large and efficient industry which presents attractive opportunities for investment. Japanese companies looking to diversify some of their manufacturing of domestic production to other countries were well placed to take advantage of this situation as Australia has freed up its foreign investment policies. When one tries to link these four statements, the first and second of them encouraging people not to invest, the third and fourth encouraging people to invest and pointing to the very strong features of the Australian economy, one has to speculate about why there would be this massive inconsistency. At first I thought that it may just have been that he had been lured under the spell of the Opposition in its deliberate attempt to denigrate this country, its campaign of economic sabotage in which it is so gleefully indulging whenever it gets the opportunity. But then the Prime Minister reminded us today that Mr Elliott has very little to do with the current Opposition. So there must indeed be some other reason for that behaviour. I contacted the Bureau of Meteorology and I discovered that the negative statements about Australia, the statements in which Mr Elliott discourages people to invest, coincide almost precisely with the days on which there has been a full moon in this country. Madam SPEAKER —I present the reports of the Auditor-General on financial statements prepared by the Minister for Finance accompanied by the financial statements and certificates of exempt accounts for the year ended 30 June 1986, together with an erratum, and efficiency audit of the Department of Defence principal items stock control and entitlement system. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the reports of the Auditor-General on-(a) Financial Statements prepared by the Minister for Finance 1985-86 and (b) an efficiency audit of the Department of Defence: Principal Item Stock Control and Entitlement System, and (2) That the papers be printed. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —For the information of honourable members I present a summary of resolutions and recommendations from the twenty-third meeting of the Australian Forestry Council held in Canberra on 12 June 1986. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer) —Pursuant to sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922, I present the annual report of the Department of Finance for 1985-86. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer) —For the information of honourable members, I present a statement of expenditure from the Advance to the Minister of Finance for October 1986. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —For the information of honourable members and pursuant to the undertakings which I gave to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs in relation to town camps, I present the annual report of the town campers assistance program for 1985-86 together with the text of a statement relating to the report. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —For the information of honourable members I present a report by Miss Lois O'Donoghue of her consultations with Aboriginal people on a new Aboriginal and Islander consultative organisation, together with the text of a statement relating to the report. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr MAHER(Lowe) —Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr MAHER —I do. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr MAHER —Both the Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian of today's date contain the statement that the question I asked the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) yesterday was a dorothy dixer. It is very hard to find a definition of the phrase `dorothy dixer'. The Parliamentary Library could find only one definition, contained in the University of Queensland's Dictionary of Australian Politics. It says that a dorothy dixer is a prearranged question. The question I asked the Prime Minister was not prearranged; he had no notice of it at all. It is not my practice to ask such questions. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has made his personal explanation. Mr MAHER —The question was totally without notice. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie) —Madam Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr WEBSTER —I do. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr WEBSTER —Yesterday during Question Time the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), in answer to a question from the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman), suggested that I misrepresented factual information when I took up publicly in recent weeks the issue of economic hardship facing many single income middle class families in Australia. The Minister suggested that I had based my research on the assumption that higher income families deserve a generous standard of living while pensioner families should be allowed merely a survival existence. He suggested that I had cooked up my research, implying that it lacked integrity. Finally, he alleged that the motivation behind my research was entirely punitive towards people on very low incomes. This attack on me by the Minister follows other misrepresentations-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will get to the point of the misrepresentation and not debate the issue. Mr WEBSTER —I will. I did not cook up research or attempt to misrepresent facts. My information was based on research by the Institute of Family Studies, which the Government endorses, and it also endorses the former Social Welfare Policy Secretariat, as well as the Parliamentary Library from which my statistics were gained. The Minister challenged both the motivation and the accuracy of that research. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I believe the honourable member is now getting beyond his substantiation of the misrepresentation. Mr WEBSTER —I have one concluding paragraph. I consider what the Minister has done to be very unfair, unhelpful to public debate on the issue and inappropriate in this place. I therefore seek leave to table my statistics and brief supporting notes which indicate all assumptions. Leave granted. 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 Ian Cameron,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Hawker,Mr Nehl,Mr Ruddock,Mr Shipton and Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce 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 Charles,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 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 Ms Jakobsen,Mr Kent,Mr Milton and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned at the impact of the new Fringe Benefits Tax on the following grounds: 1. Its severe and damaging effect on business confidence, investment and incentive, especially in the rural, mining and small business sectors. 2. Its capacity to seriously worsen unemployment through the additional costs it imposes. 3. Its extremely negative impact on the competitiveness of export industries at a time when the nation desperately needs to improve its trading performance. 4. In that it may compel many honest and decent citizens to defy the Tax in order to preserve their livelihoods, their businesses and the jobs of their employees, thus causing hardship, the breakdown of respect for the law and discord within the community. We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax legislation forthwith. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned at the impact of the new Fringe Benefits Tax on the following grounds: 1. Its severe and damaging effect on business confidence, investment and incentive, especially in the rural, mining and small business sectors. 2. Its capacity to seriously worsen unemployment through the additional costs it imposes. 3. Its extremely negative impact on the competitiveness of export industries at a time when the nation desperately needs to improve its trading performance. 4. In that it may compel many honest and decent citizens to defy the Tax in order to preserve their livelihoods, their businesses and the jobs of their employees, thus causing hardship, the breakdown of respect for the law and discord within the community. We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax legislation forthwith. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned at the impact of the new Fringe Benefits Tax on the following grounds: 1. Its severe and damaging effect on business confidence, investment and incentive, especially in the rural, mining and small business sectors. 2. Its capacity to seriously worsen unemployment through the additional costs it imposes. 3. Its extremely negative impact on the competitiveness of export industries at a time when the nation desperately needs to improve its trading performance. 4. In that it may compel many honest and decent citizens to defy the Tax in order to preserve their livelihoods, their businesses and the jobs of their employees, thus causing hardship, the breakdown of respect for the law and discord within the community. 5. We also feel it is morally wrong for one person to be forced to pay the taxes for another. We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax legislation forthwith. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia 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 respectfully showeth 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 unem- ployment. 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 Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: 1. That over 67,000 men, women and students enjoy the pursuit of their sport and recreation every year at the Anzac Rifle Range at Malabar and have done so since 1967. 2. The people of Sydney through their membership of 41 clubs headquartered at the Anzac Rifle Range together with a number of other community, school and commercial groups, the police and armed forces will lose this community facility if the Federal Government proceeds to sell the Range to private developers. 3. The Australian Bicentenary Fullbore Rifle Championships are to be conducted at the Anzac Rifle Range in April 1988 as part of the celebration of Australia's Bicentenary. Your petitioners therefore urge the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to retain the Anzac Rifle Range for the continued use and enjoyment of the people of Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt,Mr Peter Morris and 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 that whereas: They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Give speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a Referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Charles,Mr Chynoweth and Mr Lamb. 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 Dr Harry Edwards and Mr Jull. 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 Labor's capital gains tax, fringe benefits tax, tax on lump sum superannuation and assets test are an unwarranted burden on the people of Australia, have contributed to the national economic crisis and the anomalies in the legislation are causing confusion and anger amongst all sections of the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of Labor's Assets Test, Labor's Capital Gains Tax, Labor's Fringe Benefits Tax and Labor's tax on lump sum superannuation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker and Dr Watson. 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 and Mr Staples. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia shows that: in this International Year of Peace, 1986, the world needs a Nuclear Test Moratorium by the United States, the Soviet Union, France and other nuclear-testing powers that such a moratorium would create a favourable climate and basis for the negotiation of a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty that such a Moratorium and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty would be the first vital step to nuclear disarmament impede the development of new nuclear weapons decrease the reliance upon an unstable nuclear strategy inhibit the spread of nuclear weapons. Your petitioners therefore ask that the Australian Government be urged to 1. Use its influence with the United States Government to encourage it to join the moratorium on nuclear testing begun by the Soviet Union on 6 August 1985. 2. Use its influence in all forums to encourage other nuclear nations to join the Nuclear Test Moratorium. 3. Use its influence in all forums to encourage non-nuclear nations to demand the establishment of a Nuclear Test Moratorium and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. by Mr Milton and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) that the phasing down and eventual closure of the services of the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Centre at Glen Waverley will be detrimental to the rehabilitation of disabled Australian citizens; (2) that the Glen Waverley Rehabilitation Centre is ``purpose'' built and its loss would deprive disabled Australian citizens of a unique multi-million dollar facility; (3) that the essential accommodation for disabled Australian citizens will no longer be available. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: (1) that the phasing down of the services of the Glen Waverley Rehabilitation Centre be reversed immediately; (2) that the one-hundred-and-four-bed residential facility be fully utilised immediately; (3) that sufficient funding is provided by the Commonwealth Department of Community Services to operate the Centre at full capacity. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our Nation and your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Aldred. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland 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 remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully showeth: That the humble petitioners have grave concern about recent changes in the Extradition (Foreign States) Act of 1966 which deny basic rights which have been a cornerstone of the English and Australian law for over seven hundred years. We are speaking of the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and the right of an individual to defend himself against his accusers. This concern has come to light during recent extradition proceedings against Messrs, Hempel and Etheredge in Western Australia. We are concerned that because judicial protection of these basic rights has been excluded from the Act refugees, migrants, Australian overseas travellers, and visitors are at risk when they have been to (or come from) countries where the norms and practices of human rights and civil liberties are below traditionally accepted Australian standards. We, the undersigned petitioners, therefore urge the Government to re-examine the Extradition (Foreign States) Act as amended in 1985, and amend the current Act so that the rights of the accused are once again judicially protected in Australia. In addition, we urge the Government to refrain from entering into any further extradition treaties or proceedings under the current Act until the process of re-examination and amendment of the Act has occurred. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. To the 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 renumeration packages; 3. The Bill places another impossible burden of paperwork on small business; 4. The Bill is absurd in its application to Government employees, who now constitute 32% of the workforce. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the intention of the Hawke Government to unionise independent contractors, sub-contractors, the self-employed, partnerships, sole traders and family businesses will: Remove the freedom of independent small business to: (a) set their own prices (b) work their own hours (c) control their own businesses (d) negotiate their own contracts; and will create impossible working conditions which will include the payment of: (a) union superannuation (b) compensation (c) payroll tax (d) annual leave loadings (e) public holiday loadings (f) PAYE tax deductions (g) limited incomes (h) inflexible awards and conditions; and (i) fixed hours of work. We the undersigned call upon the Government to restore incentive and opportunity to the Australian economy and to abandon these coercive measures. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Everingham. 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Bill of Rights is a dangerous piece of legislation which gives us no new legally enforceable rights; That the Bill of Rights leaves out vital rights such as the right not to belong to a trade union, the right to own private property, the right to a private education; That the Bill of Rights gives dangerous new powers to a Federal Government Commission to investigate in private, without legal representation and with criminal penalties for refusing to co-operate; That the Bill of Rights deals with our rights; therefore we, the people, should say whether we want it by a referendum. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will oppose the Bill of Rights, support Liberal amendments to improve it in case it is passed, and pledge to repeal it should it become law. 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 Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the many anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions brought to its notice, the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled: Your petitioners call for Government intervention to provide economic justice for families and humbly pray that whatever action possible be taken to provide some price control in the following areas, which most directly affect the family budget: food and other essential items petrol rent and bond levels. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hodges. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at the failure of the Government to honour its election promises to pensioners. In particular those promises relate to the following commitments: 1. That within three years of its election to office, a Hawke Labor Government would raise the level of the standard pension to 25% of Average Weekly Earnings; 2. That the lag time between the announcement of the Consumer Price Index figures and the subsequent adjustment of pensions would be reduced to one month, and 3. That the disproportionate tax burden borne by low income earners would be lifted. None of these promises has been honoured to date. Your petitioners are extremely angry at the failure of the Government to live up to its commitments and as in duty bound will ever pray that these serious omissions will be given the attention they deserve. by Mr Hodgman. To the 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. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we strongly oppose the introduction of the `Australia Card' or any other form of National Identification Numbering System. We believe that the introduction of a National Identification Numbering System is not only totally unnecessary but is a severe threat to our civil liberties and privacy. We condemn the Government's actions on this matter, particularly as no reasonable nor responsible justifications for the proposal have been forthcoming from the Government. We humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should reject any proposal for a National Identification Numbering System. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives 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. 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 the human and civil rights in Australia; will attack the institution of the family in our country, and will destroy States Rights and the federal nature of our Commonwealth. Your petitioners humbly pray that: The Parliament rejects these Bills; abolishes the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and moves to withdraw ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the 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 cutting ESL funding and eliminating funding for community languages and multicultural education you have attacked tens of thousands of Australian children. You have condemned these children with limited English to gross educational inequality and very dim prospects for their future. On behalf of these children we call on you to remove this new discrimination which your budget has guaranteed by immediately restoring ESL and Multicultural education funding. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That the Capital Gains tax penalises small business, discourages long-term investment, hinders capital formation and wealth creation, has contributed to Australia's economic crises and contains many anomalies. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately repeal the Income Tax Assessment Amendment (Capital Gains) Act 1986. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Shipton. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned that Australia's important horticultural industry is being severely disadvantaged by unnecessarily rising production costs. Many Federal and State Government regulations, excessive taxes and charges are damaging the ability of horticultural growers to maintain supplies of food and plant production to Australian families at a realistic cost. Widespread unemployment will result if horticultural producers are further depressed. The undersigned humbly petition the Parliaments of Australia, its States and Territories, to take all measures within their powers to reduce the burden of imposed costs and regulation, allowing Australian horticultural growers to develop production potential so the nation, as a whole, can share the benefits of the resulting growth and prosperity. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in 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 Mr Spender. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of citizens of Australia shows that- Approximately 100,000 Australians live on the verge of homelessness, dependent on government resources to survive, or sleep out of doors or in refuges. Over 700,000 households, or in excess of 2 million Australians are living below the poverty line after paying their rent or mortgage costs. In addition, there are thousands of households with special needs, such as the disabled, who are not well catered for in the private sector but who nevertheless require suitable housing. Waiting lists for public housing have almost doubled in the past five years to 146,000 by June 1985. The list is expected to grow to some 250,000 by 1990. We therefore ask that the Australian Government, as a highest priority: undertake a campaign to bring the issue of poverty and, in particular, housing-related poverty, to the attention of the Australian public increase expenditure on public housing through the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement, by at least 15% annually in real terms increase rent relief payments for those on low incomes in the private rental market use its influence with State and Territory governments to encourage them to increase their expenditures on public housing. by Mr Staples. 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 Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: That, for our survival, an effective Worldpeace Initiative needs to be established which will work towards mutual understanding, world disarmament, economic well-being for all and full employment. This Initiative will help to ensure a sustainable society conserving natural resources, and revitalising soils essential for growing a plentiful and healthy food supply and tree cover for the needs of present and future generations. By working for these objectives, Australia can set an example for the rest of the world. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will: 1. Propose to the United Nations General Assembly that 1989 be declared International Year for Repairing the Earth. 2. Implement action programs leading up to 1989 which will include: (a) Actively supporting the International Year of Peace in 1986 by reallocating at least 10% of our military expenditure to fund environmental repair programs. (b) Implementing National Recycling Programs to reuse water, and to compost into hygienic humus all presently wasted organic garbage and sewage-sludge mixed with fine ground powder from mineral-rich gravels and rocks, to use as a natural fertiliser in revitalising impoverished soils; (c) Developing National Employment Programs to give priority to irrigation systems and the planting and growing of healthy forests, food-producing trees and other crops and vegetation to assist the greening of Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation ever, and that on all the evidence available will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayers' money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: Labor's Capital Gains Tax is standing in the way of economic development on the Far North Coast, a region with great potential for further growth and renowned for the enterprise and initiative of its local community. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal its anti-business anti-farming and anti-individual Capital Gains Tax. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the 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 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 Right Honourable Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the assembled Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. We the humble petitioners at Warrnambool Institute Student Union, in the Federal electorate of Wannon respectfully showeth: That the introduction of an Administration Charge of $250 for higher education students in Appropriation Bill 1986-87 (Volume-1, Page-98) is a regressive step for the Education system; That the introduction of an Administration Charge will force students to withdraw from studies and thereby destroy the opportunity for them to complete their education; That the Administration Charge is a form of Tuition Fees and as such destroys the principle of free education for all; We the humble petitioners hereby request you to amend the Appropriation Bill 1986-87, so that the system of free education for all students will continue. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the 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 Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher respectfully showeth that: The proposed capital gains tax penalises small business, discourages long-term investment, hinders capital formation and will freeze existing investment patterns and limits the investors' ability to adjust to changed market conditions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Immediately abandon its ill-considered capital gains tax proposal. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the electorate of Fisher respectfully showeth that: Whereas the present Government of the Commonwealth of Australia has purported to present the Title Deeds to Ayers Rock in Central Australia, in reality the joint property of the people of the Commonwealth to an Aboriginal Land Council on 26 October 1985. Whereas opinion polls and statements of representative groups, Members of Parliament and respected individuals show clearly that the Commonwealth Government had no mandate from the citizens of the Commonwealth to act in such a disgraceful manner. Whereas the present Government claims to be totally opposed to apartheid (separate development) in South Africa but purported to hand over Ayers Rock to an Aboriginal Council in support of a policy of apartheid (separate development) which has been shown to be detrimental to the Aboriginal people of Australia. Whereas it is pursuing this policy making it a crime for most white and many Aboriginals to enter, without permit, large areas of the Commonwealth designated apartheid (i.e., set aside for separate development), contrary to our democratic traditions and experience of freedom of movement for citizens of all racial origins within Australia. Whereas Australian citizens have no present means available to them to prevent this violation of their natural rights to unfettered common ownership of, and access to, a treasured natural asset. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Seek means available for the protection of the people's interests to reverse this outrage and preserve the democratic traditions of Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: that the 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 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 assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher respectfully showeth that: The Government's actions in changing levels of pharmaceutical benefits will adversely effect the infirm and elderly and that it will cause further unnecessary economic hardship and suffering among all people who are currently dependant on existing benefits. The Government's actions are little more than yet another burden placed upon our Australian citizens. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Restore pharmaceutical benefits to their former level, therefore lifting this 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 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 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 petition of certain citizens of 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 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 Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain citizens of Queensland, Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Watson. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's use of the ID card proposal to camouflage its failure to effectively utilise existing resources to maintain the integrity of the social security system. 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 BLUNT(Richmond)(3.17) —Yesterday in this place the annual report of the Director of Public Prosecutions was tabled. That report confirmed what we on this side of the House have been saying and what all the Australian people know; that is, that the Australian Labor Party is the friend of the welfare cheats. The report exposed the inadequate, totally unrealistic policies of this Government towards social security. It exposed the permissive and tolerant approach of this Government to the cheats on the welfare system. It condemned the Labor Party for what it really is-the friend of welfare cheats. We said that the Government does not do enough to catch the cheats. Mr Temby said that when the Government does catch them it does not prosecute them-damning evidence from the Director of Public Prosecutions. I would like to quote briefly from the report. Mr Temby, in his report, said: . . . welfare fraud is not being effectively controlled . . . many serious cases are not being referred to the DPP simply because they have not been investigated . . . less serious matters are investigated by DSS, but more serious cases are referred to the AFP for investigation. Unfortunately, the Australian Federal Police does not have the resources to cope with the task. Mr Temby went on to condemn the briefs prepared by the Department of Social Security as not always being of good quality. He said: . . . officers . . . have little or no experience or training in conducting criminal investigations . . . More damning than that, he said that the Department of Social Security `does not see investigation as the primary function of its field officers'. If it is not the primary function of field officers, whose responsibility is it within the Department of Social Security to ensure that the checks and the tests that should operate within our social security system are in fact applied? Of course, under this Government field officer numbers have been reduced. What really happened yesterday was that the cover-up that this Government has been running on social security fraud was exposed. It is not the first time that it has been exposed. Never before has it been exposed in such great detail by someone of such high standing in the community as the Director of Public Prosecutions. Previously it has been exposed by other people, who have been attacked by the Minister and this Government because of what they sought to do-to draw to the attention of the Australian taxpayer the rorts and the rip-offs that this Government has allowed to go on. I do not believe that there is a member in this chamber who is not aware of the work of Mr Peter Sawyer, a former officer of the Department of Social Security, who actually wrote a book on the inadequacies of this Government's social security policy. That book documented chapter and verse the ways in which the system was being rorted and ripped off. What happened to Mr Sawyer for his efforts? The Minister persecuted him. Without any hesitation, the Minister immediately acted to prosecute him and to stifle debate on the matter. The matter went to court. What happened then? This cowboy who masquerades as the Minister for Social Security was so quick to fire off charges against Mr Sawyer. What happened to those charges? They were thrown out of court. That was how good his case was. Of course, the motive in charging Mr Sawyer was to silence criticism of the inadequacies of his policies. The judge dismissed the charges totally. Everybody knows that the Australian social security system is being milked and ripped off. In fact, the public knowledge of that is so widespread that we have even seen articles appearing in foreign newspapers detailing how to come to Australia and rip off the system. Such articles do not appear in just English language newspapers. They have even appeared in Chinese language newspapers. Of course, the Minister stands up and defends his position. He maintains that there is no fraud and no rip-off. He claims that there is no need for any further changes. The fact is that this Government has opened the floodgates to the cheats, the rip-off merchants and the people who are prepared to rort the Australian taxpayer. Since coming to office, this Government has virtually abolished the work test. It did not enforce registration with the Commonwealth Employment Service. The Minister can raise his eyebrows as much as he likes, but the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, said that there were 116 people on unemployment benefits for every 100 people registered with the CES. How could that happen if the Minister were enforcing his manual which says that an unemployed person must be registered? Of course, the Government did away with the requirement for personal lodgment of the 19b forms, the continuation forms for unemployment benefits. The Minister will be quick to tell us later today that in the last Budget the Government changed all that. He was dragged screaming to make those changes by his colleagues-by the Treasurer (Mr Keating), who said that there were rip-off merchants on unemployment benefits, and by the Minister for Finance. The Minister for Social Security was dragged screaming into the Budget session of this Parliament to make those changes. Of course, they are only superficial changes. The Government changed the legislation but did nothing to give the Department of Social Security the human resources, the field officers and the other people necessary to enforce those changes. Quite frankly, the Minister has a blind eye when it comes to people ripping off the system. He did nothing about Kiwi dole cheats until he was forced to do so by a massive weight of public opinion. He allowed prisoners in New South Wales and Victorian gaols to continue receiving unemployment benefits. Initially, he said that that was not happening, but after conclusive evidence was produced he acted to do something about it. He has perpetuated the supporting parent rip-off and turned a blind eye to the transfer of unemployment beneficiaries on to sickness and other benefits to which they are not genuinely entitled. Also, the Minister is as aware as I am that the Australian Medical Association is extremely concerned at pressure coming from some regional offices of the Department of Social Security for medical certificates to be produced for people who have no medical entitlement to certain categories of social security benefit. That is the attitude of the Minister for Social Security to the payment of benefits in this country and the protection of the integrity of the system. This Government has virtually done away with all the checks and balances and the tests that should be applied within the system. Not only has it done that, but it has reduced the number of field officers. It does not believe that field officers should investigate and it will not give them legislative authority to ask questions of clients of the Department of Social Security. There is a high level of vacancies in field officer positions in the Department and the Government has done nothing to fill those vacancies. Not only has the Government reduced the number of field officers, but it has taken them out of the field. These field officers may be on the staff as field officers, but what are they actually doing? They are sitting behind desks, where they are involved in payment procedures. The Government will not allow the system to operate in the way in which it should. As a consequence of that, the social security system in Australia has fallen into contempt and disrepute. Australian people react daily against those people who genuinely need social security. We have asked him to give us a commitment to stopping fraud and to doing away with rorting and rip-offs in the system. Of course, nothing has happened, but as one part of its desperate campaign to build some credibility in this area the Government has reached for the ID card. The Minister himself does not support the ID card. I defy any member of this House to find an unequivocal statement from the Minister for Social Security saying that he supports the ID card. Quite frankly, the Minister is prepared to sell out his principles in order to save his political credibility as the Minister for giving away benefits. He is quite prepared to run around this Parliament and around Australia quoting my views on the ID card. Let me state here and now exactly what my views on the ID card are. Last year I said that I supported the ID card. We had a joint parliamentary select committee. I spent four months on that committee and looked at about 20,000 pages of evidence. I say categorically now to the Minister for Social Security that I do not support ID cards simply because they will not work, they will not do the job, they are superficial, they are ineffective and there is a much better way of addressing the problem. In fact, the officers of his Department know that there is a much better way of addressing the problem. Mr Temby knows that there is a much better way of addressing the problem. He himself knows that there is a much better way of addressing the problem. Let me say now that, if the Minister again misquotes my views on the ID card, we will know exactly-- Mr Howe —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: The quotation that I read in Question Time from 8 June 1985 was a quotation. There was no misrepresentation involved. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. I call the honourable member for Richmond. Opposition members interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Honourable members on my left might be silent so that they can hear their colleague the honourable member for Richmond. I call the honourable member for Richmond. Mr BLUNT —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank my colleagues for their support. Let me say again for the Minister's benefit: I do not support ID cards just as he does not support ID cards, and if that is not an accurate representation of his personal position he will have an opportunity in a minute to stand up and say categorically what his personal position is. Mr Temby said yesterday in his report that the Department of Social Security actually catches more welfare cheats than it prosecutes. Not only has it wound back the tests and the checks within the system; it has given those people virtual immunity from prosecution. It is an absolute disgrace. Yet those opposite come into this Parliament and argue the need for an ID card. They know that there is no net revenue gain to the Department of Social Security from ID cards. They know that the Department has said that it will not be relying on it. The Minister himself has said in answer to questions in this place that it will be only a principal form of identification and that the Department will still use other ways of identifying people seeking unemployment and other social security benefits. Perhaps more importantly, and germane to Temby's comments yesterday, is that the Government knows that less than one per cent of social security fraud is based on false ID. Categorically there is no justification for introducing an identification system for 16 million Australian men, women and children in order to catch 2.8 million people who have the potential to rip off the social security system. The Minister knows it, his Department knows it and the Government knows it. But they know that they are in trouble on the ID card and will resort to any argument to justify their position. The ID card will not work for social security fraud because the problem of social security fraud relates to changed circumstances-not to a person's name or his identity within the community but to his entitlement to social security benefits, and that entitlement of course is based on his income and circumstances. Knowing someone's identity categorically will not help one know whether he has a job, whether he has extra income, whether he is no longer living alone or whether he has support from another person; and they are the major problems faced by the social security system in Australia today. The Minister knows it, the Department knows it, the Government knows it. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) knows it. Everybody knows it. When will we see the Government adopt an honest approach to ID cards and to the control of social security fraud? When will the Government recognise that the only way to handle the rip-off merchants is to provide the resources to the Department to enable field officers to investigate fraud in the field and to provide those field officers with the authority to ask questions of the clients of the Department? Right now there is no legislative authority within the Social Security Act for a field officer or any other officer of the Department of Social Security to ask a question of a client. All questions have to be put in writing. How can Mr Temby, as the Director of Public Prosecutions, expect effective investigation to be conducted and effective briefs to be prepared when field officers not only are not trained in the area and do not have the experience to go ahead and conduct those investigations but also do not have the authority to do that? Of course, that is common knowledge among people who are prepared to rip off the system. As soon as they are questioned by a field officer they suggest that he or she does not have the authority to ask the question, so the investigation can go no further. It is perhaps the most effective block to investigation of potential rip-offs of the system that we know about. Earlier this year I asked the Minister what he was going to do about it and when he was going to amend the Act to provide genuine authority for field officers. We got no answer and no action, nor is any amendment to the Act proposed, yet we have a proposal to spend $1 billion to employ 2,100 public servants and introduce the ID card system, which will not touch social security fraud and will cost the Australian people their freedom and the way of life they are used to. The Minister knows that he is responsible for the greatest haemorrhage in the social security system in Australia's history and the worst run system in the Western world. Yet he is prepared to sell out his principles and go ahead with this ID card proposal, knowing it will not work and does not have the support of his Department, his faction or a lot of his ministerial colleagues, not to mention the back bench of the Australian Labor Party. They do not support the ID card because they know it is superficial, ineffective, will not work and will not help stop social security rip-offs. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(3.32) —We have just heard one of the less distinguished efforts on behalf of the Opposition. If we are to talk about standards in relation to the control of social security fraud as between this Government and the former Government, we need go no further than to the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Compensation Arising From Social Security Conspiracy Prosecutions 1986, the report of Justice Roma Mitchell, and read the story of how it has cost this Government, and to some extent the previous Government, $20m to make up for the fact that in March 1978 a series of dawn raids were carried out in a blaze of publicity in which 181 people were arrested and charged with conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth. Those 181 people, mostly Greek people living in inner city Sydney, were the subject of possibly the most massive assault on the civil liberties of Australian citizens in the history of this country. That is what the attempts of the previous Government to deal with fraud were about. I believe that in many ways the events of 1978 have coloured the whole approach to the integrity of the social security system ever since. The responsibility borne by the previous Government on that occasion is one which has made it extraordinarily difficult for subsequent governments to act effectively in this area. It is all very well for people to come into the Parliament and make the kinds of statements that were made by the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), but those statements are made relying on people having no sense whatever of history and the record of the Liberal and National parties when they were in government. This exercise today supposedly relates to evidence contained in the annual report of the Director of Public Prosecutions which was released yesterday. It was suggested by the honourable member for Richmond that this report represented some kind of damning indictment of the Department of Social Security in terms of its efforts with respect to welfare fraud. It was suggested further by the honourable member for Richmond, without any quotations in support, that this report provided the evidence that there was no need whatever to move in the direction of the Australia Card. The honourable member for Richmond gave extraordinarily selective quotations from the report. He did not quote from page 59 of the report, which deals with the case of Wayne Thomas Patterson, alias Jansenberger. The report states: Between April 1984 and July 1985 Patterson obtained approximately $380,000 using his own and 53 fictitious names to claim unemployment benefits in Victoria and Queensland. He pleaded guilty to 34 counts relating to offences in Victoria and had 20 charges relating to Queensland offences taken into account. The scheme was implemented using relatively simple artifices. Patterson was very skilful in investing on the stock exchange and in fact made a substantial profit from the amounts which he had defrauded from the Commonwealth. At the heart of the Patterson case is the question of identity. Mr Temby reports on that case at page 59, but does not make any reference at all on pages 18 or 19 to the question of identity cards. There is no suggestion at all that he has a view about that, but his views were misrepresented by the very dishonest member for Richmond, who could not find a skerrick of evidence to support what he was suggesting. The honourable member for Richmond took a couple of quotations out of context, but the crucial paragraph in that section on welfare fraud prosecutions is the third paragraph on page 18, where suggestions are made about the lack of resources for the Australian Federal Police to cope with more than a few of the large number of cases reported to it. It suggests that the result is that minor cases and very serious cases are investigated and that the Department of Social Security properly investigated the majority of minor cases. The honourable member for Richmond knows that the manuals of the Department of Social Security impose an obligation on field officers to investigate cases that come to the attention of the Department. What we are talking about here is an interface problem in terms of where the Department of Social Security investigations should cease and the Australian Federal Police investigations should commence, and which cases ought to be dealt with completely within the Department of Social Security and which cases ought to be dealt with primarily by the Australian Federal Police. As I have suggested, that matter has been under investigation. The Government is aware of that problem and revised guidelines will be issued to cover it. Other quotations from the report were made by the honourable member for Richmond, but beyond that there is no evidence whatsoever in terms of what the honourable member for Richmond has suggested. There is not a skerrick of evidence to suggest that the Department of Social Security does not investigate cases which come to its attention of people seeking to misrepresent their circumstances to the Department or to rip off money. Indeed, there is an obligation on the Department to pursue and investigate those cases. As the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) has said, in a very large number of cases we are talking about very small payments. In terms of social security fraud, let me make it clear that in my view the question of identity is extraordinarily important. It is important not because hundreds of millions of dollars are involved, as was suggested by the honourable member for Richmond on 10 August when he referred to the $350m welfare bill-a figure plucked out of the air-but significant money is involved. Approximately $36m was involved in prosecutions over the past five years. In terms of new overpayments raised, as at the September quarter of 1986, we were talking about $22.9m. That is significant money and it is important that prosecutions be carried out where significant fraud occurs. More prosecutions have been carried out. For example, there were 161 prosecutions under the Crimes Act in 1984-85 and 245 in 1985-86-an 85 per cent increase in fraud prosecutions over $30,000. The bulk of what the honourable member for Richmond had to say had nothing to do with the Director of Public Prosecutions and nothing to do with any sentence. Let me make it clear that certainly since I became Minister the Government has taken the question of overpayments very seriously. We have introduced a great number of measures. When we came to office in 1983 the social security system administration was on its knees and on the verge of a major breakdown. Technology-prior to the investment which this Government had carried out at a cost of more than $200m in Stratplan-was not simply essential to help in overpayments; people were not going to continue to be paid if that investment had not been made. I believe the Government has been prepared to put that kind of money into technology. It has also been prepared to put resources in to ensure that steps are taken to eliminate fraud. For example, a more rigorous identity test has already been introduced by the Government. Direct credit to bank accounts has virtually eliminated problems of stolen cheques or fraud involving cheques. In terms of the overpayment strategy announced on 12 February this year, a number of steps have been taken involving more attention being given to collecting as much debt as possible to prevent overpayments in future. During Question Time I referred to the amnesty which was dubbed by the honourable member for Richmond as utterly irresponsible. The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron), the acting shadow Minister on 22 July, stated: The police, welfare rights organisations and an outraged public slammed this hasty and ill-thought out response. In fact, the amnesty has been a major success. More than $20m has been saved and it has had widespread support amongst welfare groups, clients and the community. The honourable member for Richmond today and on a number of other occasions has talked about the power of field officers. A question without notice on 19 September alleged that field officers have no legislative authority to investigate fraud and overpayments. Field officers do have the authority to investigate all relevant matters, but do not have the power to require their questions to be answered. They do not have power to make a determination under the Social Security Act. Where questions are not answered, a delegated social security officer may require a client to answer by formal section 135 notice. It is not appropriate that field officers have specific powers to require questions to be answered. Every refusal would constitute an offence under the Social Security Act. Clients ought to have basic legal rights. We are not operating as, indeed, I believe the Opposition would like us to operate. This is reflected in the Greek conspiracy case. We are not operating in a police state and we do not intend to. To understand the great value of Government initiatives they need to be compared to the system that was left to us by the previous Government-the Fraser-Howard team. The White paper on tax made it clear that the effects of avoidance and evasion had destroyed the tax system. People earning between $50,000 and $100,000 managed to hide about 10 per cent of their income through evasion and avoidance. Those on $100,000 and above were allowed to keep 22 per cent of their income from being brought into account. This was done by receiving fringe benefits instead of cash; disguising income as capital gain; and through tax exploitation measures such as negative gearing. On average, someone on $100,000 was allowed to rip off the tax system to the tune of $12,900. That is the equivalent to almost three aged pensions at the married rate. We have heard an apologia from the honourable member for Richmond today on the Australia Card. Let me quote what he said again on 8 June 1985. We are not interested in the individual, the honourable member for Richmond; we are interested in the spokesman on social security on the opposite side of the House. What did he say? He stated: The introduction of a national identification system using ID cards, offered benefits to the Australian people. The use of plastic cards as a means of identification would streamline the collection of tax-imposing greater accountability on that small minority who seek to evade their responsibilities to the community by not paying taxes. Another majority benefit would be a reduction of fraud affecting government outlays, especially social welfare payments. I think honest taxpayers are sick and tired of the restrictions which tax and social security fraud impose on their own liberties. I know that there have been some shifting views on the Opposition side of the House with respect to the subject of the ID card. But let me say that no one on the opposite side of the House has any compunction in coming into this House and hopping into anyone, particularly in the social security area, who might be ripping off the Government system. Members of the Opposition are a little more sensitive when it comes to the taxation side of the equation. People can rip off tax through fringe benefits, negative gearing and capital gains, but when it comes down to receiving an unemployment benefit illegitimately for a week or two, the full force of the police state will descend on them. Let us not avoid the full force of what members of the Opposition are about. They are not saying that the Australia Card is a draconian measure-they are not saying that at all-they are saying that the Australia Card has to be rejected because they prefer police state methods which they want to use. The honourable member for Richmond suggests that the precedent of the 1979 Greek conspiracy case ought to be repeated, that field officers ought to be given much stronger powers and that they ought to be able to clamber their way into people's houses and ask any questions at all that they might choose to ask. They have no concern with civil liberties whatsoever. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr PORTER(Barker)(3.48) —The community and the coalition are deeply concerned about the explosion of social security fraud under this Government's incompetent and inefficient administration. The level of social security abuse is as high as it is today because the Government has run an open door policy for welfare benefits. Until recently the Hawke Labor Government did not require the personal lodgment of the 19b forms which were required to be lodged for the continuation of unemployment benefits. No wonder under Labor 116 people were on unemployment benefits for every 100 people looking for jobs; no wonder prisoners were getting unemployment and sickness benefits whilst in gaol. The gross incompetence of the Hawke Government's administration is starting to catch up with it and it is casting around for a way out, an excuse, a smoke-screen. It has latched onto the identification card. It says that the ID card will stop welfare fraud. The plain fact of the matter is that it will not. The Department of Social Security knows that the card will not stop welfare fraud; the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) knows it as well. The allegation was made by the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), that the Minister for Social Security did not support the ID card. The Minister was given 15 minutes in which to explain his support for the card and he failed to do so. The Minister for Social Security clearly does not agree with the Government. He opposes the ID card-he always has and he still does. He had 15 minutes to clarify his position and he failed to do so. He is not the only one. The Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card stated unequivocally that the card failed to combat tax evasion, failed to reduce welfare fraud and failed to identify illegal immigrants. I remind the House that the Joint Select Committee was made up of members from all parties of this Parliament-Labor, Liberal, National Party and the Democrats. All parties were represented. Mr Hunt —How did they vote? Mr PORTER —They all voted. All parties were represented in the majority report which opposed the card. The Joint Select Committee does not believe that the card will resolve the problems of welfare fraud, and neither does the Department of Social Security. The Department of Social Security, in its evidence to the Select Committee, stated: The fact is that in our experience the main problems within the departmental portfolio are not with identity as such, but a failure to notify change of circumstances. It went on: . . . by way of information the overpayments file for the Department shows that 0.6 per cent is attributable to identity and 61 per cent is due to income variations. Those are the issues which make us believe- that is, the Department of Social Security- that it is of minimal relevance in the identity area which is of course the primary initiative that the card would help address. In other words, the Department of Social Security is saying that only 0.6 per cent of welfare fraud will be impacted by the card and it does not believe that welfare fraud will be stopped by the card. That is a clear statement by the Department to the Joint Select Committee. This Government is trying to dupe the Australian public and it is running around the country endeavouring to create the myth that the card is the answer to welfare fraud. It is not. Its own arguments indicate that the card is not the answer. Its own submission states that the cost of implementing the card will be the same as the likely savings. So there will be no savings from reduced welfare fraud as a result of the introduction of the ID card. The ID card will not work. The Government says so in its own submission, the Department says so, the Joint Select Committee says so and now the Director of Public Prosecutions says so. The DPP is saying that the problem is not identification; the problem is the will of this Government to prosecute those who have defrauded the Department of Social Security. It is not identification; it is a lack of will and government incompetence. The Government is seeking to shift the blame. It wants to shift the blame to the ID card and say: `This is the way out'. We do not need a bureaucratic answer to a bureaucratic problem. We need a government with the will and the determination to implement tight controls. We need a government that is prepared to ensure the efficient administration of its departments. The Hawke Government has clearly failed to do just that. In the past three years it has shown no resolve whatsoever to get to the root of the problem, which is its own policies and its own administrative incompetence. There are fundamental reasons why the ID card will not stop social security fraud. As I have already indicated, the Department makes it quite clear that the greatest area of fraud is not in the creation of false identities but rather in the failure of welfare beneficiaries to report their earnings of other income which would impact on the eligibility or the level of social security benefit to which the individual would be entitled. So it is the non-declaration of income rather than identification which, according to the Department of Social Security, is the cause of welfare fraud. That is the first problem. The second problem is that the ID card fails to attack the cash economy where the welfare rorters gain their other income. For example, in those cases where a person on the unemployment benefit gets a job with a householder to do some gardening, to cut the lawns or perhaps do some painting, the householder pays the person on the unemployment benefit in cash. Of course, the householder does not know that that person is on the unemployment benefit. There is absolutely no way in which this major area of the cash economy will be impacted by the ID card. There are hundreds of examples of collusion between employer and employee where both get an advantage by the payment of cash. The employer gets the job done cheaper and the employee gets more take home pay. The point is that the ID card will not impact on that area and, therefore, it will be of no assistance to the Department of Social Security in identifying welfare rorters who are obtaining other income. The third significant reason why the ID card will not resolve welfare fraud is the integrity of the card. Two Federal government organisations have questioned the integrity of the ID card. The first is the Department of Social Security. Mr Trevor Murphy, Director of Benefits Control, said, in relation to some tax officers, that they were: . . . having trouble working out why the Department of Social Security would not accept the card at face value, even with a photograph. Mr Murphy said: We do not find it difficult to understand. It is a very simple point. I draw your attention to the fact that the Health Insurance Commission people went overseas, visited countries that have cards with photographs, came back and reported that the biggest single problem facing those countries was the problem of impersonation. I do not see that the Department of Social Security should be any less concerned about the integrity of the system in Australia. I would also make the comment that I noticed in the Press yesterday that one of the major banking institutions feels exactly the same way. In other words, the Department of Social Security questions the basic integrity of the Australia Card. It will not accept the Australia Card as proof of identity. If it is not going to accept it, why on earth should anyone else in this country? Mr Frank Costigan, his senior counsel, Mr Meagher, and the Australian Federal Police have all attacked the Australia Card proposal because of its lack of integrity. Overseas experience, especially in the United States of America, indicates that organised crime can be assisted by an ID card system. Once people break the system they get false identification under that system and that gives them some legitimisation within the system. Only this morning the Federal Police contacted me and told me that people were already preparing to set up their false identities. They were generating false Medicare records and false Australian Taxation Office records so that they would be able to establish false IDs under this Government's ID card proposal. We need a government with will and determination to crack down on welfare fraud. We are prepared to do it. We will tie in the unemployment benefit to community service. This Government ought to act and not talk. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(3.58) —Listening to the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) and the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) one would think that the day the Hawke Labor Government came to power the fraud in the welfare system started. As the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), who is at the table, said, we inherited the system. What a system it is! The Minister outlined some of the rorts that were going on in the system. I listened to what the honourable member for Barker said about the cash economy. Thank goodness the Opposition has finally discovered the cash economy that is operating out there because it most certainly did nothing about it during the seven years that it had control of the treasury bench. Since the Hawke Labor Government was elected, the Opposition has been running around the country accusing the Government of being soft on social security fraud. Members of the Opposition have never been able to produce any figures. Their examples are usually suspect but this does not stop them. They still run around the community with all these scare stories. In the four years that I have been in this place I have never heard a more disgraceful misrepresentation of the facts than that presented by the honourable member for Richmond in his contribution. Let me deal with one of the things he commented on. He said a lot about the power of the field officers. One simple thing he omitted to mention was that the number of field officers has been increased by nearly 200 since this Government came to power. Now that this Government has attempted to control fraud to bring integrity into the social security system we have the unbelievable hypocrisy of this Opposition running around the country opposing the Australia Card. It did the very same thing with the assets test and the Human Rights Commission legislation. It was simply descending into the politics of fear. But the Australian people will see through its activities. In fact, day by day the Australian people are seeing through the activities of this discredited Opposition. The Opposition, when in government, let fraud become the growth industry of the social security system. This Hawke Government has said that enough is enough and has attempted to eliminate this fraud. Who can disagree with editorial writer after editorial writer and commentator after commentator who have accused the Opposition of opportunism of the worst possible kind on this issue? The Opposition knows in its heart that if it wants to stop fraud, it should support the Australia Card Bill and the Australia Card program. Opposition members know that the Australia Card program is the strongest possible weapon against tax evasion and welfare fraud. I have here no fewer than 10 pages of quotes from senior Opposition members, including the honourable member for Richmond, supporting the Australia Card. He said, in a media release on 8 June 1985: The introduction of a national identification system using I.D. cards, offered benefits to the Australian people which outweighed any civil liberties considerations. What, I ask, has made him change his mind? I suggest that it might be political opportunism. I suggest that that is what has made him change his mind. I also ask: Whatever has the Opposition's tactics committee been up to? The overwhelming majority of Australians support the introduction of the Australia Card. Survey after survey shows that the overwhelming majority of Australians support the introduction of an Australia Card with a photograph. Has the honourable member for Richmond had a Damascus road type conversion against the card? From what he was saying today, I think he may have been another of those members of the Opposition on the road to Damascus. It must have been quite a crowded road over the past couple of weeks. We heard from the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Hunt) the other day that he was also on the road to Damascus. The honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) was also on the road to Damascus. The honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) was also on the road to Damascus. Twelve months ago he was on every road in my electorate saying how he supported the Australia Card. He went through the electorate of Throsby and the electorate of Gilmore challenging me to state where I stood on the Australia Card. I stated 12 months ago where I stood on the Australia Card. I said that I supported it with a photograph. So did the honourable member for Gilmore 12 months ago, but he got on that crowded road to Damascus along with the honourable member for Richmond and the honourable member for Dawson. The whole lot of the National Party members were all on that crowded road to Damascus and now they come in here and oppose the introduction of the Australia Card. But they know in their heart of hearts that, if they were really serious about doing something about welfare fraud, they would support this legislation. The Australia Card will be used as a high integrity mechanism to cut down on social security fraud. We on this side are serious about cutting the crooks out of the social security system. The Australia Card will be the key component in our scrutinisation strategy. I really think that the Opposition, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and the honourable member for Richmond are really scraping the bottom of the barrel to find reasons to oppose the introduction of the Australia Card. They have been very busy misrepresenting the facts. The Leader of the Opposition recently made a meaningless statement when he said: The Government has admitted there would be no net gain from the introduction of the card in the welfare area. The fact is that we cannot estimate the benefit of the Australia Card because we cannot estimate the extent of social security fraud. It would be like trying to estimate the number of speeding motorists who are not caught. Editorial writers in the papers have seen through the Opposition. They have exposed the Opposition's position as crude opportunism and have asked the question that we all have to ask: What will the Opposition do about tax cheats? Mr Howe —Nothing. Mr HOLLIS —As the Minister for Social Security says, it will do absolutely nothing. If the Opposition does intend to do something, why is it so determined to block measures to crack down on social security fraud? The Opposition is wasting everyone's time on this issue because it has failed to come up with any sensible policies. The Opposition has this marvellous eight-point plan to attack social security fraud and tax evasion. Every point it has put out is wrong, sheer lunacy or action already taken by this Government. The plan states that we have eliminated the work test. That is simply not true. It states that we have not enforced Commonwealth Employment Service registration. It has said this in the very month-I was talking to the Goulburn CES office about this this morning-that we announced that people who are not registered with the CES will not get the benefit. So much for another of its points. The plan also states that we have done away with the personal lodgment of 19b forms when that applies only in approved circumstances to the over-55 age group, and that group will have to lodge its forms personally every 12 weeks. The plan promises to enforce stringent identity procedures. We are introducing the Australia Card. The Opposition states that it will make unemployed people work for the dole. On that point, the Opposition has two choices: It can come up with an extra $700m to pay for its scheme or it can pull 550,000 jobs out of the hat. The plan is no more than empty rhetoric, a clear sign that the Opposition is devoid of policies. Those honourable members opposite who continue to oppose the Australia Card, a measure which demonstrably will reduce the incidence of tax fraud and social security fraud in this country, might care to explain their actions to their constituents. Opposition members come into this chamber day after day and talk about reducing the deficit while at the same time they do not have the backbone to support any major reform of our taxation system. The electors of Throsby have had enough of taxation cheats and social security fraud and so have the people of Australia. They support the Government measures. The Opposition has a huge credibility gap. I suggest that those Opposition members who oppose the Australia Card do so at their electoral peril. 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. The Australian people have had enough of this sham, humbug and hypocrisy by the Opposition and will tell the Opposition so at the next election. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(4.08) —I move: Customs Tariff Proposals No. 18 (1986) and Excise Tariff Proposals No. 13 (1986). The proposals I have just tabled relate to proposed alterations to the Customs Tariff Act 1982 and the Excise Tariff Act 1921. Both proposals are operative on and from 1 November 1986 and formally place before Parliament, as required by law, tariff alterations made by notices published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette during the recent recess. The alterations contained in Customs Tariff Proposals No. 18 (1986) are the first step in the implementation of the Government's decision on the Industries Assistance Commission's report on the chemicals and plastics industries. Duty free entry is being provided for fertiliser grade phosphoric acid. This will enable Australian manufacturers to increase their output of high analysis phosphatic fertilisers in response to the changes in subsidy arrangements announced in the Budget, and to maintain supply to farmers at competitive prices. In addition, the Customs Tariff Act is being amended to enable the issue of a policy by-law to permit the importation of high density polyethylene resin for use in the extrusion of film for bag production at a general tariff rate of 20 per cent. This by-law is being introduced because of a serious shortfall in the production of this resin in Australia. In the absence of the by-law, high density polyethylene bag manufacturers would have to pay a general tariff rate of 45 per cent until the end of January 1987 and then a rate of 25 per cent until the end of December 1987. This would cause serious disruption to employment and investment in the industry. The by-law will be necessary only until the end of December 1987 as on and from 1 January 1988 the general tariff rate for the relevant provision in Schedule 3 to the Customs Tariff Act will become 20 per cent. Excise Tariff Proposals No. 13 (1986) decrease the excise duty on naturally occurring liquefied petroleum gas from $18.27 per kilolitre to $14.43 per kilolitre. This change, resulting from new arrangements for determining the maximum wholesale price for naturally occurring and refinery produced liquefied petroleum gas for domestic use, was announced by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) on 23 October 1986. Summaries of the alterations contained in these proposals have been prepared and are being circulated for the information of honourable members. I commend the proposals to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Debate resumed from 17 November, on motion by Mr Duffy: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Macphee had moved by way of amendment; that all words after ``That'' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ``whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House expresses its concern at the equalisation of regional television services by way of aggregation of viewing areas, especially the `one-in all-in' trigger mechanism and believes that equalisation would best be achieved by the immediate issue of supplementary licences to existing licencees subject to specified conditions''. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —I remind the House that it has been agreed that the house have a general debate covering this Bill and the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1986. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(4.11) —This debate on the Broadcasting Amendment Bill 1986 and the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1986 is being resumed from yesterday and I will take this opportunity to set out for those listening the framework of the Government's approach to these matters. Before doing that, I commend the work of some members on the Government side of the House, including the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby), the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay), the honourable member for Aston (Mr Saunderson) and the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles), who have been very active in representing their constituencies on these matters, as has the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons), and also the appropriate Caucus committee and the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy). The fact that we have before us sensible proposals largely reflects the work of back benchers, the Minister and Cabinet. People living in the regional areas of Australia will recognise that a lot of sensible work has been done on these matters. What are these matters? Let me speak specifically. At present in the capital cities of Australia, with the exception of my city of Perth, people can enjoy three commercial television stations and two national stations. I will speak in a moment about national television stations and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation-Special Broadcasting Service merger. Nevertheless, people who live in those capital cities can enjoy three commercial and two national services. We believe that is a very good way to operate within a market, and I am looking forward to the occasion when the third commercial service in Perth comes fully into operation. My electorate of Stirling is currently the home of Channel 7 and Channel 9, and it certainly benefits from the activities of those two television stations. That leads me to the next question, the question of the two nationals. Currently there is considerable discussion in the community about the ABC-SBS merger. This Government has taken a position on that and it is important to recognise that there is considerable support, especially in today's Press, including Il Globo, representing the Italian community, for that merger and I am confident that people in capital cities will enjoy the value of having two national television services in those cities. I will speak shortly about the transmission of cricket and golf, and that will show the benefit of having two national services. However, our goals must be to help those in regional areas. What is the picture for those in regional areas? We are talking about something like five million people. They are represented by a variety of members in this place, from the National Party of Australia, the Liberal Party and our own governing Australian Labor Party, as well as, obviously, senators in the other place. Those five million people largely enjoy one commercial service and one ABC service. That is the general picture. Clearly it has been the view of this Government that we ought to have some strategic goals in terms of our broadcasting policy. The first of those strategic goals is equalisation-in other words, providing services in most regional areas comparable to those of capital cities. The second strategic goal is aggregation-to provide larger, more viable markets in regional Australia. I am one who has a very strong feeling about regional Australia because by and large people in regional and remote areas have been underserved in regard to both radio and television broadcasting and it is a source satisfaction to me to know that people in those areas are getting, with the advent of the satellite, improved services. The third goal is to encourage competition. Clearly it is our view that there is benefit in having competitive services in the market-place. So they are our three strategic goals-equalisation, aggregation and competition. As far as aggregation is concerned-this is where we get to the centrepiece of the debate-there are two paths down which we might proceed in regional areas. One is what we might call direct aggregation; that is, existing markets or services can be combined in order to provide a sufficient population base for three competitive services. In other words, we take regional areas and group them together, we aggregate them, so we can provide an economic base and also a competitive base for commercial services, and people have more choice. The second option is multi-channel services. In other words, an existing licensee in a regional area can provide two extra non-competitive services in its existing market; it can simply provide a television service in its existing market and, in addition, two other services. The goal is clearly to try to increase the service available to those in regional Australia. I know that the honourable member for Aston, who will follow me from this side in this debate, will be having something to say about that. The options we are putting before the industry are these: We would prefer direct aggregation, where licensees will seek to aggregate directly into market-places and provide a viable market and competitive services. However, the other option is to provide multi-channel services on the way towards that aggregation. The point of this legislation is in a sense to provide a direction for the industry by way of a framework, while clearly giving choices to the industry. So that is the framework within which we have come to discuss those matters. It is important to set that in place because this debate is resuming today. There are some specific points that ought to be made about broadcasting. Honourable members have many views about broadcasting. One matter that is very clearly of concern at the moment is the coverage of the test cricket in Brisbane. Because the ABC already had the rights to cover the Australian Open Golf it was unable to provide a comprehensive cricket service for many people in regional areas. From my inquiries I understand the reason for that is that the ABC had, at a much earlier date, secured the rights to the Australian Open golf, and the first cricket test in Brisbane was brought forward so that it clashed with the Australian Open golf. I make two observations. First, very clearly, the ABC must be encouraged to be as competitive as possible, and I am pleased to see that it is seeking that sort of sporting coverage. Secondly, the whole question of exclusive rights is one that must be debated because very often parts of Australia are denied services because a particular commercial channel seeks exclusive rights and is then unable to provide a service across Australia. It is unfair for people in certain rural and remote areas of Australia to be denied, for example, coverage of the Melbourne Cup. I might add in passing that Australia's performance in the first cricket test is not as good as we had hoped. Mr Millar —They might prefer not to see it. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —Some people might say they prefer not to see it. My colleague opposite suggests that, but clearly we would like them to have the choice. Incidentally, it is a point of contention that whilst the Parliament is on air-I know that our debate is very erudite and has everyone in this community on the edge of their chairs-the reality is that a lot of people would prefer to be listening to the cricket today on the ABC rather than Parliament. That is a matter we will have to look at very seriously. Interestingly, when I recently surveyed the population of Perth who listen to the ABC as to whether or not they preferred parliamentary broadcasts, a majority did prefer that Parliament be covered. They wanted Parliament to be broadcast, but when I asked them whether they would prefer it to be on their existing radio 1 station-6WF in Perth, 2BL in Sydney, 3LO in Melbourne or 5AN in Adelaide; I do not know what the station is in Brisbane-they said no, they would prefer us to move parliamentary broadcasts to some other channel so they can listen not only to cricket but also to the regular ABC programs. That is a matter of some concern to us here. Clearly, I am in favour of parliamentary broadcasts, but I am also in favour of people out there being given choice. I think that is a subject for another debate because there is a report on that before the Parliament. I conclude by making one other observation, and that is that a matter of considerable concern to the people in the community when we talk about service and competition is what I would call the ratings farce in Australian commercial television. Why is it that children, at the age of five, can tell us when the ratings are being conducted? It is very easy. When the ratings are on, all the commercial channels run A grade movies. When the ratings are not on, they run repeats of movies that were produced in, say, 1951. It seems to me that no other industry in this country is allowed to produce two grades of product and market them as if they were the one product. No brewery can turn out A grade beer one week and next week drop it back to B grade beer and not tell anyone. No motor vehicle manufacturer can turn out what one day is an A grade vehicle and the next day is B grade. Mr Deputy Speaker, can you think of another industry that is allowed deliberately to produce two grades of product but market them as if they are continually the same high standard product? Yet all the consumers know it is a B grade product. I would have to say that the advertisers clearly suffer a disadvantage because when the B grade product is being put to air not as many people are watching. Why is it that we in this country have let television stations get away with this ratings farce? We might look at what was on offer in Perth last Saturday night. Despite the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was in town attending one or two good functions, not everyone was there. There were 660 people at the function that I attended, but some people might have wanted to watch television. In Perth there are only two commercial services. On Saturday night Channel 7 showed a movie which was made in 1971 called Bedknobs and Broomsticks. At 9 o'clock it had a movie called Arthur which was not too bad, I suppose. At 11.05 it had a movie called Gaslight. On Channel 9 there was absolutely riveting stuff-Superman the Movie, followed by something called the Comedians, and then it had a cricket replay which we did not really want to watch on Saturday. That was the offering on Saturday night in Perth. Is it ratings period? I think one can probably get the drift that it was not a ratings period because they had those programs on offer. So that we can keep a balance in relation to this, on Sunday night we had the farce where the ABC put on the Sunday Stereo Special at 8.30 so that people could have watched a simulcast, the ABC-FM, of Andre Previn conducting the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra playing the Brahms Symphony No. 4. If a person had decided to turn to the other national station, SBS, one could have watched Janacek's Sinfonietta from Yugoslavia. What choice is that? That is absolutely ridiculous. It is not choice; people were being served the same diet. If people happened to switch over to the commercial stations they did not have very much on offer there either-a Night of Opulence in Design was on Channel 7 at 7.30, which is a peck time, and the Apprenticeship of Buddy Kravitz at 8.45. On Channel 9 60 Minutes was on-that is a good rating program-but the Dream Merchants came on after that, which does not seem to have any particular criteria. I am saying to the listeners and to my colleagues in the House that we have a situation in which, very clearly, the television stations have exploited the market-place. They have not served that market-place properly because they choose to produce two qualities of product. In the ratings period they produce A grade movies and top quality product; in the non-ratings period they produce a product that is barely up to standard. I am not talking about the coverage of sport because I think it is outstanding, particularly cricket on Channel 9 and tennis on Channel 7. They deserve great applause for their absolutely outstanding coverage. What else do they offer? They offer the Australian community a substandard product. So that I keep balance in this argument, I am also saying that I think the ABC and the SBS have to look at their acts as well. Serving up of two music programs on a Sunday night to viewers in one capital city does not serve the market. With this legislation we are trying to provide to the Australian community more effective services to country areas. I am a strong supporter of that; I believe it is very important. The second thing that I have to say is that I think we have to look also at the quality of services being provided to metropolitan areas. In the relicensing hearings for Australian television stations the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal might well have to see whether we can have a ratings system that is applied 52 weeks of the year, the same as quality control is applied in every other industry. Why should they be able to get away with a substandard product? Accordingly, in the light of this discussion I am pleased to commend this legislation to the House. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay)(4.25) —I join in the final stage of this second reading debate on the Broadcasting Amendment Bill and the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill which are designed essentially to restructure regional television. I have listened to the debate with more than ordinary interest, and I have come to the conclusion that nothing illustrates more clearly than these Bills the folly of placing an issue in legislative form prior to a thorough canvassing of all its considerations. We have had virtually a total roundabout from where we started. As a consequence of the lobbying of the regional tele- vision interests, but more particularly because of the diligence and insistence of some Government members-the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) and the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) come to mind immediately-the Government was prevailed upon to have a second look at this legislation. Now, happily, as a consequence of that review and substantial changes, the regional television industry is somewhat mollified, even to the extent of being rather relaxed, knowing that the immediate threat contained within the original legislation no longer looms over it. The indicative plan laid down by the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) gives it a keen appreciation of what will face it in the future over an extended period so that it can adjust to the realities of this change in our television station propagation pattern within Australia. I have often wondered where this proposal took its rise. Was there a Sir Humphrey somewhere who prevailed upon the Minister that it would be a nice idea to have three commercial channels throughout Australia to accord to those people out in the bush that which might arguably be described as their due? I am prepared to say that, by and large, the people out in the bush, to use the familiar and fond description, had no hypersensitivity to that which was looming over them-three television channels. Indeed, I venture to say that their first question would have been: `How the deuce can you watch three television screens simultaneously?'. Somebody decided that it would be a rattling good idea. Those out in broader Australia do not necessarily see themselves as being disadvantaged in comparison with the great metropolis. It may be argued that those in the concrete canyons and the serried ranks of suburbia may need accommodating with things which are not altogether essential but which would be regarded as desirable. I have no recollection of a clamour from the bush for these additional services. Naturally, in the nature of the human creature, if it is offered to them of course they will say yes. That is only to be expected. It took its rise, and it descended upon this Parliament. I wonder whether, in taking its rise, it was not motivated to a considerable extent by some philosophical, even pathological, vendetta against monopolies and anything that smacks of profit. I note that the Minister, in his rather puckish way, in his second reading speech, if I recall correctly, said something to the effect that in the race of life one can count on self-interest being a starter. I could not agree more with him, but there must be some balance in these things. If we start off to remedy a situation on the wrong motivation, without thinking it through, we generally create more problems than we had in mind in the first place. Self-interest is certainly something to be addressed. The highly profitable, multi-channel services, which might have been established under the initial legislation, occasioned some anguish among those who, hitherto, with the single-channel service have done very nicely. They were particularly agonised-aggravated, indeed-by the proposition that they should find their feet under the new regime within a very limited approved market of 450,000. I do not know why 450,000 was chosen as a suitable approved market. It is significant that under the new future aggregation schemes the market in Queensland approximates one million. Adelaide-a completely contained city with a population of a million-supports three commercial television stations. That was exquisitely pitched to the market. But somehow or other in broader Australia we were going to require existing television stations to increase the number of their channels, or go into aggregation and share a market which by any measurement was only half that which has eventually been established as a market consistent in size both with the ambitions of government and the reasonable expectations of those in the regional television business. Mr Braithwaite —They could have gone broke faster. Mr MILLAR —My friend the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) makes the point that they could have gone broke faster but, in ultimate terms, there is really no hurry; we arrive there soon enough. But it now appears-and I have made inquiries from those regional television interests within my electorate and its surrounds-that there is a greater confidence in contrast to the dismay that first grabbed them. I am quite satisfied that this, in no small measure, is attributable to the sense of responsibility possessed by the Minister for Communications, who commands the respect of the House. I think it is a tribute to him and to the way that this place can be made to work in the end. But the point I initially put remains salient. We embarked too far down the path before thoroughly canvassing all the issues and educating ourselves adequately to anticipate if not confront those matters which eventually came before us which required a change to the original proposition. So, all in all, we move into a new era of television. Some may say that there is still an unseemly urgency about it. Whether or not optic fibres or new techniques and technologies may, in hindsight, prove that we were a little impetuous in embarking on this course of action remains to be seen. But certainly we cannot luxuriate in the option of waiting indefinitely for the ultimate to arrive in any field of human endeavour. So one might say the steam has gone out of the debate. A few weeks ago we were poised here-certainly the honourable member for Bendigo, the honourable member for Herbert, the honourable member for Aston (Mr Saunderson) and perhaps one or two others-to engage in a death struggle for reasons that related not altogether to the technology of the art of television, but which had a more urgent relevance. Mr Braithwaite —It woudn't be a political consideration, would it? Mr MILLAR —I would hate to think that it was a political consideration but this, of course, unhappily, is one of the features that determine the character of debate in this place all too often. I rather lament that circumstance. I think somehow or other we should be able to utilise the talent on each side of the House to achieve a better result than we usually achieve, and to do so in half the time. I am aware that again time is at a premium and the Whips are keen to proceed with the debate and get to the Committee stage. So I will not place a demand on the time of the House any further. I thank the House. Mr SAUNDERSON(Aston)(4.34) —I rise in support of the Broadcasting Amendment Bill and the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill. As the previous speaker, the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar) was saying, I think the fact that we debated yesterday the Bill to bring about the merger of the Special Broadcasting Service and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the fact that we are debating these Bills now is a credit to the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy), who is at the table, because he has, in the three short years that he has been the Minister for Communications, brought about a total revolution within the television industry. We are seeing the ABC and SBS merger creating a new image for public broadcasting in Australia and really bringing it into readiness to go into the next century in a much healthier and more enlivened way. The Broadcasting Amendment Bill, of course, is associated with the ownership question, which is currently before the Government, and we will be bringing views into the House on that issue. This Bill will bring about a situation whereby virtually all of Australia will in fact have equality of choice. In the major capital cities for quite some time-I am sure honourable members and the community know this-there has been a great diversity of choice. Most of the major capital cities have had three commercial television channels and one ABC channel. In more recent times, of course, there has been the additional SBS channel. In many rural areas there has been just the ABC and in others, of course, there was only one commercial channel. Whilst there were the restrictions of the two-station rule and the development of television broadcasting in a more localised way, we saw in the rural areas the creation of broadcasting regions which were in themselves very small and, in the long term, probably not capable of providing greater choice than one channel. It seems to me that any rational examination of what has been proposed with this Bill will demonstrate that it will achieve two things. As I said, it will bring about a greater choice of programs for people in country areas. The other important thing is that it will bring competition with it. It will break down the existing monopolies that have occurred in regional television over virtually all of regional Australia. I think that is where the Opposition has failed to pick up the real intention behind our Bill. It is not just equalisation in the sense of bringing programs; it is also the creation of competition. The Opposition is moving an amendment whereby it wants to go back to supplementary licences. While it is true that supplementary licences can give greater choice, they do not bring with them competition. I would put to the House that it is competition which will provide better programming-the very thing the Opposition says it wants. The Opposition says it wants more local production, better sport and entertainment and programs of cultural significance. I put to honourable members opposite that we are more likely to get that out of competition, because there is a need to do better, if one wants to have the greater share of the market, when one is in competition with two others, as will be the case in the future. When one is running a regional monopoly but has two channels, that is not competition; it just means that one has to buy more programs. They do not have to be good programs or great programs; but there must be programs. I am sure it is possible to get that programming, but it does not mean that the broadcasting quality will be any better from a supplementary licence system. I think that that really is the crunch of what we are doing. We are providing not just a greater choice for people in the country; we are in fact providing competition which should ensure that there is a better quality of programming. I have travelled around Australia a lot in the country areas and I have watched a bit of television. I must say that sometimes when one turns on the television in some regional areas and sees some of the old programs that were shown in Melbourne-where I live-10 years ago or whatever, one starts to think that one is travelling back in time. I understand that there are obviously problems in some of these areas. They are small regions; there is not a lot of advertising that these broadcasters can get; they are therefore restricted in the amount of money they have to buy their own programs. It seems to me that the other aspect of this Bill, the indicative plan which has come in, has increased markets. It looks at, basically, a market of a million people, while still ensuring that there is a sense of localism and that it is still regional television. Regions are not being tied into any other area such as the capital cities. So it is still a regionalised area, but it is in a market area of a million people, which ensures that there is a greater audience. This means that broadcasters can go to advertisers and say: `We have a million people within our broadcasting region and it is important that you advertise with us'. As that occurs, as they get a greater say in obtaining advertising, that will give them a capacity to get better programs. It is clear that a larger audience will make each of the stations more important in terms of the percentage of people reached. I believe that the rationalisation that will occur in the industry with the aggregation and the fact that we will have greater choice of programming are very important. I was reading the speech of the Opposition spokesperson, the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee), yesterday, and I noticed that he said that he thought equalisation was a gimmick. I do not think that people in the country regions of Australia will think that it is a gimmick. The honourable member for Wide Bay was probably more accurate when he said that people were after greater choice. They were not necessarily arguing for three channels; they were arguing for greater choice. Now that we have introduced a Bill which will give them three channels, I am sure that they will not stand up and say: `Look, we really didn't ask for three channels; we just wanted a greater choice. We would rather you didn't give us three channels. We will just cop a supplementary licence, thanks, and have the fellow who is providing the television now-it is not very good quality television because he hasn't any competition-put up another channel so that we will have two channels of the same stuff'. I am sure that people will not accept that line, which is what the Opposition is advocating. People will say that they were asking for greater choice and they will think it is terrific that they will have the same range of choice as people in the cities. They will have the opportunity of having three organisations in competition with each other, striving to provide them with better programs throughout the year. They will also have the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Thus, they will have as much choice as everyone else. They will reject the Opposition's views. Yesterday the Opposition tried to get the ethnic vote by trying to con those people into believing that they were--(Quorum formed) As I was saying, we have seen two tactical mistakes by the Opposition. One was made yesterday in relation to the SBS and ABC merger. The Opposition thought it would be able to convince the ethnic community that it was really on side, but the ethnic community was too smart. It instantly woke up that Opposition members were just opportunists. We have seen the comments in newspapers such as Il Globo which said that the Opposition's policy was `nonsense' and that Opposition members were `frauds' in trying to convince the ethnic community that they were supporting it. Regional country people will feel exactly the same on this issue. Here we are coming forward with the most progressive changes that have been made in television broadcasting since television was introduced to Australia. The Opposition is trying to convince people that it will give greater choice simply by giving supplementary licences. Opposition members know that that is not what people want; they want better programming and they will get that only by having more competition, which is what we are providing. Some comments have also been made about the fact that the indicative plan has been changed a number of times. It has been said that that was done because some of our back benchers were worried about what was going on in their electorates. The reality is that the indicative plans that were published in the first place were there for discussion and consideration. Certainly, honourable members responded as they should have when people in the industry came to them and said that they did not think the plans were really as good as they could be. Those people claimed that a number of changes should be made and that it was important that they be made. Those honourable members quite rightly took up those points of view and those points were taken into account in the indicative plan that has been tabled. I believe that the overwhelming response from the industry is one of satisfaction. Sure, there will still be some who may be dissatisfied with the result, but basically the vast majority of people will be satisfied with the indicative plan. I congratulate the Minister on his effort in this area. I am sure that people in the country will become even more attracted to our Government, given the changes that we have made in television-changes for which they have been asking for 30 years. They will finally get those changes because there is a Labor Government here in Canberra. Mr EVERINGHAM(Northern Territory)(4.47) —The honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) quite rightly said that people in regional Australia-I think I have paraphrased his words accurately-should be entitled to see on television major sporting events which their city cousins are able to see. As I understand it, unfortunately at present the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is set on a course to equip itself with policies and equipment which will preclude people in regional Australia and in the remoter areas from obtaining access to sports transmissions which are the exclusive property of commercial channels which do not service those regional areas but which might be prepared, in other circumstances, to allow free access by the ABC to these sports transmissions. I would hope that the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) would look very carefully at these proposals that are coming forward as they particularly affect areas such as my electorate where people are particularly disadvantaged in respect of not only commercial services but also ABC services. The Minister should try to guard against this and try to give these people as much access as possible to programs that other Australians take as a matter of course. Today I wish to speak principally on a matter which affects the whole philosophy of regulation and licensing of broadcasting in Australia. Two months ago the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal awarded a commercial television licence to a publicly funded company. For the first time in Australia a commercial licence has gone to a community group which has raised its initial capital entirely from the Australian taxpayer. This is despite the fact that there is a commercial bidder for the licence ready and willing to provide a service at no cost to the taxpayer. Further, for the first time in Australia a commercial television licence has been awarded on racial grounds; and for the first time in Australia a commercial television licence has been given to a group which happily professes the aim of putting the interests of a small minority of its audience first. This combination of factors should give members of this House something to think about. A precedent has been set which throws into question the entire issue of commercial television and broadcasting licensing in this country. I am speaking, of course, of the Tribunal's decision to award the fourth and final remote area commercial television licence in Australia to Imparja Television of Central Australia. The charge has been made that this is nothing less than social experimentation. I had expected that Imparja would deny this charge but-and I believe that this is indicative of the sort of thinking that is on the ascendancy over this issue-Imparja agrees. Chairwoman Freda Glynne told an Australian Broadcasting Corporation Countrywide reporter: I think it's very good that Australia has been-and the Tribunal has been-brave enough to allow this social experiment to happen. And we know what is said about brave or courageous decisions on the program Yes Minister. In this case the brave decision has been taken at the taxpayers' expense. Imparja has received some $5m in government grants and loans, including $1m from the South Australian Government and $2.5m that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) managed to wheedle out of bicentennial funds. It may be that this Government has decided that there should be an Aboriginal television licence awarded in Central Australia. By `Central Australia' I mean that part of the middle of Australia south of Darwin and north of Port Augusta. I would have my doubts about that but, if that is the case, the Government should declare that intention publicly and make special provision for it to happen, because the management of this affair to date has been a history of interim arrangement, taxpayers' funds scrabbled from various coffers and none too subtle pressure on the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. Let us look at the facts. We have just been debating the amalgamation of the Special Broadcasting Service and the ABC. The Government says that this is a necessary cost saving arrangement. On the one hand, the Government argues that it must save money on radio and television broadcasts aimed specifically at a multicultural audience. On the other hand, it argues that one small group of people in Central Australia-in this context that means everywhere north of Port Augusta and south of Darwin-an audience of around 25,000 people of a single ethnic background should have total control of their own television station. And total control by a single racial group is what it is. The articles of association of Imparja state that `at all times the majority of shareholders of Imparja shall be Aboriginal organisations or Aboriginal persons or persons of Aboriginal Descent'. Effectively there is no room in this television company for anyone of any other origin than Aboriginal. That is the exclusive requirement, and this is a television station to service an area in which 80 per cent of the audience is non-Aboriginal. Further, the Government agrees that, although this is to be a commercial television licence, taxpayers' funds should be diverted from other projects to support this station. Do not think that the $5m to date will be sufficient. Estimates are that this television station will need to find another $22.5m over the next few years to stay on air. In the budgetary context, of course, $30m or so over several years is not a great deal. But it is a great deal of money to give 30,000 viewers an anticipated half an hour a week of personalised viewing in their own language, which is what Imparja says it will be able to provide initially to the six Aboriginal language groups in its area. In fact, if we do our arithmetic it amounts to personalised television broadcasts to individuals subsidised at the rate of about $40 per person per hour from the taxpayers. I certainly hope that every single viewer of this particularly favoured audience is tuned in and attentive. Mr Duffy —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. It is not difficult to respond to the matters raised by the honourable member for Northern Territory, but I suggest that, having regard to the fact that people have cut back time for the debate, the honourable member have a look at the Bill. The relevance of the remote commercial television service to this Bill totally escapes me. It has no relevance. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —The Minister has made his point. I ask the honourable member for the Northern Territory to be relevant to the Bill. Mr EVERINGHAM —I have said virtually all I have to say, quite frankly, about this matter, but I will be pleased if the Minister can answer what I have said here today because this commercial licence is not a specially funded television licence with an ethnic slant. The situation is that the people of my electorate, the area which this licence has been granted to service, has one ABC service and they are particularly concerned and deeply angry about what has now transpired. I am here to put their views. I have put their views and I really consider the Minister's attitude to this matter to be one of great concern where a very small group is to be financially favoured at the expense of the vast majority. Mr IAN ROBINSON(Page)(4.55) —Regional television in Australia has been developed over two decades to provide a technical standard and a program content unsurpassed by any other country. Regional licensing and conditions of establishment and the introduction in the early 1960s of regional television set a pattern which has been singularly successful in providing to the community a service which has been highly motivated in serving each community under the umbrella of the originating station or, in many places, translators or, in some places, second transmitters. Regions throughout Australia have during this period been provided with a commercial channel and an Australian Broadcasting Corporation channel and some localities have been fortunate enough to be able to receive more than one commercial channel as well as the ABC. Earlier in the debate the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) and later this afternoon the honourable member for Aston (Mr Saunderson) were critical of the development of regional television in Australia. I believe that their criticism is quite unjustified. Really they have no precise knowledge if they claim, as the honourable member for Aston did, that regional television programs are not much good. I think his words were that they are bad programs and the solution is competition. Obviously he knows little of the history and the development of regional television in Australia. The legislation which we are dealing with proposes the introduction of additional channels to give the five million viewers in regional Australia equity with the metropolitan area. That is the claim, of course, of the Government in this matter. My assessment of metropolitan television leads me to wonder what country viewers and people in regional areas-that is, five million viewers-have been missing. Quite frankly, I think that there is not a standard and not a field of alternative programming quite to the extent that one might expect from the enormous conglomerate metropolitan television media in Australia. On the other hand, I want to say in the brief time available that I am sure that many of us appreciate the effort that the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy), who is at the table, has put in to arrive at the present plan that came into the House yesterday-the indicative plan known as the plan for the creation of new regional television markets. We are well aware that earlier a very tough proposition was being put, one that would certainly have crucified many of the television stations in regional Australia which are not enormously viable, which do not have huge reserves of capital and which would have to face up to enormous outlays to meet what was proposed. The plan we now have is certainly more reasonable than the one that was around the corridors of this place some weeks ago. Certainly there is a need to ensure that, whatever comes of this legislation, regional television is not forced to bow down to the metropolitan media magnates of this country. There has been a complex and confusing process from the early announcement of multi-channel services until the legislation which came before us last week. Multi-channel services and supplementary licensing were proposed, of course, quite some time ago-certainly supplementary licensing was. Many of the regional stations, or their companies, proceeded to provide capital and, in many instances, even buildings to accommodate the proposal for supplementary licensing. Then of course came the major move-aggregation. It is as a consequence of that that we are debating this legislation this afternoon. I want to say briefly that in my area, northern New South Wales, there is a history that is worth remembering. In the early 1960s two commercial stations were licensed. One of them was put on to a frequency that was technically incorrect, so its signal had to be changed and it had to get another number on the dial within two years of launching. That was a commercial disaster for that company, but it recovered and then subsequently found that things were so tight that amalgamation with the adjoining company was necessary to provide a viable service for the northern coast of New South Wales, from Port Macquarie to the Gold Coast. I believe that the history of what occurred in that region should not be overlooked in the administration of what is proposed under this legislation. Viability is absolutely essential. Of course, it is easy to claim that those companies which are licensed to operate television stations have a status of commercial wealth. That is not always the case; it depends on what the station is doing, how it is doing its job, the standard it is providing and what the community is receiving as a consequence of the operation that is carried on by the regional station. I know that the Minister has taken some heed of localism over a long period, yet in his second reading speech he said that he wanted to comment on that aspect. He said that assessment had shown that an average of only 7 per cent of the time of regional stations is devoted to regional interests, regional programming and so on. I presume that he was referring to such things as news programs, public affairs programs, sponsorship for charities and the like. So far as my area is concerned, the extent of localism has been enormous-there is a half-hour news program for five evenings a week. The extent of localism is borne out on the basis of facts that can be stated. For instance, one-third of the journalists employed in all television networks in Australia are employed by regional television stations. Of 310 journalists engaged in the business of television news gathering, 102 of them are employed by regional stations. If one looks at the ratio of outlays, income and communities served, on those statistics alone there is no doubt that there is a very substantial contribution to localism by regional television stations. Yet the Minister said that competition will ensure that there is emphasis in this direction. This immediately raises the question of market viability, because if we are to proliferate, taking northern New South Wales as an example, under aggregation each of the three stations would have to set up studios and engage staff in at least two additional major centres. The outlays on additional staff, for example, could run to a very substantial figure to ensure that there is localism over each of the stations as a consequence of aggregation. Time does not permit me to traverse all of the aspects that are so important in this field, but I want to say that whilst on the one hand the plan is one of substance and one which the industry is able to see clearly and to assess, some assurances are still required-the Minister referred to them in his speech-on the availability of certain channels. The very high frequency situation in northern New South Wales is such that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is not able to introduce a frequency modulation service north of Port Macquarie because of the failure so far to gain clearance of VHF channels. The community at large was invited to comment on the Green Paper on the development of the ABC service. The time for comments ended in January or February of this year, but to my knowledge there has been no response from the Government in respect of comments on the proposals. If we look at the detail of that matter, we find proposals to split regions, involving an enormous capital outlay and additional ongoing cost. The Government has found it tough going to do this. I believe that some of it could be staggered over a longer period because of the existing fairly satisfactory services, but what is lacking on the part of the ABC is something effective in the FM field. That is where there is a real demand. On the question of viability, one must always be mindful of what the proposal for aggregation will mean. It will mean that a very substantial capital outlay and cost will be involved. That cost, under any commercial operation, must be recouped, so straight away we find that there is another element of very great significance so far as localism is concerned. There is the consequent cost of advertising for local advertisers in regional areas. It is all very well to say that major national advertising is available for television stations, but if we are to be honest in the matter of regional television, we must ensure that the cost of advertising is not pushed beyond the means of the small businessmen or communities which require the use of a local regional television station. Local regional television stations provide news services, public affairs services and related concessions that a station can give, but the rest of it is a commercial operation. However, this seems to have been lost sight of by the many people who have spoken so glibly about providing competition. Another aspect is the matter of multi-channel services. If the existing operator is to provide a program through a second service-in other words, through the licensing of a service that gives a parallel operation-the operator will see to it that the program is so split that an alternative program is available to the community which accords with what is on the other channel. On the other hand, if we go straight into aggregation, that will mean that a program will be designed so that there is sport against sport, news against news, drama against drama or movie against movie. I suggest one analogy. There is a lot of argument about the provision of effective schedules for air services in this country. We find ourselves facing parallel flights on airlines because that is the time everybody wants to travel. Likewise with television-everyone wants to watch at a particular time. So there is a limit to competition; there is a limit to the reality of what can be achieved in respect of competition. It is vital that the economic aspects be taken into account fully in the administration of the proposal before us in this legislation. In conclusion, I strongly support the amendment proposed by the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee). I recognise the effort that the Minister has put into this matter and I hope that, as a consequence, there will be reality rather than what can only be described as a pie in the sky-a pie in the sky that could be damaging for the viability of regional television unless very great care is taken. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(5.09) —The legislation before the Parliament is the culmination of many years of discussions and consideration so far as the Government and the community are concerned. I want to say a few words about this legislation as it affects commercial television in country areas, in particular in northern New South Wales. We have to appreciate the fact that we in regional Australia are very lucky indeed to have a service that is comparable with the service anywhere else in Australia and certainly throughout the world. I personally believe that and I am sure honourable members join with me in that belief. So far as regional commercial television is concerned, the programs and services available are comparable with any that we will find on national television screens. I do not concur with the honourable member for Aston (Mr Saunderson) who said earlier in the debate that we are ten years behind. We are not ten years behind. Today, with satellites, commercial stations, in most cases, are able to get their programs and get them very quickly. Country viewers generally throughout Australia have received a service of which commercial television and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation can be very proud. We are making great strides on television. I, like a previous speaker in this debate, have not seen the evidence of where country people, covered by commercial television, have sought extra television programs and services. Nevertheless, I appreciate the attitude of the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) and the Government. We will all go along with the fact that there should be more equality or more opportunities for people throughout Australia to view as much television as they possibly can. It is very difficult to compare commercial television in country areas with national television systems simply because national television has so many listeners and viewers throughout the country. The area that I want to refer to is the area covered by Newcastle into the west of the State and north to the Queensland border. The Minister has announced that there will be a duplication of the three commercial services available. The honourable member for Page (Mr Ian Robinson) spoke about northern New South Wales television. There are also Channel 3 Newcastle and NEN 9-8, which covers Tamworth and Taree. There will be a duplication of the three services over a period. The aspect that concerns me is the one-in all-in attitude under aggregation at the moment. I know that there will be a multi-service available. The opportunity will be there for the Government to bring this in over a period. I understand that this will be done. The fact of the matter is that it is very strange that a government can turn around and say to not only these three stations but also the other television stations throughout Australia: `If one of you three says that we should aggregate, you have to do it'. Surely in a democratic society the majority should decide that. I am extremely disappointed to see that this is part of the legislation before the Parliament. What matters is not so much equality but the quality of the programs that are available today to the people of Australia. I want to say something, briefly, about the services-I will emphasise the local point of view-that are available typically from NEN 9-8. This is a tremendous service over a very wide area of northern New South Wales. Undoubtedly a similar service is also available through the other two commercial stations and maybe through the rest of the commercial stations throughout Australia. The local news takes up half an hour a day. This is so important. At Taree we may see something that is occurring up in the tablelands at Moree, Narrabri, Muswellbrook or somewhere else but at least we are in close touch and naturally in close proximity to what is occurring throughout the region. Little items matter a lot to local people living on farms, villages and towns. NEN 9-8 has won a number of awards for the services and the programs that have been available to viewers. Current affairs programs are based on local identities and on the local area. We tune in to Tamworth and often hear about the music festival, the same as we hear about the aquatic festival in Taree. This service covers these local events. When the three commercial stations have the cost of extra duplication, will they be able to continue this excellent local service that we are receiving? We see a nature series there. I know that NEN 9-8 has produced some of these programs. They have been sold to other television stations throughout Australia and throughout the world they have been made available to people. Let us look at employment. NEN 9-8 alone has eight journalists and six cameramen. These stations have raised tremendous funds for local charity groups-$1.2m has been raised for the handicapped and is to be spent within that area. From a viability point of view, will they be able to continue with this service on such a local basis? I ask the Minister this because I want him to visualise for a moment the three commercial stations covering each other's areas, the costs that will be involved and the tens of millions of dollars that will take them down the road to acquiring the material and the facilities. It is a gigantic undertaking. The honourable member for Page made the observation a while ago that this money must be raised somewhere-either from banking, financial facilities or from members of the public who wish to invest in shares. These commercial stations have to be a commercial proposition for investors. These matters are most relevant. It is not only a case of what we are going to view on television. I have confidence that the programs we want will be there if the station is viable. The foundation of over 20 to 30 years that has been laid for commercial television throughout Australia has to be maintained. If it is maintained I have no doubt that the Minister will be correct in what he says. In conclusion, I want to touch on the advertising side. It is terribly important that the smaller businessman is able to advertise on television. He wants to be able to compete. He will have to compete with our national television programs and the national advertisements that we see. We sometimes get tired of seeing them time and again. But we love to see our local tyre service or our local furniture man spending his-- Mr McVeigh —Or butter factory. Mr COWAN —That is right, a butter factory. We love to see the small businessman earning his hard-earned cash in order to be able to advertise and to promote his business in the community in which he lives. These are the fundamentals of the legislation that is before the Parliament. The people in country areas are concerned about these matters. They want their programs. They will accept that we must have a coverage of three stations. They may think that is very good. Having a little knowledge of the subject, I am saying that the important fact is that commercial television must remain viable and be able to give these programs and services to people-a service that is already there. And I suppose many others would love to know what the Minister is thinking on ownership control. Mr Macphee —Wouldn't we all? Mr COWAN —This is important to commercial television. It is important for us to know the opportunities the big boys have. Although the Government might not say this, it is the government of monopolies. There is no doubt about this. Mr Tim Fischer —And cronyism with Packer and Murdoch. Mr COWAN —The Government is setting up legislation of monopolies and cronyism. I have sat in parliaments for a number of years. I have heard Labor members get up and talk about the poor little fellows. But there are more poor little fellows now than there were before. What about the bigger boys? I congratulate the Minister for his stand. He has been strong in what he has tried to do against the wishes of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). I believe that this is very important indeed. What should the viewing percentage be throughout Australia? Should one company control 35 or 40 per cent of the viewing level throughout Australia, or should it come back to 30 per cent? What should the ownership control be? What rights have one or two of these bigger companies to move into our smaller country commercial television stations. We have to consider these facts. If this legislation provides that one or more of our smaller commercial television stations are not viable, my word, there will be a takeover by the bigger hawks. They will want to move in and they will want to tease the others who are in competition with them within that region. These are the realities of life that we want to think about. I know that the Minister has done his best and I commend him for that. I have never criticised him because I think he has a very sound approach in many respects to many of the matters within his portfolio. All I am asking is that common sense prevail. If changes are necessary in the future to look after commercial television in country areas I just ask that common sense prevail, based upon the ability and the viability of those companies concerned to be able to supply the viewing public with what we, in the country areas of New South Wales, have been accustomed to in recent years. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(5.21) —Firstly, I will dispose of the only unpleasant aspect of what I think has been a very interesting debate, that is, the contribution by the honourable member for Northern Territory (Mr Everingham), in which he said that this Government may have decided to have an Aboriginal broadcaster. No such decision was taken. Imparja Television went before the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal with the other applicant. The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal determined that Imparja would be the successful applicant. I note that the honourable member for the Northern Territory said that-these are his words-`there was a none too subtle pressure on the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal'. I suggest to the honourable member for the Northern Territory that it is about time that he decided to name the persons who he alleges brought the none too subtle pressure on the ABT. Preferably, he ought to go outside this House and say it and face the consequences of what he says. It is also an outrageous slur on the ABT to suggest that it could be subjected to pressure in the way that the honourable member for the Northern Territory has mentioned. His contribution was almost beneath contempt but I think it was necessary to answer at least those couple of points. I would like to thank all those honourable members who took part in this debate last night and this afternoon, with the exception of the honourable member I have just mentioned. I think it is reasonable to say, with respect to the contributions today, that the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar)-yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker-the honourable member for Page (Mr Ian Robinson) and the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) put forward a considered view on the position of regional television. I do not agree with all of what they said but they put forward a view on behalf of regional television and I accept the sincerity with which it was put. I thank them also for their comments in relation to me. I suppose that I should enjoy it while I can. We have tried fairly hard to reach what has now been referred to as a reasonable compromise and that has been the attitude of regional television to the final position that has been reached. Mr Deputy Speaker, the same applies to you. I have had the opportunity of saying on other occasions that I think the quality of debate in this House would be greatly enhanced if there were more people like you and more contributions such as the one that you made from honourable members on both sides of the House. I go now to some of the matters of substance that were raised by members of the Opposition. I will deal first with the ones that were raised last night and I will then attempt to cover some of the matters raised today by the honourable member for Wide Bay, the honourable member for Page and the honourable member for Lyne. I think they all had one thing in common-that is, they preferred the supplementary licence scheme to the Government's aggregation policy. That view was put by the shadow Minister for Communications, the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee), last night. I will deal with his comments in a moment but at this stage I take the opportunity of thanking him for the way in which the debate has been handled, particularly in relation to Government amendments. He facilitated that in a way which will save a lot of the time of the House, and that is greatly appreciated. I thank him also for his general attitude to this whole debate. Yesterday he went through a period of irrational behaviour on the amalgamation of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service and I was delighted to see him return to his normal, urbane approach during the latter part of the debate. On reflection, he may also look back on that as being a rather unfortunate experience that he went through earlier in that day. The supplementary licence scheme was a creation of the previous Government. We inherited it in 1983 and made a genuine attempt to make it work. However, it was a scheme that had so many complications built into it that it proved to be quite unworkable; there is no doubt about that. That is not just the Government's view, it is the view of industry itself. Regional Television Australia has not suggested, as an industry, that we return to the supplementary licence scheme and the multi-channel service permits-the MCSs-are mark 2 of the supplementary licences. We have removed the unproductive clutter in the legislation and the effect for the viewers is exactly the same as if supplementary licences had been granted. Three services have been provided by the same licensee. In addition to streamlining the legislation we have provided, for the first time, a clear timetable for the next decade-1986-96-during which time everyone in the industry knows exactly what he is required to do. I noticed that the honourable member for Goldstein mentioned that well-known comment of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) when he referred to one of my proposals for regional television as being Sunday Too Far Away. He was not referring to aggregation. In fact, he has missed the point. His reference was not to the timetable for providing extra services-it is much the same under any approach-but to the fact that competition was unlikely to occur for a very long time. The reference to Sunday Too Far Away was a reference to the question of competition. Of course, competition does occur as soon as aggregation takes place. Last night both the honourable member for Goldstein and the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull) alleged that the Government was not utilising new technologies and they referred to fibre optics and satellite delivery systems. Anyone who knows me reasonably well will realise that I cannot fail to comment on matters of technology as it is an area with which I am so well acquainted. I think those honourable members again missed the point in this area. In fact, the whole equalisation policy hinges upon the use of new technologies. I really do not know what they were on about. It is interesting to note that the satellite program service report of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in July 1984 was the first official publication to recommend aggregation. It agreed that satellite delivery of signals provided the Government with an historic opportunity to review the basis on which television services have been licensed. We have reached this day by changing the legislation to a service area base instead of a technical base and by planning for the aggregation of service areas in a way which is highly compatible with satellite delivery of signals. Their comments portray a very scant knowledge of long term planning. It should be noted, firstly, that aggregation does use the satellite system and, secondly-another point which I think was missed-there may never be a second generation satellite system. The Board of Aussat Pty Ltd has not yet decided on that issue, nor has the Government as a shareholder of Aussat. Telecom Australia's plan for fibre optic cables addresses the links between main capital cities, central business districts and then urban centres. It is unlikely to address the cabling of cities, making signals available to houses during the currency of this indicative plan-the next 10 years, 1986 to 1996. Even then, I think it is likely that broadcasting will involve a combination of satellite delivery, terrestrial and cable transmission from head ends and direct broadcasting into the home. So it is a combination of all of those and I do not think that we missed out on addressing those issues. It has also been argued that the Government's relaxed ownership and control plans should have been made known before the indicative plan was decided. The honourable member for Lyne said that he would like to know what my thinking was on the ownership and control issue. The honourable member for Goldstein interjected: `Wouldn't we all?'. They will not have very long to wait for that because it is likely that there will be a Government decision on that issue at a very early date; by that I mean probably within the next fortnight. As I have said, it was argued that the relaxed ownership and control rules should have been known before the indicative plan was decided. The Government is well aware that relaxed ownership and control rules provide an important trigger for aggregation and it has consistently made this point over the last 12 or 18 months of public discussion. For the same reason, we have freely foreshadowed a relaxation of the two-station rule. There is no doubt that that will go. I must say that I was interested in most of what the honourable member said. I could not disagree with him because he was expressing genuine concerns. The honourable member for Page made two interesting points that I would like to take up. He talked about the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's failure to be able to provide an FM service. Of course, that is because of the need for the band 2 clearance, which this Government has been the only government prepared to face up to. We are proceeding with the clearance of band 2, which will allow the expansion of FM radio-something that the Liberal and National parties did not ever face in the 1960s. That assigning of a frequency in the 1960s which sent some stations to the wall in the area represented by the honourable member again had nothing to do with this Government. Unfortunately, as honourable members will recall, the 1960s was a period of domination by Liberal-Country Party coalitions. The two-station rule is something that honourable members opposite have tolerated since 1960 or 1961. It is absurd that they equated a person owning two licences, one in Melbourne and one in Sydney, serving 43 per cent of the population, with someone who happened to own a licence in Port Pirie or Broken Hill and was serving 0.4 per cent of the population. The same position applied; they could not go any further. That was tolerated over a period of more than 20 years of Liberal-National Party government, with three years of the Whitlam Government included in that period. But the two-station rule will go. That has been clearly stated by this Government. So existing or new licensees will be able to invest in many more stations than is at present possible under the ridiculous rule known as the two-station rule. The only question is about the maximum level of ownership to be permitted. That has yet to be decided. It is hard to say how the Government could be expected to make ownership and control decisions before deciding the indicative plan. I take the point that it may have been useful for people to have known. But, until the indicative plan was decided and a system for aggregating and consolidating existing licences was in place, what would the new ownership and control rules really have meant? They would not have meant a great deal until we reached the stage that we have now reached in this debate. They could not be given a precise form when the size of the markets to be covered by them was not known. That was not known until yesterday. The other matter raised by the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) was about the 28 days for election. That matter has also been raised again with me by the honourable member for Goldstein, as the shadow Minister for Communications, on behalf of the industry. The election period has been shortened to compensate for delays in introducing legislation, while meeting the Government's objective of maintaining the aggregation completion date. There has been considerable public consultation and debate over aspects of the draft indicative plan. This has put licensees in a good position to be able to respond quickly to the questions about whether licensees are opting for aggregation or multi-channel services. In addition to that, they have a full three months after the election date to submit implementation plans. I can put this matter to rest at this stage by saying that, in light of those representations by the honourable member for Goldstein, on behalf of the industry, we can delay the gazettal until at least the end of December. In addition, that will take the election date to at least the end of January. That probably meets the genuine concerns that have been expressed in that regard. Last night the honourable member for Goldstein also raised the question of sales tax on transmitters. I think the honourable member for Bass also raised that matter and the extent of the sales tax exemption proposed. Licensees who choose to use the MCS path to aggregation will be eligible for sales tax exemption on the purchase of their transmitters. The Government's decision to restrict the sales tax exemption to transmitters is deliberate as their equipment can clearly be identified as being purchased for aggregation. If that is not the case, it is not our view that that equipment should be so exempted. It is aggregation that is being encouraged. The other equipment suggested as coming within the exemption can be used for a variety of purposes. The same situation applies to licence fee rebates. The rebate is designed as a commercial incentive to encourage licensees to opt for aggregation instead of utilising the MCS option. The one-in all-in rule is another policy reflected in the Bill which is weighted in favour of aggregation. The honourable member for Lyne, the honourable member for Page, and I think you, Mr Deputy Speaker, expressed concern about localism and employment consequences. The honourable member for Goldstein and the honourable member for Fadden also raised that issue last night. However, I must repeat that on average over 90 per cent of programs already come from major networks. The demand for local news and programming is well established in regional areas and will continue to be. In a competitive environment, it is our view that those operators who maintain or increase local content will be the ones likely to attract a greater viewing audience, with beneficial commercial implications. Larger markets will provide additional programming, advertisement production opportunities and resources to draw on, with economies of scale which will allow larger regional operations to develop increased and innovative local programming. This has positive implications for employment, given that additional sales, news and production staff will be required in a wider range of regional centres. I do not share the concerns expressed on that issue, for the reasons outlined. They are genuine concerns but they are not well founded. In that regard it has been acknowledged that there is concern. I have always had concern for localism and the retention of regional television. The honourable member for Page mentioned employment by regional television operators. Of course, regional television in Australia employs more people than the whole of the networks put together. There is no question about that. This Government's decision in not allowing direct broadcasting, not allowing that to start in the back door way by allowing the networks to have the remote commercial television services, was the crucial step in that area. Points were raised about technology. It is very difficult to predict what will happen in the future. One thing that will happen is that regional television will have the chance to provide the diversity of programming and the choice that people in country areas demand. The honourable member for Lyne indicated that he had not seen a great deal of evidence of that. In looking at that issue and in moving around regional Australia, I must say that that has not been my experience. It is my view that people in regional Australia do want more programming. They want diversity and more choice. This proposal gives regional television a chance to provide that type of programming and thereby stave off what would otherwise be inevitable-the demand for direct broadcasting in Australia. It may come one day because technology will probably take it over. As I have said on many occasions, no government can rule that out in the long term. Certainly regional television deserved a chance to restructure, and it has been given that chance. In closing, I thank members of the Opposition for their contributions and I also thank members on the Government side, particularly all the members of the infrastructure committee, including the honourable member for Aston (Mr Saunderson) and the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles), as Chairman and Secretary. I thank also my personal staff for their assistance in what has been a long haul. I thank officers of my Department for the enormous amount of work that they have done, and particularly Mr Peter Westaway, with whom of course I have worked very closely. I also thank members of Regional Television Australia, some members of which were present today. I noticed that the Secretary, Mr Ken Stone, and Mr Bill Rayner were present in the House. We have had a lot of disagreements over the last three years but we have gone a long way and I thank them for their courtesy and co-operation over that period. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Macphee's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. C. Millar) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 56 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 10 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A. Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J. Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J. Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C. Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E. Brown, John Lamb, A. H. Brown, Robert 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. Dubois, S. G. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morris, PeterEdwards, Ronald Mountford, J. G. Fatin, W. F. O'Keefe, N. P. Fitzgibbon, E. J. O'Neil, L. R. T. Free, R. V. Saunderson, J. Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W. Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H. Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R. Holding, A. C. Theophanous, A. C. Hollis, C. Tickner, R. E. Howe, B. L. Uren, T. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) West, S. J. Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W. Jakobsen, C. A. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Jull, D. F. Aldred, K. J. Katter, R. C. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B. Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S. Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J. Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Brown, N. A. McVeigh, D. T. Cadman, A. G. Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G. Cameron, Ewen Nehl, G. B. Carlton, J. J. Peacock, A. S. Cobb, M. R. Porter, J. R. Coleman, W. P. Reith, P. K. Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanConquest, B. J. Rocher, A. C. Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M. Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D. Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J. Everingham, P. A. E. Shipton, R. F. Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I, McC. Fischer, Tim Slipper, P. N. Goodluck, B. J. Smith, W. Halverson, R. G. Spender, J. M. Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Watson, D. J. H. Hodges, J. C. Webster, A. P. Hodgman, W. M. White, P. N. D. Hunt, R. J. D. Wilson, I. B. C. Darling, E. E. Moore, J. R. Duncan, P. Burr, M. A. Price, L. R. S. Sullivan, K. J. Jacobi, J. Edwards, HarryBilney, G. N. Hall, SteeleWillis, R. Dobie, J. D. M. Dawkins, J. S. Fisher, PeterKeating, P. J. Cameron, Ian Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(5.50) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 16, page 13, line 13, omit ``an approved'', insert ``a new approved''. (2) Clause 16, page 13, at the end of proposed section 94f add the following sub-sections: `` `(7) Before the Minister varies the Indicative Plan under sub-section (1) so as to specify an area that is to be a new approved market for the purpose of this Part, the Minister shall, in addition to publishing a notice under sub-section (6)- (a) give each licensee in the area notice in writing- (i) specifying the variation proposed to be made by the Minister; and (ii) stating that the licensee may, not later than a specified day (not less than 21 days after the day on which notice is given), make representations to the Minister relating to the proposed variation; and (b) the Minister shall have regard to any representations so made. `(8) A reference in this section to a licensee in an area is a reference to the holder of a licence whose service area is within that first-mentioned area.''. (3) Clause 16, page 16, line 41, omit ``implementation plan'', insert ``proposed implementation plan, or the implementation plan as proposed to be varied,''. (4) Clause 16, page 16, after proposed paragraph 94m (1) (c) insert the following paragraph: ``(ca) if- (i) the implementation plan is submitted by a licensee in respect of a licence in an approved market; (ii) the implementation plan includes a proposed timetable for ceasing to provide multi-channel services; and (iii) each of the implementation plans submitted by the other licensees in the approved market includes a proposed timetable for ceasing to provide multi-channel services that is the same as, or substantially the same as, the proposed timetable referred to in sub-paragraph (ii), the desirability of the implementation plan that is to be applicable to the licensee in respect of the licence including the proposed timetable referred to in sub-paragraph (ii);''. (5) Clause 16, page 21, line 9, omit ``in accordance'', insert ``consistent''. (6) Clause 16, page 21, line 19, omit ``in accordance'', insert ``consistent''. (7) Clause 16, page 21, lines 25 and 26, omit ``by notice in writing to the licensee'', insert ``pursuant to sub-section 89d (6)''. (8) Clause 16, page 22, line 33, omit ``in accordance'', insert ``consistent''. (9) Clause 16, page 23, line 33, omit ``not''. (10) Clause 16, page 23, line 35, omit ``inconsistent'', insert ``consistent''. (11) Clause 16, page 25, lines 28 to 31, omit proposed sub-section 94za (3), insert the following sub-sections: `` `(3) The holder of an MCS permit granted in respect of a licence shall not, without the approval of the Tribunal, regularly engage in repetitive broadcasting. `(4) For the purposes of sub-section (3), the holder of an MCS permit granted in respect of a licence shall be taken to engage in repetitive broadcasting if and only if the permit holder- (a) televises pursuant to the permit a program that is being simultaneously televised pursuant to the licence or another MCS permit granted in respect of the licence; (b) televises pursuant to the permit a program that has been televised within the preceding 24 hours pursuant to the licence or another MCS permit granted in respect of the licence; or (c) televises pursuant to the licence or another MCS permit granted in respect of the licence a program that has been televised within the preceding 24 hours pursuant to the permit.''. (12) Clause 16, page 25, line 32, omit ``(3)'', insert ``(4)''. (13) Clause 16, page 30, line 27, omit ``, (3) and (4),'', insert ``and (3) and''. (14) Clause 16, page 30, line 28, omit ``and sub-section 94q (1)''. These amendments to the Broadcasting Amendment Bill were referred to last night in considerable detail when the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) granted leave to allow me to add to my second reading speech on this Bill. Because of the facilitation at that stage by the honourable member for Goldstein, I do not propose to take the time of the Committee at this stage to go through the amendments in detail and speak to them, as I did last night, because the comments are already on record. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein)(5.51) —Anyone who has been listening to the debate this afternoon on the Broadcasting Amendment Bill and the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill would not have heard the debate last night because it was not broadcast. A fundamental policy difference remains between the Government and the Opposition over the question of whether there should be supplementary licences initially, or aggregation to which the Government is committed. We have a strong policy difference. Having said that, I can say that the harmony to which the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) and others have referred this afternoon relates to the Minister's very mature and sensible approach, which is not as typical of the behaviour of members of this Parliament as one would wish, in dealing with our objections to the actual legislation proposed to implement that part of the policy with which we disagree. I commend the Minister for that. He has accepted most of our foreshadowed amendments. He has provided ample opportunity for me to discuss them with him and the Department of Communications, and I thank him for that civilised approach. We accept the amendments. The Minister has provided assurances regarding a number of other matters of concern, especially that regarding the program for implementation of the Government's proposals. I was pleased to hear his assurance about that today. I will refer briefly to the amendments and then go, if I may, to some of the remarks which the Minister made, by leave, in his statement last night. Firstly, we accept amendments (1) and (2). Amendments (3) and (4) meet requests which we made of the Minister, and we thank him for acceding to those requests. Amendments (5), (6), (8), (9) and (10) produce certainty of drafting, and therefore of interpretation, of the legislation. I have to say in passing that it is a mystery to me how the Office of Parliamentary Counsel ever came to cause any uncertainty in the first place. Amendment (7), like amendment (2), improves consultation between the Minister and the industry, and we strongly support that. Amendments (11) and (12) also meet industry concerns, and we support them. Amendments (13) and (14) relate to the delegation of the Minister's power. For the Opposition these were quite serious concerns. Both the industry and the Opposition expressed these concerns to the Minister. On a brief examination of the proposed amendments they seem to me to cure the problem but, if, on closer examination, we require further assurances, in the spirit of these dealings I am sure that we can ask the Minister to have a clarifying statement made on his behalf in the Senate. In the Minister's statement last night he referred to what he called `other contentious issues'. I now wish to comment upon some matters, to which I ask the Minister to reply. Under the heading `Need for Markets with New Additional Licence', the Minister refers to Tasmania. The situation in Tasmania is very confusing. An editorial in the Hobart Mercury today expresses the concerns of that outlet, and many of the people who have rung me today from Tasmania share the misgivings expressed in it. The Minister will have read it, and he may wish to reply. As we know, under this policy Tasmania is a special case. The situation, as we understand it, is that the existing licensee has two licences. He has a very high frequency licence in Launceston and VHF licence in Hobart. Under this policy he has been given a special option which is not open to any other licensee. I must ask the Minister to listen to this very serious matter to which I would like an answer. As I understand this option, the licensee can consolidate into one licence the two licences, thereby retaining the VHF option. Then the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal must hold a hearing for a new licence without invoking the test of commercial viability. We do not argue with that. The other option is that the licensee can sell his licence. Both of the existing licences then can cover the entire State. I ask the Minister: Must they go on the ultra high frequency transmission, or can they both be VHF? To me it seems a terribly important question, for a lot of reasons to which I will refer later when I refer to UHF transmission. I will take the Minister back to his statement, on which I think he should dwell in the interests of the viewers in Tasmania. I think one of my Tasmanian colleagues wants to refer to the problems. I go back to the Minister's statement regarding Western Australia and South Australia. Again I want the Minister to answer the questions: Will the metropolitan stations be able to take over or provide services in the regions which they now do not cover? Can regional stations go to Adelaide or Perth, other than by buying an existing station? I ask these questions because on the east coast the people who share what are called approved markets have a reciprocity of market entry. Under the proposals in the legislation, as I understand it, people in the regions of South Australia and Western Australia can go down the multi-channel service option, and no aggregation option is yet proposed. What is very likely in both those States is that ultimately an aggregated approved market would be the entire State. What will really happen to the viewers and the licensees in Bunbury, Albany, Kalgoorlie and Geraldton in the case of Western Australia, and Port Pirie, Loxton and Mount Gambier in the case of South Australia? We ask the Minister to comment on that in the interests of the viewers and the licensees in those States. Now we come to look at the powers of the Minister to revoke or suspend multi-channel services. This is an unfettered power which I do not believe the Minister has yet explained or justified. Will he please explain that unfettered power which is conferred by proposed sub-section 94y (1). In his statement last night he explained-we accept his explanation-proposed sub-section 94v (2) in respect of the granting of a multi-channel service licence, but we do not accept it in respect of revocation or suspension. Under this legislation there is no constraint; not even an inquiry is being called for. On what basis, then, will the Minister make his decision? We believe it is unnecessary and we cannot envisage a need for that use. We know that the multi-channel service is quite expensive. It will be very expensive with the deadline of aggregation, even at its latest. It will involve considerable capital investment, considerable operating costs, and the service which people enjoy could, it seems, be interfered with substantially if there is a revocation or suspension of an MCS licence. I am sure that this Minister would not terminate or suspend a licence capriciously, but I ask him: When would he envisage its use? Lastly in this segment, I query the ownership and control rules as they might apply to a multi-channel service. If a multi-channel licensee is to be debarred from buying a licence in another approved market, it seems to me that that would be grossly unfair and could set back even the policy which the Government is proposing. I would argue that anyone who elects, under this Bill, to take the multi-channel service option ought to have the opportunity of buying another station in another market. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MILES(Braddon)(6.01) —I would like to refer to the situation in Tasmania because of the monopoly which exists there at the moment in the commercial television area. I would just like to read from the editorial referred to by the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) in today's Mercury. The editorial states: However, the Tasmanian monopoly is likely to accept the first option offered under the Federal Government's incredibly generous legislation. This is to sell one of the stations to a competitor of its choice. Frankly, the Federal Government's inclusion of this provision must have resulted from either naivety or stupidity, or both. It opens the way for the existing monopoly broadcaster to sell a station to a group sympathetic to its cause. This indicates a potential for the sale of a station to a new company formed of members of the families of those who control the existing monopoly. The Government may believe such a scenario may be far-fetched. It may not have even crossed the minds of those who control commercial television in Tasmania. But it is a possibility, and if such a possibility became a reality, then Tasmanian television, and its long-suffering viewers, would be no better off. The Federal Government must, as a matter of urgency, reconsider its legislation, and do something to reduce the scope it has allowed for monopoly television to continue in this State. I think it is very important that there is a real opportunity to ensure that a monopoly does not continue in regard to television in Tasmania. I believe that, in light of the way in which the Tasmanian system is set up at the moment, this proposal is contrary to the objectives as expressed by the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) in his May statement, one of which was to prevent extension of existing regional monopolies by encouraging competition. I believe that this let-out for ENT Ltd means that that competition may not actually arise. Also I query a report in the Australian today which, quoting the Minister, says: . . . by 1993 the Government would end the commercial television monopoly in Tasmania, where the Rouse family companies control the sole services in Hobart and Launceston. That comment does not seem to fit alongside the proposals which the Minister has outlined for Tasmania, and I would ask the Minister to make a comment about that. I would also ask the Minister to reconsider the situation in Tasmania so that ENT Ltd does not have the option of choosing whom its competitor will be so that we can try to maintain at least a semblance of objectivity about who might get the second licence. The Tasmanian people do want competition in the area of commercial television stations, and I just encourage the Minister to have another look at the matter. I look forward to some reply on those two questions. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein)(6.05) —Before the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) replies, I would like to raise a couple more subjects with him. First of all, I would like to ask him a series of questions on his own Broadcasting Amendment Bill. First, how can an approved market ever include a three-station metro market? I am referring him to proposed sub-section 94k (3) (a). This is a question of ownership and control, rather than aggregation, I would have thought. So I am putting that question to him because of the relevance of both aggregation and ownership and control policies being taken together. Secondly, what mechanisms and priorities will be used by the Minister in dealing with different implementation plans in an approved market? I am thinking there of proposed sections 94m and 94n. Thirdly, will the Minister refuse to accept one implementation plan in an approved market until he is able to accept all implementation plans relevant to the approved market? I know he deals with each plan separately, but he has to look at the overall impact when he has them before him. My next question is: Can the Minister explain the need for proposed section 94ze, and can he reconcile it with the objects of the Part in section 94 itself? Next, what effect will his video and audio entertainment and information services and other pay services, which he said will not be considered for four years, have on projections for real revenue growth? Has the Minister considered those implications? Of course, I ask that question because, as I pointed out in the Budget debate and again last night, the estimates for revenue growth have been highly exaggerated in the draft indicative plan and I think they are still problematic in the final indicative plan. So the question is: If the Government or a future government were to agree in four years or so to various forms of pay television, what impact will that have? Also, what impact will those which the Minister has already licensed under the Radiocommunications Act have on revenue for the television stations under consideration in this Bill? My final question is: Is the projected 4 per cent growth applicable to each aggregation individually or to the average of aggregations, and what will be the effect of a non-uniform so-called equalisation? Of course, the policy now before us is a non-uniform one. I would like now to raise with the Minister this question of UHF again. It is extremely important that the Minister explain to us the reasons for this sweeping decision, as I understand it. I would love to be corrected and found to be wrong but, as I understand it, all new programs will be put on UHF. The Minister has had representations from regional television engineers which have shown that this need not be done on a universal basis. The consumer has to install a UHF antenna, which is a cost of $150 approximately. Considering the fact that there are four million people in the viewing areas under consideration and dividing that by 2.5 people, as an average figure per household, one comes to a figure of 1.1 million households at a cost of $165m. That is a very substantial cost to ask the Australian consumers to pay for television viewing when it is clear that it need not be imposed on everyone. We need not go to UHF in every situation. There is also a further cost to the consumer because something in the order of 30 to 40 per cent of television sets, in order to get UHF reception, have to have a conversion made to them. Frankly, in many cases it does not work very well anyway; so people end up buying a new set. The effect of that is great expense or disenfranchising a lot of people who now have VHF reception but who would have to go to UHF if they were to enjoy these extra programs. The transmitters for the stations are dearer on UHF than on VHF and the new translators that are needed are also more expensive. There are also unforeseen pockets in which reception is poor or non-existent. There is one very near here, in the Tallanganda Shire, about which I put a question on notice to the Minister recently. The question asked: Is it a fact that between one-third and one-half of residents of Tallaganda Shire, New South Wales, will lose, or experience a reduction in, their television reception when channels WIN4 and ABC5A, Wollongong, convert to broadcasting in the UHF band? What steps are being taken by the Government to ensure that the residents of Tallaganda Shire do not suffer the loss of existing television services? We certainly do not have to use UHF universally and I am afraid that the Department of Communications' record of spectrum allocation is not inspiring. I ask a further question: If all these services are going over to UHF, will that apply to places such as Darwin and Mount Isa? What possible justification would there be for that? It has been put to the Minister by Regional Television Australia and by the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations that the use of UHF on main transmitters need occur only in about six or seven regional areas, and that was where three services were to be provided. That was a joint industry submission. I believe that the Minister must explain to us and to the viewers what possible rationalisation there is for going down that path. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(6.12) —In responding to the matters raised by the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) I will deal with the last matter first and then hope that in going through them I do not miss any of his earlier points. The need for UHF for new services is one of the very few matters about which the honourable member for Goldstein has been confused for some time. He was confused in relation to the claim that the Special Broadcasting Service had been taken off VHF and put on to UHF. The honourable member for Page (Mr Ian Robinson) raised earlier today the question of the incapacity of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation-this would apply to commercial operators also-to provide FM radio services in his area. One of the reasons for that is, as I said earlier, that for more than 20 years the Liberal Government refused to face up to the problem of clearing band 2. It would not face that issue. When the Opposition talks about the Department of Communications' record in spectrum allocation not being good, it should remember that the Department could not carry out a policy while a government sat on its hands and said that it was all a bit difficult politically, that it would cause some problems here and there and so it would have to be put off. The fact is that the VHF frequency spectrum is at a stage where it will not be able to cope with the new services that are now being provided. This is a matter that the honourable member for Goldstein will have to examine a little more closely. I think he is wrong on that issue. There is no doubt in my mind that what we are doing here is right. The problem is that we are doing it much too late; but we cannot be blamed for that, and nor can the Department be blamed when I have no doubt that if I had access to the Liberal Government's minutes-and I do not, because the Public Service operates very strictly in that regard-I would see plenty of advice to the then Government that it was about time it got off its hands and did something about the issue. There was no response; so there is no point in the honourable member criticising the Department. He can go back and criticise the continual failure of Liberal and National Party governments to face up to this issue. The second matter that was raised by the shadow spokesman and also by the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles) was the question of Tasmania. As the honourable member for Braddon will be aware-he drew attention to this fact-the Tasmanian licences are, of course, controlled by the one company. Nevertheless, the Tasmanian licensee is the only one designated to lose market without any compensatory gains at all; there are no others whatsoever. The Government had to consider that issue. Tasmania was identified in the statement I made on 20 May and in the draft indicative plan as being likely to require separate attention. The reason for that was the point I made earlier, namely, that both commercial licences are controlled by the one company. Secondly, Tasmania is an island and therefore it is not contiguous with some other area in the sense of other areas in the approved markets to be aggregated. Thirdly, the population is relatively small. When one looks at the market in Tasmania one sees that it may be a long time before there are three services in that State. The important thing at this stage is to get two. The current Bill makes special provision for the current licensee to do one of two things: To sell one of his licences, whereupon each licence will have to have its service area expanded to include the other area; or to consolidate the two licences, with the Minister inviting applications for another independent service to serve the consolidated service area. The Government's objective is to provide two competing services as soon as practicable. That is important in considering Tasmania, and that is why the Government has decided to go for the first option-that is, that the present licensee be given the opportunity to sell one of those licences, whereupon each licence will have its service area expanded to include the other area. There has been some criticism of that and some people say that we should have opted for the second option of calling for a second licence by having an independent and then have the whole State aggregated. That argument has some substance; but on balance we have decided to go the other way, and the second service will be in Tasmania a lot more quickly as a result of adopting that approach. There is no question about that. The concern which seems to be expressed and which is a strange one, namely, that somehow or other the licensee will sell the licence to someone friendly-I think the imputation has been made that it could be someone too friendly-is somewhat odd when one considers that the transfer of shareholdings will have to be approved by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, which will look at all the aspects about which some people may be concerned. Probably that is a most unfair imputation, but some people have expressed it and have expressed concern about it. However, it is not something that can be done in the way about which some people are worried. The arm's length transaction must take place. On balance the Government opted for that proposal because it is our view that it will result in a second service in Tasmania more quickly-and that is very important to Tasmania-than would be the case if we called for an independent. I quote the example of what happened in Perth when an application was made for another licence and the existing licensees were clinging very hard to what they have. There could have been a very extended hearing for an independent licence had we gone down that track. The honourable member for Goldstein and the honourable member for Braddon raised the question of VHF and UHF in relation to Tasmania. What will happen there is that each one will have a VHF station because the current stations in Launceston and Hobart are both VHF. The two new services will be UHF. They have both been treated fairly in that way; they will have one UHF and one VHF. If 85 per cent, or at least 80 per cent, of television sets in Tasmania are not now UHF compatible I will be extremely surprised. Another matter raised by the honourable member for Goldstein was the Minister's power to revoke or suspend MCS permits. The provision in the Bill, proposed new section 94y (1), has been criticised by him for not including criteria to apply when the Minister is exercising the power to suspend or revoke an MCS permit. In relation to that I would just say that the wide discretion with the Minister to suspend or revoke an MCS permit was deliberately included-it was not something that slipped through-to ensure that no proprietary rights are attached to MCS permits. That was not intended at any stage and the position is that no proprietary rights are attached to MCS permits. This provision also balances the amendment made at the request of Regional Television Australia and the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations to allow for the automatic transfer of MCS permits with the head licence. That new provision is to be put into the Act deliberately for those two reasons. Another matter raised by the honourable member for Goldstein was how an AM service could include a three-station metropolitan market. He was referring to proposed new section 94k (3) (a). The query was that this is a question of ownership and control and not aggregation. Of course, what that relates to is that where in the States an approved market will need to include the metropolitan area-we have said that is likely to be the case in South Australia, Western Australia and possibly Tasmania further down the track-it will be necessary to provide a mechanism for three competitive services to be extended over the whole State without infringing the rights of either the metropolitan stations or the regional stations. This reconciliation can be achieved only by using a mix of techniques, that is, relaxed ownership and control measures, consolidation of licences and aggregation. It is precisely this flexible mix of measures which the Government is creating with this legislation. Whether the licensees involved are able to negotiate a successful transition to three competitive services is in their own hands. I sometimes have doubts about free market forces operating as well in this area as some people think they will, but that view would be a bit odd coming from those opposite, the great free enterprise operators. It is really in the licensees' hands, but if the free market forces do not lead to a solution the government of the day will have to decide whether to impose a process. I do not propose to pre-empt that at this stage on the basis that the free market forces will probably solve the problem. Another question was whether the Minister would refuse to approve an implementation plan until the Minister was satisfied with all the other implementation plans for the approved market. While I think that only some aspects of the implementation plan will have a bearing on the implementation plan of other licensees, if the implementation plans of licensees conflict on such an aspect as, for example, the timetable for transition to aggregation from MCS, the Minister may have to hold up all implementation plans until a broad decision is reached on that aspect. As far as possible, however, it would not be intended that approval of implementation plans be delayed because approval had not been given to others. For example, if in Queensland all agreed except one who wanted to delay building transmitters the Minister would probably go ahead, approve the others and continue the debate with that licensee. If that failed, of course, firstly, one could refer the matter to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal for recommendation and public inquiry; secondly, direct a new implementation plan from the licensee under guidelines; or, thirdly, impose an implementation plan. I think the only other matter that was raised was whether I would explain the need for proposed new section 94ze and the `Objects of Part' in proposed new section 94. This is the situation where there are only two licensees-for example, Tasmania. Proposed new section 94ze provides a mechanism for the Minister to invite applications for a third competitive service and for the Tribunal to grant that licence without consideration of commercial viability. Of course, that is a new type of criterion in this Act. It is well known that sections of that Act relating to commercial viability have delayed inquiries into competing licences. The prime example is the one I referred to earlier, the Perth inquiry. The shadow spokesman also referred to video and audio entertainment and information services. The Government does not consider that VAEIS will affect the projections of real revenue growth in the indicative plan since they are not broadcast to the general public and, therefore, do not compete for advertising revenue with conventional television. The Government does not intend to review the question of pay television for at least four years and it has not been built into the projections. It should be recognised that, even if the government of the day decided in 1991 to move to pay services, there would be a lead time of at least three years before the services could be introduced. The last question has been the subject of on-going debate for a long time, that is, the query on the 4 per cent growth, and I can add nothing more to it than to say that the 4 per cent real growth in revenue is an assumption made for the purpose of financial projections supporting the indicative plan. It is an industry average, like the actual industry average of 8 to 13 per cent in the previous 10 years. The fact that particular approved markets choose to move along the MCS path to equalisation rather than aggregate directly does not significantly affect the projections of revenue growth. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 12 November, on motion by Mr Duffy: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy) read a third time. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. (Quorum formed) Debate resumed from 15 October, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(8.03) —I thank the members of the Government who have attended to listen to my speech and to support the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). We all know that the Attorney-General needs supporting and I am glad to see that loyalty has compelled honourable members to turn up. The Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2) 1986 continues, as the Attorney-General said in his second reading speech, the practice of presenting an omnibus Bill in each sitting of the Parliament as an expeditious way of making a large number of non-contentious amendments to legislation not otherwise being amended. It is perfectly true that many of the amendments in the Bill are non-contentious and the Bill is not opposed, but it would not be correct to say that some of the amendments are not of major importance. One amendment, to which I will come, deals with sending drugs through the post. Before I come to that, I refer to one or two of the amendments which are distinct improvements in the law. The work of the Attorney-General should be acknowledged. For example, in the case of bankruptcy, amendments will be made to the Bankruptcy Act 1966. The general effect of the amendments which will be made under the Bankruptcy Act will be to improve the efficient administration of bankruptcy courts and to delegate a lot of the minor, day to day matters to officers of the bankruptcy courts, other than judges. As the Attorney-General said in his second reading speech, the amendments proposed are designed to improve the administration of bankruptcy. The Official Trustee will be restructured in a certain way and the performance of his trustee functions as Official Trustee will be more effectively managed. I think that probably will be so. In the family law area a small but important amendment will be made, which was described by the Attorney-General in these words: Australia presently has reciprocal arrangements for enforcement of maintenance orders with 29 States of the United States of America. However, those arrangements apply only to final orders of United States courts. The scheme which operates within the United States of America by virtue of the enactment by all States of the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act does not allow for the making of orders if the respondent is not present within the jurisdiction. Instead, a `petition for support' is obtained from a court in the claimant's State and remitted to the respondent's State for hearing. This amendment will enable the regulations to make provisions for courts having jurisdiction under the Family Law Act to accept petitions for maintenance remitted by courts of the US States that conclude reciprocal arrangements with Australia, and for the Australian courts to make orders in respect of such petitions. It is sensible that in that area reciprocal arrangements should be promoted as far as is possible. I come to the Postal Services Act 1975. The amendment which will be made to that Act provides: A person shall not, without lawful authority, send by post or by courier service a postal article that encloses or contains a prescribed narcotic substance within the meaning of the Customs Act 1901. That simply means a drug which is declared to be illicit on public policy purposes. The penalty provided is $5,000, or imprisonment for two years, or both. The amendment goes on to deal with the question of an offence against a law of a State or the Northern Territory and says that the validity of that law is not affected by reason only that the act-that is, the act of sending drugs through the post-also constitutes an offence under this amendment. Honourable members will understand that we are there dealing with an amendment to the Postal Services Act of some five or six lines. It is a very simple amendment and I commend the Attorney-General for bringing it forward, but I ask why has it taken so long. The Attorney-General in his second reading speech referred to the drug summit of 2 April 1985. We recall that that summit was promoted by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) as an occasion when people would get together for the purpose of lending credence to the policy, or lack of policy, of the Government in the area of control of drug abuse and the education of people not to abuse drugs. This is, of course, a matter of great concern to the Government. Since it is a matter of great concern, it was treated as a matter of great urgency. I would be very glad if the Attorney-General would tell me why it has taken since 2 April 1985 to put before this Parliament an offence which deals with a very important matter-that is, making illegal the sending of proscribed or illegal drugs through the mail. Anybody with any sense knows that that is something which happens. On 2 April 1985 the Government proposed that this amendment should be made, because even the Government understood that that was a problem in our society-a society which is riddled with drug abuse promoted by organised crime. Well over a year later we have this amendment. What did the Attorney-General say of it? He said: This amendment will provide another weapon in the Government's fight against drug trafficking. As usual, we have delay after delay. We have confusion and we have no answer to the very simple question: Why did the Government not act quickly? What was so difficult? There was nothing difficult about this amendment. It was a perfectly straightforward change to the law which any competent draftsman could have drawn up within half an hour. I would not think that the work that has gone into it would have taken more than half an hour late in the afternoon. I say that not to criticise the draftsman but simply to point to the fact that what we are dealing with is a very simple but very necessary amendment to the law. If the Attorney-General was going to seek to close the loopholes in the Bill, there are quite a few others that could have been closed. Whilst it would have stretched the general basis of the Bill, we would have supported action to close the loopholes that presently exist. Again, I ask him: Why the delay? What has happened is that this Government has gone to the Australian people and has said: `We oppose organised crime. We are committed to stamping out organised crime. We are committed to stamping out drug trafficking'. Words are fine, but what about actions? If this commitment exists, one would think that somewhere there would be the hint of an overall strategic plan to deal with organised crime. But of course there is not. We have dribbled out bit by bit changes to the laws and always compromised by delay after delay. Let me just direct the Attorney-General to some other areas which could have been the subject of quick, decisive government action. Mr Taillon came to this country in July 1985. He was in transit from Bombay to Canada. Eleven kilos of hashish, worth an estimated $300,000, was found in his suitcase. It was not in his hand; it was, as I understand the facts, separately stowed in the hold of the plane. A question arose as to whether he should be prosecuted and the opinion formed in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was that a prosecution should not be brought because there was a deficiency in the law. I am not criticising those who formed that judgment although, for my part, I would have prosecuted and let the law sort out the problems. If somebody comes into this country in transit to another country with 11 kilos of hashish, it is perfectly plain that he intends to use that hashish for the purposes of sale and that he is going to be breaking the laws of another country. If he is not breaking the laws of this country he is, most certainly, breaking what we would think to be the intent of the laws. So, for my part, I would have said: `Let us charge this man. If the charges don't stand up, we will amend the law'. But he was not charged. I understand that people can come to a conclusion of that kind and I make no criticism of the Director of Public Prosecutions or the person whose job it was to make the decision. But what would one do? The first thing one would say is: `We cannot allow this state of affairs to continue. We cannot allow Australia to be known as being a safe transit point for the smuggling of drugs'. What would one do? One would act quickly. What has happened? Nothing has happened. Let me refer to the Weekend Australian of 26 September 1986. In it there is a report of this case and of concerns, amongst other things, expressed in November last year by the Australian Federal Police Association which, it is said, wrote to the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) asking what action was planned to prevent a similar incident occurring. The Special Minister of State can be an amusing man but, when it comes to being effective, he is not the man to write to. However, he got into the act and the article states: Mr Young assured the AFPA that he had referred the matter to the Attorney-General who said it had been passed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, because it concerned a likely amendment to the Customs Act. So we have the Australian Federal Police going to the Special Minister of State, the Special Minister of State going to the Attorney-General and the Attorney-General sending it off to Senator Button. It is not a particularly difficult matter. All we have to do is to amend the law to make quite sure that people cannot transit through this country carrying hashish, cocaine or anything else for the purposes of sale in the streets of the other drug capitals of this world, for the purposes of promoting addiction and the debasement of those who become addicted. We know how deeply, how sincerely, how profoundly this Government is concerned that drug enforcement should be effective, but nothing has happened. Yet we did get some understanding of the efficiency of this Government earlier this year. In late September this year Senator Button was asked about the review of this loophole. His answer, in part, was: The matter is in the hands of the Attorney-General and I will obtain an answer to the honourable senator's question from him. Some days later, in early October, the Attorney-General was asked a question about it. What did he say? He said: Because the importation aspect is not a matter within my portfolio but one for the Australian Customs Service, that opinion- I interpolate by saying that he was referring to an opinion that had been obtained since July 1985 from a Sydney Queen's Counsel as to the effect of the loophole, if it was a loophole- and advice has been forwarded to my colleague the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button. I understand that arrangements are now in place to amend the Act to ensure that, whether a case relates to importation and or possession, prosecution can be launched. It can be said again and again of this Government's handling of the matter that it is an appalling state of affairs. When we are dealing with problems of this kind, with effects of the magnitude that these kinds of problems have, law enforcement and the drafting of laws to close loopholes can be handed over to these Inspector Clouseaus of the Labor Government-Senator Button, the Attorney-General and the Special Minister of State. If there is an answer, let us have it. Would honourable members not think that from July 1985 until November 1986 was time enough to draw a small but vitally important amendment to the Customs Act? Let me move on in the spirit of the way the Attorney-General has approached this matter. One part of the omnibus Bill now before the House is the amendment to the Postal Services Act, an amendment that took the Government from April 1985 until now to draw up. I remind the Attorney-General of some other things to which he can be directing his attention. In the 1984-85 report of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Director of Public Prosecutions referred to deficiencies in the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1978. He said, and I quote from his report: In a number of matters referred to the DPP over the past year it has been apparent that there are deficiencies in Commonwealth criminal law. In some cases these have required that charges be withdrawn, or not laid, in quite serious matters. This is not just some minor matter, this is the Director of Public Prosecutions saying that charges cannot be brought in serious cases because of deficiencies in the criminal law. He continued: In all cases the defect in the legislation has been drawn to the attention of either the Attorney-General or the appropriate area within his Department with a recommendation that the law be changed. For example, in one matter arising in Queensland, charges that had been laid against 4 persons under section 6 of the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1978 were withdrawn because of a perceived deficiency in the provisions of that Act. It was alleged that the defendants had accumulated arms and munitions in Australia with the intention of illegally importing them into New Caledonia to arm white settlers against pro-independence Kanaks. There was no evidence that the defendants intended that the weapons be used against the French authorities- that, of course, is the critical point- as opposed to pro-independence forces, and no evidence that any person who might use the weapons in New Caledonia had sufficient connection with Australia for the defendants' conduct to fall within the provisions of the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act. Accordingly, the only action that could be taken against the defendants were proceedings under the Customs Act 1901 to recover a pecuniary penalty in respect of their alleged intention to export the weapons and munitions from Australia. We are talking about the trafficking in arms for the purposes of violence-a serious matter one would think. What has happened? Nothing at all. We find in the 1985-86 report of the Director of Public Prosecutions which was tabled in the House yesterday that precisely the same complaint is made. He said this about law reform: No action has been taken, for example, to overcome the deficiencies in the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1978 highlighted in the Annual Report for 1984-85. Why? Arms trafficking is a deadly serious matter. This Government is allowing people to deal in death, yet nothing has happened to overcome this major deficiency in our laws. The Director of Public Prosecutions, in his 1984-85 report, complained of another matter. He said: Among other matters, the Office has also recommended that section 12a of the Crimes Act 1914, which enables certain indictable offences against that Act to be dealt with summarily with the consent of the defendant, be amended to apply to all offences against Commonwealth law. It is of less magnitude but still important. What does the Director of Public Prosecutions say in the 1985-86 report? He said: . . . no action has been taken on the proposal, also referred to in last year's Annual Report, that section 12a of the Crimes Act 1914 be amended to apply to all offences against Commonwealth law. In the same report, that is, the 1985-86 report, he refers to banking and financial controls. There has been a lot of talk by this Government about its concern to deal with organised crime to prevent people from opening bank accounts in false names and to prevent the laundering of money. What do we get? This is what we learn from the report of the Director of Public Prosecutions: In 1984 the Costigan Royal Commission made seven recommendations designed to reduce the potential for participants in organised crime to misuse financial accounts with banks and other institutions. In fact, the original recommendations had been made in a report by Mr Costigan in July 1983. So the Government has had since July 1983 to consider those recommendations. We learn something else from this report. The Director of Public Prosecutions said: The DPP participated in a Working Group set up by the Government to report on the recommendations by the Costigan Commission. The Working Group presented its report in June 1985. No action has yet been taken. Let me remind honourable members again of the chronology of events. In July 1983, Mr Costigan made his original recommendations. In his 1984 final report, seven recommendations were set out. A working group was then set up by the Government to report on the recommendations of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. The Director of Public Prosecutions participated in that working group. It reported in June 1985 and still no action has been taken. There are areas of law where it is very legitimate to argue as to what should be done. For example, we can have a view that telecommunications should not be intercepted under any circumstances. We could have a view against that. I believe that the view against that is overwhelmingly strong but we must come to a view. One thing that the Attorney-General and this Government should have done, if the Government had any commitment at all to its paper war against organised crime, is to have gone through the recommendations of Costigan and others. It should have looked at the loopholes as they were revealed and it should have acted one way or the other and said, very simply `We do not agree with Mr Costigan; we will not implement those recommendations', or `We think those recommendations should be implemented', or it should have expressed some third view. But at least let us have a view so that we know what this Government intends and so that we know that it has a plan. But the fact of the matter is that there is no evidence of a strategic plan. The only way that organised crime can be combated is by the development of a strategic plan which will deal with the use of resources, the upgrading of personnel and, in the Attorney-General's own area, legislation designed to close loopholes and designed to give effect to recommendations made by people expert in the area of organised crime, such as Mr Costigan, Mr Justice Stewart, Mr Redlich, of Queen's Counsel, Mr Gyles, of Queen's Counsel, and others. But what has happened? When they are dealt with it is a bit by bit process dragged out over an inordinate period. Far too often recommendations are buried, problems are forgotten and the public is disregarded. When the Attorney-General winds up the debate I would be very glad to hear from him whether the Government has an overall strategic plan to deal with organised crime and, if it has, where this plan is hidden, why it has not taken the Australian people into its confidence about this plan, at least as to its broad outlines, and why we are greeted so often with delay and indecision when it comes to dealing with the appalling problems of organised and quite ordinary crime which confronts this nation. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(8.28) —Tonight we are dealing with the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No 2). It has been my experience that, about once a year, this House has a similar piece of legislation to cover a lot of different amendments to separate Acts. As the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) has said, this is an omnibus Bill. On a previous occasion that I had an opportunity to speak a constituent of mine berated me and said: `Why are you not speaking in Parliament about unemployment, housing and something that is relevant to people?' Nevertheless, we are restrained to speaking on the legislation before the House. Tonight there are 15 or 20 amendments to Acts of parliament, some important and some of lesser importance. One that I want to touch on is the amendment to the Postal Services Act 1975 which makes it an offence to send a prescribed narcotic substance, as defined by the Customs Act, through the mail. It is a fact that, at the Concord Post Office in my electorate and at several other post offices in Sydney small quantities of a narcotic substance called crack were recently discovered. I had never heard of it previously but I am informed that it is some sort of a mixture of cocaine which is particularly lethal and dangerous. Small quantities of this drug, crack, were discovered at two post offices in Sydney. So the Government is honouring a commitment given in 1985 that it would make it an offence for illicit drugs to be sent through the mail. It has attached to that offence a maximum of two years imprisonment and/or a fine not exceeding $5,000. The legislation includes several amendments to the Migration Act. They are of considerable importance to people coming to this nation who want to settle down but not just yet. Older couples being brought here by perhaps a son or daughter may think that their house back home is sold. They enter Australia on a residency visa and then find that the sale has fallen through. As recently as Saturday I had two young German nationals come to see me at my constituency interviews. They have residency and they want to bring their parents here. There is a problem with the sale of the home because prices are depressed in West Germany or in the region where they live. More and more people are coming to Australia on what we might call business visas. They come here with the intention of establishing a company and bring with them half a million dollars. Some 400 or 500 of these visas to enter Australia were issued to families throughout the world last year. As from 1 January 1987, this new form of visa will allow migrants multiple re-entry into Australia during the first years of settlement. They will be given a three-year re-entry visa so that they can come and go. These visas are all covered by the migration fee of $150 per head. If the visas are issued in Australia to people who are already here and who want a multiple entry visa, the fee is $50 per head. If people are overseas, winding up a business or trading in a business, they can have a visa for a fee of $60. If they have an existing return visa, there is no charge. Many people who have come to Australia to settle here from Europe, Asia, America or the United Kingdom have business interests which add to their capacity to look after themselves financially and will add to the wealth of this nation. These people also have the capacity to increase Australia's trade overseas. The quaint notion of people coming, settling down and never leaving Australia because it is the best country in the world is very good, but in practice many people wish to trade and to develop contacts that they left behind. This is a very important amendment to the Migration Act. It concerns a matter on which I have made numerous representations over the years to Ministers for Immigration. Of course, if a migrant is not bona fide and comes to Australia and does not really have an intention to reside here, the provision will not apply and the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs will make an assessment. If the migrant is literally out of Australia for three years, there will be no renewal of the visa. There is another problem for people coming to Australia from other countries and wanting to settle here. They come on their passports. To obtain Australian citizenship, they have to have had at least two years residency, for one year of which they must have actually resided in Australia. Problems do arise. One family in my electorate came here from South Africa. The family are all Australian citizens except one of the children, who is a sportsman. He travels the world, participating in his sport, and he just cannot remain in Australia long enough to qualify for citizenship. Naturally he has problems because he has a South African passport. I am trying to help him to get Australian residency. There is the guarantee that, if people come to Australia and keep moving backwards and forwards- (Quorum formed) As I have said, the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2) contains a number of important amendments to a number of important Acts. The one with which we are dealing at present is an amendment to the Migration Act which will allow migrants multiple re-entry to Australia during the first years of settlement. That is important to all members of this House who handle migration matters. In my case, such matters represent 70 or 80 per cent of my work. In fact, when somebody comes in with a taxation problem, I say: `Hallelujah!'. Migration work in Sydney and Melbourne is enormous. I know that the honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh), the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Baldwin) and all honourable members fully support that. I know that we are all experts on migration matters and not just education matters. The honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) also assures me that he is an expert in handling migration matters. The legislation also contains an amendment to the Family Law Act 1975. It deals with the enforcement of maintenance orders in various States of the United States of America. Twenty-nine of the States have entered into reciprocal arrangements with Australia. The amendment is designed not only to enforce the maintenance provisions under the United Nations Convention on Recovery Abroad of Maintenance, which Australia acceded to in 1985. It also gives the Australian Government and the Australian courts the right to enforce those maintenance provisions. As all honourable members know, there are difficulties for constituents when a husband or wife has returned to the United States, England, Ireland or any other country and is working but not paying maintenance. I am informed that reciprocal agreements exist with all the provinces in Canada except Quebec. This amendment to the Family Law Act will allow reciprocal agreements with 29 of the American States. They are already listed in the schedules and regulations of the Family Court of Australia. It is not my intention to delay the House but this legislation contains other important amendments. There are amendments to the Bankruptcy Act which will allow the Federal Court of Australia to delegate certain of its powers under that Act to the registrars of the court. There are also amendments to the Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act dealing with offences under State law and allowing the taking over of offences by the Director of Public Prosecutions when they have been launched by Commonwealth police officers. There is an enormous variety of amendments to the Insurance Act, the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Act and the Insurance Contracts Act. The Ombudsman Act of 1976 is being amended to clarify the existing powers of the Ombudsman to decline to investigate certain complaints. So everyone gets to the point where matters cannot be taken any further. Of course the Bill of Rights of 1689 provides that constituents shall have access to parliament, and it provides that we shall have the right to say what we feel without fear or favour. The Ombudsman does not have any such tradition and that office came into existence perhaps because members of parliament were not doing their job. I shall not go through the rest of the amendments to the Trade Practices Act and the Wheat Marketing Act but I do commend the Bill and hope that it receives the support of the House. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(8.41) —As previous speakers have said, the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2) contains a number of amendments to Acts brought before this House for second reading debate. Some of the amendments are not significant in themselves, nevertheless quite important pieces of legislation are laid open by this process. I hope you will agree, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we should treat the legislation as inviting the same parliamentary pro- cedural and debating treatment as legislation would in the normal way. The Bill proposes changes to section 110 (2) of the Family Law Act concerning petitions for maintenance remitted by courts of the States of the United States of America. One of the major questions now and in the future is the consistency with which decisions of the Australian courts are followed through. There is no reason to assume that United States courts are more proficient. We know the terrible trouble which arises with maintenance orders in respect of children. In a previous debate on a statute law Bill last year I raised a concern I felt about the predicament of custodial parents who had been left to find the extra money to maintain children who had been financially abandoned by their non-custodial parents despite court orders. There is no explanation with this Bill about the impact of the differing systems of administration between countries, but it must be assumed that maintenance, once granted, could open up a problem for US petitioners. Last month the Government put out a discussion paper on child maintenance entitled `Child Support'. The paper opens with the statement: There is widespread agreement that Australia's current system of child maintenance is in need of reform. How very true that is. The paper goes on to note that, as things stand, the payment of maintenance is voluntary in Australia. Whether this is so in the United States I do not know. This voluntary arrangement is not working because, as the Government says, those who do not want to pay need not do so. Further-I believe this is an interesting observation-the Government finds that the amounts that are paid are often low in relation to the non-custodial parent's capacity to pay. The problem is that there is a heavy burden falling on the law abiding citizen, the taxpayer. I am saying that a parent who disregards his or her obligations as set out in a court order is in conflict with the law. The weight of our sympathy must go with those who are making the effort to sustain their legal obligations and to those most affected by maintenance lapses-the children. The Government has the job of coming up with a viable proposal to enforce court orders, and I assume the effect will travel internationally. Between 1974 and 1985 the number of sole parent families increased by 73 per cent, from 183,000 to 316,000. Less than 20 per cent involved births to mothers who have never lived with the father. This is a major point. It demonstrates that by deliberate choice children on social security maintenance result from people deciding to live together and create a family. It is a decision which carries obligations to the children that arrive and it is a very unhappy situation that people can walk away, leaving the taxpayer to meet those obligations. I believe the issue is not just one of finance and economics. The social standards are lowered by the easy tolerance that now exists if people are permitted to pass on these parental maintenance obligations to others. The size of the welfare cake is not unlimited. The community has to balance out the claims for humanitarian assistance that are unavoidably present in a modern complex society. We cannot run up an international debt, as we are doing, and at the same time over- indulge people who choose to neglect their fundamental obligations to the children they have brought into the world. I recognise that, whatever enforcement provisions the Government decides on, there is bound to be suffering. Some children have benefited from a situation of transferred loyalties as the natural children have suffered. There will be individual cases of difficulties in the transition period. I say `transition' because there is a situation where fresh obligations to another family are accepted in the course of abandoning the natural obligations. However, a sensitive process should be instituted whereby children caught up in this mess are not victimised in the process of returning non-custodial parents to their primary obligations. Thus it seems to me that there is a need for a declaratory change from a situation which accepts failure of non-custodial parents who enter into future obligations by discarding the obligations of natural parentage. Such a change of direction is essential for the welfare of all concerned, including the taxpayer who has to fund close to $2 billion for class A beneficiaries. It was on a similar debate last year that I raised this matter, while the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) was at the table-as he is now. He felt that he should reply to my remarks by indicating his opinion that the time was ripe for a revised approach to this crucial question. We know how sincere he is on this and we are glad the Government is proceeding to a new position. There is wisdom in the sensitivity that the discussion paper has disclosed. The problems of how to deal with second families, joint custody and substantial access and the indebtedness of non-custodial parents are bound to feature as genuine problems in the transitional phase. The obligations spelt out in the reform should carry the element of notice to those who are setting about new family ventures, and intending partners should be brought face to face with the problems that may exist from a previous relationship. So in this transitional phase let firmness with compassion be the mark of the reforms. That seems to me to be both desirable and essential. It is doubtful whether the measures for amending the Dried Fruits Equalisation Act of 1978 fall within the concept of the Bill. This Bill is intended to dispose of pieces of legislation which are limited in their scope. It is supposed to tidy up, to correct or to update. One can hardly put the amendments to the Dried Fruits Equalisation Act in that category, appearing as they do during a period of considerable controversy in relation to the management of the industry. This is not to say that the amendments, by facilitating levy payments to individual producers, are not badly needed. It is an important industry with quite special problems and it is difficult to see that the Government will improve its reputation with the industry by not exposing the whole legislation to a more emphatic debating treatment. The amendments are not trivial, and one is allowed to conclude that the Government is a little scared about its relationship with the industry. One can understand that. It is sad that we have not had the opportunity to debate the entire industry in a more substantial way, rather than whizzing in an important amendment in this omnibus Bill. Mr Lloyd —It is a significant current problem. Mr MacKELLAR —As my colleague says, it is a most significant current problem. A very important amendment to the Migration Act allows for multiple re-entry without having to reside in Australia for 12 months. The 12 months rule gave a certain force to the notion of permanence implicit in a decision to migrate. Clearly it is difficult to tell at a distance how this will affect the commitment of intending migrants to make a go of it here in Australia, but the reasons for the change owe much to the rules which are intended to couple migration and investment. Clearly there are many in the category of migrant investor who would be unable to decouple their overseas commitments with sufficient finality to meet the 12 months rule. One can imagine that this change will remove what may be a factor inhibiting migrant investors. It is to be presumed, with good reason, that a person with multiple investments overseas is not likely to be able to walk away from them for 12 months in order to serve his time for re-entry status. The change on these counts seems to me both sensible and desirable. However, we do need to monitor the situation so that people are not seen to be using Australia as a bolt hole, as a place of last refuge, without any semblance of a desire for permanent and meaningful settlement in this country. Another matter that has been raised by a previous speaker is the use of postal facilities for the transmission of illicit drugs. Under this legislation such use will meet heavy fines. The problem is, of course, to discover the contents of a package or to technically bring a narcotics distributor before the courts. We know how difficult it has been to nail narcotics distributors. Part of the problem, and an important part at that, has been the way in which the judicial processes have been manipulated to evade the full impact of the law. We know from that notorious case, the Cessna-Milner case, that great efforts are made by narcotics traffickers to provide for situations when things go wrong and they get caught. It is difficult, I believe, to imagine the circumstances in which this amendment will prove a deterrent or provide the basis for a technical charge to be laid. One can understand how pornography, so limited, can be restrained. The advertising for mail order pornography and magazines could be stopped efficiently. It is sad indeed that the post office does not use this option. The same forces that benefit from pornography benefit from drugs. These are the big cash crops for all those liaisons between crooked lawyers, indulgent judges, standover men and the like. There is a good case for the post office withdrawing its services from the video-porn industry, which is such a concern to parents and responsible citizens. This legislation demonstrates the point that what is in a package may be a private matter for the recipient but for the dispatcher it is a matter for public concern. As it is a private matter to have things sent in the mail without interception, there are important public obligations on those who use the mail. The question is that the mailing of narcotics, vital as it is, may not be the only area in which public policy is deficient. Certainly there is a case against the transmission of pornography which, as I have said, is a big money spinner for the crime syndicates that operate under a protective veneer provided by the argument of individual liberty. Certainly, I believe the big syndicates involved in the use of mails for their special enterprise of moral pollution would find it more painful to have a new policy on mailing pornography than they do in contending with a mild inhibition of a $5,000 fine for using the mails for narcotics. Having opted for policies which expedite bankruptcies, in this legislation the Government is expediting the procedures by which bankruptcies will be administered. The Federal Court of Australia will be empowered to delegate powers under the Bankruptcy Act to registrars of the Court. There is no doubt that registrars do free up facilities of the Court, but it cannot be lightly assumed that they are immune from pressures. As bureaucrats, they tend to stall and play for time when confronted with difficult decisions. The legal community, I am told, finds it necessary to play up to registrars as they accumulate more and more power to interpret decisions which might have been more carefully construed if that attitude of leaving it to the registrar were not a growing one in legal circles. No doubt the Government would have been better advised to introduce economic policies which soften the pressures leading to bankruptcies. The huge interest rates, a consequence of the policy approach of the Government to wages and government expenditure, are killing marginally placed businesses. Whatever guidance banks gave in the period when interest rates were much lower, when the coalition parties held power, they are a source of unrelieved gloom and disaster for the small businessman. There can be no doubt that the 1984 Budget is having disastrous consequences and is a direct contributor to the bankruptcies. The ordinary prudent businessman is among those facing bankruptcy. There was no way in which he could have anticipated the huge rise in interest rates. The second mortgagee home owner will understand the problems for the businessman who is caught in a choice between declaring himself bankrupt and going it alone, building into an uncertain future on rising interest rates. Speeding up the process by which bankruptcies can be cleared is one way of lessening individual and social pain. A much better way would be to have restraint on wasteful government expenditure and the pressures from the Left to spend and spend and spend. These interest rates which are driving small businessmen to the wall are a terrible economic burden on the country, be the borrower a farmer, a businessman or a home owner. There does not seem to be any light on the horizon. Consequently, the nation faces a growing stream of bankruptcies. It is sad to see the enterprise of ordinary battlers treated to these conditions. The Government likes to suggest that mistaken government policies in its early days-wage indexation, inflated welfare expenditures, et cetera-are not a factor. Men face bankruptcy because they could not foresee the disaster which would ensue amid the blandishments of the rhetoric of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). There is cold comfort for a bankrupt driven to the wall by high interest rates which are, of course, a direct result of government policy. There is cold comfort in expedition of his affairs before the courts. It is unavoidable and sensible to recognise the problems and neutralise the social pain as efficiently as possible. Clearly, there is a great reservation which must govern the acquiescence of the Parliament in the measure before it. I confess that I do not agree that this legislation abides by the promises extended in the preliminaries of the second reading speech. Comprehended in this statute is legislation of sizable interest to particular groups, and I cite again the dried fruits legislation. It would be bad indeed if this process which is designed to save parliamentary time were being used by the Government to escape parliamentary debate on contentious aspects of its legislative program. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(8.56) —Tonight I wish to address my remarks to that part of the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2) dealing with the Trade Practices Act and, in particular, the consumer protection sections of that Act. It will come as no surprise to members of this House that in recent times a number of steps have been taken in one particular section of consumer protection; that, of course, relates to the need and the desirability to monitor, in a sensible way, price increases in our community. In the last couple of months my colleague the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) has indicated an initiative that was originally started, I think, in his electorate. Although it perhaps was not confined to that electorate, it certainly was a catalyst for further developments. That initiative was to establish price watch groups, not only in the honourable member's electorate but also in the rest of Western Australia. Indeed, historically a number of these groups have operated in Victoria and elsewhere. I raise this issue because obviously it impacts directly upon consumer protection. It is a matter of, I think, bipartisan agreement that price rises in our community which cannot be justified ought not to be allowed to continue. Given that our Constitution has not vested in the national Government control over prices and given that when it has sought those powers the Australian people, confined as they are by the criteria for establishing successful referendums, have not transferred that power to us, the power of the Government is largely premised upon persuasion and public education. I think the public education component is of particular import in this context. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has indicated that he is completely behind the price watch concept. An organisation which has now been established, under the chairmanship of the honourable member for Canning, has sent out kits to educate consumers on price movements in the respective regions or locales. For example, with a small group of volunteers checking prices in supermarkets on only a monthly basis, these results can be analysed by a local convenor, whether that be a member of the Government or the Opposition, and those figures can be made available to a person who is involved in that type of analysis at State level. That has two obvious results, the first one being that people who are charging excessive prices in supermarkets and elsewhere are subject to the full glare of publicity. If anything scares people who are trying to abuse the system, it is the fear of publicity. The second and perhaps the major point that we should make is that this provides not only consumer protection but also consumer choice. Whatever one's views of economic theory, consumer choice in any system is an important ingredient for maximising efficiency and so on. A prices task force has been created at the national level, with committees all over Australia. It is anticipated that there should be something like 100 committees operating in the near future. As I indicated, State co-ordinators are able to collate and analyse information and, if it is desirable and necessary, that information will be forwarded to the Prices Surveillance Authority. The important point to make is that price trends are not always what they seem, whether at local or, indeed, State or Federal level. There are many reasons why prices may be affected, not all of them, obviously, indicating that someone is profit taking. In an economic environment in which devaluation has been a fundamental reality, I think all of us ought to be on guard for excessive profit taking. As I indicated, no constitutional control is vested in the Australian Government, but there is, by way of suasion and support for initiatives such as a price watch organisation or price watch organisations, the ability for people out in the community-not only governments-to take some initiative to seek to bring about a situation in which consumers are given the widest possible choice and the best possible information upon which to make their purchasing judgments. That inevitably means, of course, that inflationary pressures are reduced and competition-which, I think, on a bipartisan basis, none of us would decry-is increased. In my own electorate of Maribyrnong we have set in place a price watch organisation which, hopefully, will be commencing in the next few weeks. One of the initiatives that we have taken is to ensure that a whole range of people are involved in the easy process of simply taking down a few prices while doing their Saturday morning shopping. As I indicated, this is only a once a month exercise and the information can then be published in local newspapers. For example, I am not sure about the local newspapers in the electorate of my colleague the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran), but I am sure that the honourable member, in the interests of his constituents, will be looking to have this sort of initiative established in his electorate. Mr McGauran —Will it be a cost to small business? Mr GRIFFITHS —No. In fact, I think small business, just like everyone else in the Australian community, will benefit from competition between banks. But the reason I indicated that my colleague the honourable member for Gippsland might be interested was really to distract him from looking at the legislation in order to see whether or not he was going to take a point of order on me. (Quorum formed) It is more in sorrow than in anger that I make the comment that, throughout the history of the parliamentary democracies never has there been an Opposition so destructive and so prepared to abuse the processes of the Parliament to ensure that the people of Australia are not given information that is of great import to them. Mr Chynoweth —We shall fight them on the beaches. Mr GRIFFITHS —We shall fight them on the beaches, as my colleague the honourable member for Dunkley has put it. But I am in a less combative mood, so I will go back very briefly in the time remaining to me to the merits of the legislation before us. I know my time is running out. Let me conclude by putting the following proposition: It is important not only for the people of Australia but also for the efficiency of our businesses, that price increases, particularly in the context of the devaluation, are kept to a minimum, and the price watch concept, that is being fought for very hard by my colleague the honourable member for Canning and in Victoria by my colleague the honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer), will be of great assistance to the people of Victoria and Australia respectively. I commend the concept not only to my colleagues on the Government side, but also to my colleagues on the Opposition side of the House. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(9.07) —I wish to refer to two sections of the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2) 1986-the amendments to the Interstate Road Transport Act and the amendments to the Air Navigation (Charges) Act. I deal first of all with the Interstate Road Transport Act. I am assured by the office of the Attorney-General that the amendments before the House relating to the Interstate Road Transport Act 1985 are simply designed to allow operators of vehicles registered under that Act the maximum flexibility in installing distance measuring equipment if they should opt to determine their annual registration charge on the basis of actual kilometres travelled rather than the annual weight related formula. During the debate on the Interstate Road Transport Bill, I raised the concern of the coalition parties and the road freight industry over the possible compulsory use of monitoring devices in relation to the implementation of the second stage of the legislation concerning operator and truck safety. I repeat: A Liberal-National Party government will not be party to any unnecessary or threatening requirements for such devices for federally registered vehicles. Although the only role for the Commonwealth Government relates to vehicles which are federally registered, the New South Wales Government has claimed that it is required to enforce the compulsory fitting of new technology monitoring devices to all trucks because of this Federal legislation. This claim is rubbish. The New South Wales Government is trying to blame the Commonwealth to excuse its own pursuit of the police state objective of enshrining self-incrimination of truck drivers and operators by forcing the fitting of sophisticated monitoring devices to New South Wales registered vehicles. The Federal power is restricted to federally registered vehicles, which will constitute only a comparatively small number of trucks in New South Wales. Not only is the New South Wales claim nonsense; it is also mischievous, misleading and an abuse of the intent of the Federal legislation. I commend the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris), the Federal Department of Transport and the Australian Road Freight Transport Advisory Committee for exposing the New South Wales deceit, for referring the question of monitoring devices to ARFTAC for report in July 1988 and for publishing a pamphlet explaining the facts, which is aptly named `The Facts on Monitoring Devices'. It is indeed unfortunate that the New South Wales Government is refusing to abandon the idea that it can dramatically improve road safety by continually assaulting the road transport industry, by attempting to restrict the fundamental rights of drivers and operators, and by wanting to foist unproven new technology on the industry. It would do much better to ensure that the outlying areas of the State get a fair share of the road finance which was meant for them by the Federal Government, and to put more State money into rural arterial roads-that is, State highways-and local roads. The second aspect of this omnibus legislation to which I wish to refer is the amendment to the Air Navigation (Charges) Act 1952. In November 1984, Mr Henry Bosch produced his report on aviation cost recovery in Australia. In that report he found that there were significant reasons for questioning the accounting procedures of the Department of Aviation. It seems that the Department anticipated Mr Bosch's uncomplimentary findings and hurriedly put some discipline into its accounting procedures. The result was the Air Navigation (Charges) Amendment Act 1984, which gave the Commonwealth the power to raise a statutory lien against an aircraft where Commonwealth charges are outstanding on that aircraft for a period greater than 29 days, to deregister it if a statutory lien has been in place on the aircraft for more than six months, and ultimately to seize the aircraft if the lien has been in effect for more than nine months. It is well worth noting here that, when the original Bill went through the Parliament in 1984 and gave those powers to the Commonwealth, the Opposition, through the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), moved numerous amendments because the Bill had been hurriedly put together. Most of the amendments were accepted by the then Minister for Aviation because the Government simply had not had the foresight to envisage some of the problems which would inevitably arise. The amended Bill was pushed through in the very small hours of the morning with these amendments and it seems that the Government is still trying to get it right. After nine months of a statutory lien being in place, the Government is able to seize aircraft, the operators of which have not paid their outstanding charges. One would think that this period of nine months would provide the Department of Aviation with ample opportunity to warn the persons concerned about the consequences of their not paying their debts. One would think that any reasonable government department would use good business sense and not offend its customers by threatening them with a statutory lien at the earliest possible opportunity. One would even expect someone with these significant powers to keep them in reserve, to be used only in the handful of cases across Australia that may require such drastic action as the seizure of an aircraft. One would certainly be astounded to discover that the Department of Aviation sends out with the first notice a pamphlet warning-indeed threatening-the dire consequences of not paying accounts. This Department's power in this respect is unprecedented in the transport industry and highlights the heavy-handed way in which the Department has tried to catch up on its poor accounting record, unfortunately to the offence of the aviation industry. While one cannot deny that accounts should be paid promptly, one wonders how promptly the Commonwealth, and particularly the Department of Aviation, pays it own accounts. It seems that the Department, in correctly pursuing better accounting, has gone from one extreme of laxity to the other extreme of unfair collection procedures which, to my knowledge, have no parallel in any other department or industry. I believe that there should be the common courtesy by the Department of assuming that the vast majority of people will pay what they owe, rather than treating everyone in the industry as someone to be mistrusted and a potential criminal. Not only is the Department heavy-handed in its response, but it has gone overboard in threatening users of services with the impounding of their aircraft if accounts are not paid within the prescribed period. If the Department were to adopt a more businesslike, rather than police-like, approach to the aviation industry, perhaps that industry would be more responsive and positive in its dealings with the Department. Already the industry has suggested many viable alternative ways of aircraft registration and operation, such as the use of registration stickers to show the validity of an aircraft's registration. This would significantly reduce the problems associated with aircraft charges and would make unnecessary the Department's draconian measures. Unfortunately, the suggestions seem to have been lost down the `aviation hall of doom' which Dick Smith wrote about. The amendment before the House supposedly tidies up certain provisions of the Act which relate to statutory liens. It also makes provisions for more exemptions to the rules to be made by the Secretary of the Department or his nominee. The legislation and regulations affecting aviation in Australia are increasingly reminiscent of Swiss cheese. I refer to the holes in the legislation and regulations caused by all the exemptions and dispensations that are necessary to implement them in anything approaching sensible application. If so many exemptions are necessary, and this amendment is just another example from hundreds, when will the Department admit that the existing rules and laws are out of date and too draconian and that they must undergo a complete overhaul by the industry and the Department working together, as outlined in the coalition's aviation policy? If the rules are not appropriate, the Department and the Minister should not continue to patch them or make Swiss cheese out of them with dispensations and exemptions; they should throw them out and the Department should sit down with the industry and start again with legislation and regulations which are up to date and relevant. This approach also increases the potential work for the committee, recently announced by the Minister for Aviation, which is to oversee the plethora of regulations, air navigation orders and so on, which currently blind Australia's aviation industry. Needless to say, if the Minister is thorough in his work-I believe that he is-he will not rest content with just providing the coalition's widely acclaimed aviation policy with much welcomed advance publicity, as he did; he should now accept that policy in toto and commence its implementation. Already he is moving in that direction with the announcement that the Government has partially accepted the coalition's proposal for a flight standards tribunal which will review Australia's aviation regulations. If he continues in this way, the coalition parties will be happy to commend him and support its implementation. Mr GAYLER(Leichhardt)(9.17) —In my contribution to the debate on the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2) I rise in support for the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) on the wide-ranging and somewhat mechanical amendments to some existing legislation. The Bill contains amendments to some 35 Acts and it is certainly not my intention to refer to each of those Acts in my address this evening. However, there are some significant amendments and I wish to refer first to the amendments to the Trade Practices Act. In so doing, I refer to a comment made by the then Attorney-General when the provisions of consumer protection were first introduced in that legislation. The then Attorney-General said: Credit cards are a part-in many respects a desirable part-of everyday life for many Australians. A great deal of business is transacted on credit and credit cards are undoubtedly a convenient means of obtaining credit. If credit cards are furnished only to persons who have sought them there is, in general, no cause of complaint. This Bill will have no application in those circumstances. Last year a vast number of credit cards were sent out to persons who had not sought them. That was not desirable. The Standing Committee of Attorneys-General last October expressed particular concern about the matter. The Bill will accordingly prohibit for the future the sending out of such cards on an unsolicited basis. He went on to say: A credit arrangement is a personal matter between the person providing the credit and the person receiving it. It should remain that way and should not be rendered impersonal by credit cards that are sent out without any request. Although it is a matter of opinion that is not the subject of general agreement, it is, or has been, claimed that the mass distribution of unsolicited credit cards can create undesirable inflationary influences. Persons who have not sought credit find it readily available and are encouraged to use it-with a consequential increase in the demand for goods and services. Other countries, notably the United States of America and the United Kingdom, have taken a similar approach to the matter and have banned unsolicited cards. The amendment to section 63 of the Trade Practices Act prohibits a corporation taking action to enable an existing credit card holder to use it as a debit card and vice versa without a request from the consumer. The amendment to extend the prohibition on the sending of unsolicited debit cards that can be used as both credit and debit cards is timely and is designed to ensure that consumers are not provided with a credit or debit facility unless-I emphasise that word-they first ask for it. In recent times, having regard to the popularity of plastic money, if I can use that term, there have been complaints about the possibility of this provision being circumvented, that is, a customer having access to such facility without requesting it. These complaints deal with distribution of personal identification numbers to credit card holders, unless they elect not to receive them, to enable the use of credit cards in electronic terminals. The provision is timely and is necessary for consumer protection. After all, it falls under Part V of the relevant legislation, which is headed `Consumer Protection'. I commend that amendment to the House. I will now advert to the amendments to the Family Law Act 1975. I know that this was covered very comprehensively by the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher), but I would just like to comment briefly on the amendments to section 110 of the Act. Mr Lindsay —You practised a long time in that jurisdiction. Mr GAYLER —As the honourable member for Herbert has indicated, I practised for some time in the family law jurisdiction. It is once again a measure of the competence of our Attorney-General that he has brought before this place a fine tuning of a number of pieces of legislation. I say `fine tuning' because the legislation itself is basically in place. As this Attorney-General sees the need for change and for fine tuning, he is forthright in bringing amendments to this place. Presently the legislation enables Australian courts to deal only with final orders of reciprocal courts. This amendment will enable Australian courts to conduct hearings based on a Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement Support Act petition rather than a provisional order. There is no basic difference between the acceptance of such a uniform reciprocal enforcement support petition and the maintenance remitted to Australian courts by other countries under the United Nations Convention on Recovery Abroad of Maintenance, to which Australia acceded in 1985. The amendment will effect a routine administrative change of minor policy significance to enable more effective-that is the important word-enforcement of maintenance applications coming from the United States. In conclusion, may I very briefly refer to a number of other Acts affected by this omnibus Bill. Firstly, I come to the Australian Institute of Marine Science Act 1972. The Australian Institute of Marine Science is very close to my part of Australia and to that of the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay). The Act currently provides for a Council consisting of a Chairman and four members to govern the Institute. It also provides for a Director to manage the affairs of the Institute, subject to the general direction of the Council. The Director is accountable to Council on all matters involving the Institute, including managerial and administrative matters. As chief manager of the Institute, the Director is the executive arm of Council and should, therefore, be an ex-officio member of the Council. These amendments will in fact provide for the Director to be included as an ex-officio member of the Council of the Institute. (Quorum formed) I just round off my submission to the House by saying that anyone with any decency at all in the legal profession-and there are some within that profession who might not have too much of it-must applaud the amendments to the Bankruptcy Act, which introduce a more streamlined approach to the administration of bankrupt estates. For far too long the legal profession has protected itself by convention, by keeping matters such as bankruptcy administration within its province where they do not belong anyway. One need only look at the Family Law Act to question seriously the role of the legal profession in that jurisdiction. These amendments are well timed. They are needed, and I commend the Bill, and the Attorney-General, to the House. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(9.28) —This evening we are speaking on the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2), which means that it is the second Bill of this type in 1986. As the Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney- General (Mr Lionel Bowen) said when he introduced the legislation, the Bill continues the practice of introducing an omnibus Bill into each sittings of the Parliament as an expeditious way of making a large number of non-contentious amendments to legislation not otherwise being amended. He went on to say that some of the amendments made by this Bill tidy up, correct and update existing legislation. I agree that that is the purpose of omnibus legislation of this sort. The Attorney-General then went on to differentiate between those amendments in the legislation which tidy up, correct and update existing legislation and those amendments which are of a minor policy significance. I take the view that some of the amendments in the legislation are of more than a minor policy significance; they are of a major policy significance. I think it was the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) who, when debating the question of the amendments to the Migration Act, said that they were important amendments to an important piece of legislation. The history of the matter is that until the early 1980s Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bills were seldom introduced. They were introduced only every few years, but from 1981 onwards their introduction has become more necessary, apparently because of the growth of government and the growth of inaccurate drafting. The original purpose-it was a good purpose-was to make inconsequential amendments of a general drafting nature, or the types of non-contentious amendments the Attorney-General mentioned in his second reading speech to tidy up and correct legislation. That is a worthy objective. I believe that this legislation is part of a pattern of increased mistakes and increased cover-ups by the Government. The Government is using the legislation to slip in significant amendments of a far-reaching nature, which ought to be introduced in a separate piece of legislation. Mr Robert Brown —You blokes tried to do that. Mr SHIPTON —I welcome the intelligent interjection. I believe that all parties have engaged in this tendency, but it has been exacerbated at the present time. I ask the honourable member who interjected to take an intelligent interest in this legislation tonight, next year and in the future, because it is part of a trend to bypass the existing procedures of the Parliament. All of us in this Parliament-the Opposition, the Government; the back bench and private members-have to be alert to this. The honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) raised an interesting point. This legislation is caused by the growth of government and the increasing power of the Executive branch of the Government. What is happening is that there is less and less time for debating issues in this Parliament. Last week the guillotine was applied. We have an increase in the size of the Parliament, but fewer committees and no estimates debates. There is a tendency by governments to bring in this sort of omnibus legislation, because a public servant or department head says: `Look, Minister, there is this mistake in this legislation-it is a bit embarrassing'. The Minister says: `We will not introduce a separate Bill, we will whip it into the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and she'll be right, nobody will notice. I'll get it through the Caucus, through the party room, hide it away and nothing will happen. No one will notice we have amended it'. What is happening is that we are getting more and more significant amendments. I hope that my contribution has some attraction to honourable members opposite. I hope that those parliamentary draftsmen who are here today will receive the message that we in the Parliament have had enough and that we believe that pieces of legislation ought to be amended individually when they need amendment. We should not be given in the last week of a session an omnibus and far-reaching Bill of this nature which covers many pieces of legislation. This Bill will amend 35 Acts and repeal 10 Acts. No one can tell me that it is all insignificant and it is just a tidying up or correction, because it is not. If we are to continue with Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bills, we ought to have an intelligent discussion at the Committee stage of the legislation. We should consider having a special committee of the House to consider this legislation in depth. Members of the Public Service departments concerned should come to the committee and explain what they are doing, so that we know what they are doing, because we do not know. No one in this House has had explained to him what the public servants are doing. The Attorney-General's second reading speech is cursory. There is very little explanation of any type of the amendments that are before us. Mr Robert Brown —This is a good speech, but you never said it when you were on this side of the chamber. Mr SHIPTON —I am grateful again for the interjection. I like to believe that I have credibility. I assure the honourable member-I put it on record now-that when we are elected to government at the next election I will pursue with the same vigor and enthusiasm the point that I am making now. Mr Robert Brown —That is your let out. Mr SHIPTON —It is not a let out, because I believe that the institution of parliament is paramount and all important. We have seen over the years at every level a denigration of the role of the Parliament. The honourable member is a victim of it in his Caucus and we have been victims of it. I encourage members of the Government to take an intelligent interest in legislation of this sort. They should question Ministers at Caucus meetings about what they are doing. There are some amendments to the Wheat Marketing Act. Mr Slipper —How many? Mr SHIPTON —There is one amendment. It may be a good amendment, it may be there to validate something that needs validating. I have asked a number of people in the private sector and I have asked the Parliamentary Library today, what this amendment does, but no one can tell me. It seems to me that the Wheat Marketing Act 1979 will be amended because there was probably an invalidity in payments for three months of the year from July through to October in each of the seven years since 1979. Those payments were probably invalid. I believe it is right and proper to validate them-I do not argue with that-but we are being asked to approve retrospective legislation in terms of that amendment to the Wheat Marketing Act. I refer to the proposed amendment to section 50 of the Trade Practices Act. That Act is another far-reaching piece of legislation which ought to be amended by its own Bill in its own time, brought before the House by the Minister in his own way and subject to public debate in the broader community. I believe that many people in the community who are affected by legislation in the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill-we are amending 37 pieces of legislation-ought to be given the opportunity to examine the legislation, to consult with their members of parliament and to take advice on it. I do not believe that that is happening. Mr Campbell —I am here to advise you. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! I remind the honourable member for Kalgoorlie that he is not free to make his contribution without first receiving the call from the Chair. Mr SHIPTON —The proposed amendment to section 50 (2) (a) of the Trade Practices Act is a quite far-reaching change. The essence of the present definition is that a body corporate can be in a position to exert a substantial degree of influence over the activities in a market of another body corporate. The proposed change-that is the deletion of the inner market-expands the scope of the test. Therefore by agreeing to this legislation we are agreeing to prospectively more situations in which companies will be associated for the purposes of section 50 of the Trade Practices Act. That may be a good thing, it may be a bad thing, but there has not been adequate discussion or debate in the broader community. When the Government brought this legislation into the House it did not tell us what it was all about. There was a passing reference in the Minister's second reading speech and the explanatory memorandum. Again I think the legislation is brought in by the Government at the end of the day, late at night, so that it can do things that it might otherwise be accused of not doing or having forgotten to do. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) drew that matter to the attention of the House this evening when he referred to the amendment to the Postal Services Act whereby it is an offence to send narcotics and other drug substances through the post. The Government said: `Look, we had a drug summit over a year ago. We have done nothing. We will slip this into a convenient vehicle or mechanism. We will slip this into the legislation and at the end of the day we will say that we have done something'. The Whip is looking at me. My time is up. Mr Robert Brown —Sit down. Mr SHIPTON —The honourable member for Charlton shows an interest. Mr Slipper —He is asleep. Mr SHIPTON —No, he is not asleep, he is listening intently. There is a need in this House for private members on both sides to curb the growth of executive government, to look at what needs to be done in the area of parliamentary reform and to examine this legislation to see whether there needs to be parliamentary reform, whether we need to have a Committee of the Whole or a particular committee to examine the legislation and then report back to the House. I say to honourable members opposite that the responsibility lies heavily on their shoulders. Mr Milton —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I have been sitting in my office listening to the honourable member's speech. I admit it is not very good. What is happening is that the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper)-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member must quickly come to his point of order. Mr Milton —The honourable member has been interjecting constantly. It is possible to hear him over the broadcasting system because he is talking into the microphone. I find it very difficult to hear what the honourable member has been saying. I ask you to have a word to the honourable member about it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The alleged offence by the honourable member does not intrude upon the proceedings of the chamber. It has not come to the notice of the Chair, but the honourable member for Fisher will recognise instantly that interjections are out of order and desist. Mr SHIPTON —I am bringing my remarks to a conclusion because the Whip is looking at me with a stern glance. I was raising the question of parliamentary reform. I think it is a matter that needs to be looked at along with a number of other matters to make this Parliament more effective in scrutinising and examining legislation. At the end of the day the message has to be from the Parliament to the Government and to the parliamentary draftsmen and draftswomen who are drafting this legislation to stop trying to snow us because from next year on it will be a different ball game. The honourable member for Charlton will help me in getting a bipartisan approach in order to change the nature of this legislation. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(9.44) —I think it was back in 1926 that a book was written called The New Despotism. If honourable members check they will see that it was written by Lord Hewart. Mr Barry Jones —Correct. Mr HODGMAN —I acknowledge the assistance of the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones). Lord Hewart warned the people of Great Britain about what he described as a new and growing despotism; namely, the power of the Executive and the power of the bureaucracy. Mr Barry Jones —The overmighty servant. Mr HODGMAN —Indeed, the Minister has got it completely to a tee. I remember the book well because my distinguished and honourable father who is a friend of the Minister told me about this book many years ago. It was written in 1926. It is now 1986. Almost everything that Lord Hewart predicted has come about. Without being repetitious-I am aware of the benign and, indeed, friendly nature of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen)-I wish to make a formal protest about the continuing trend of including a large number of legislative amendments in the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2). It has been mentioned by previous speakers that this Bill, this omnibus legislation, amends some 35 separate pieces of legislation which are quite diverse, quite disparate and quite dissimilar. There is a great tendency, which I think is an unfortunate tendency by members on both sides of the House, to think that this is a lawyer's Bill. They look at the title and they see `Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2)' and they think it is a lawyer's Bill. In fact, it is not a lawyer's Bill. It covers a wide range of legislation relating to a wide range of subjects. I give warning, if I may, to colleagues on both sides of the House to have a damn good look at the next Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. They may well find that there are matters in it which have direct application to their own electorates. Out of the 35 pieces of legislation amended by this omnibus Bill, I want to talk on three. I want to direct some remarks to the Australian Institute of Marine Science Act 1972, to the amendments to the Family Law Act 1975 and, last but not least, I intend to direct some remarks to the amendments to the Trade Practices Act 1974. Mr Slipper —What about the others? Mr HODGMAN —I will leave the other legislation to honourable members, including the honourable member for Fisher, who have a wide range of knowledge and a capacity to speak with some ability on many of these subjects. I am particularly grateful that the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) is in the chamber as well as the Attorney-General because I would like to say from the outset that I support the amendments to the Australian Institute of Marine Science Act 1972. I am sure the Minister will not mind my saying two things in relation to marine science in this country. One comes under his portfolio and the other comes under the portfolio of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen). I have to again say that it is a matter of profound tragedy that the decision to establish the Australian Maritime Museum taken by this Government was to locate the museum in Sydney and not where it ought to have been located, namely, in Hobart. Tasmania is Australia's island State. It has a rich maritime and marine history, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you know from your frequent visits to our beautiful State. The Australian Maritime Museum ought to have been built in Hobart. It would have been built in Hobart had the Fraser Government continued in office. It is a matter of profound regret that it was not. The Minister for Science has the opportunity to see that that gross injustice, namely the building of the Australian Maritime Museum in Sydney instead of Hobart, will be corrected in some part by acceding to the very substantial submissions now coming forward that an Antarctic and southern oceans marine science centre of excellence should be established in Tasmania, specifically at the University of Tasmania, and established within the electorate of Denison. The case is overwhelming. The James Cook University is doing a magnificent job in north Queensland. We are desperate for proper, detailed scientific research of the enormous resources of the Southern Ocean, the Antarctic waters, to the immediate south of this continent. The logical place to establish a southern oceans and Antarctic centre of excellence is in Hobart. I commend to the Minister the submission by the University of Tasmania, supported by the Government of Tasmania and personally very strongly supported by both the Premier of our State and the Leader of the Opposition. I say, in passing, that the Leader of the Opposition in Tasmania is a graduate of the University of Tasmania as indeed I am. It is a first rate submission. I know it has to go through the various academic committees for assessment, but if ever there was a place where a centre of excellence should be established in relation to the southern oceans and the Antarctic, it is at the University of Tasmania. My colleague the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), who is present in the chamber, along with all other members from Tasmania in this House of Representatives, strongly support the case for that centre of excellence to be built. It would be a crowning glory for the Minister in the dying months of the Hawke socialist Government if he could persuade those who surround him in the corridors of power that the place to build a southern oceans and Antarctic centre of excellence is in Tasmania and, specifically, at the University of Tasmania. I know that the Minister for Science will look fairly at the submissions and we will not suffer the same gross injustice that was inflicted on Tasmania and about which my colleague the honourable member for Franklin and I complained bitterly-that is, that the Australian Maritime Museum should have been built in Hobart, Tasmania, and not in Sydney, New South Wales, where it was built as a result of a deal done with the now defunct Wran Government. I now turn to the Family Law Act 1975. I note that the amendments to that Act are machinery amendments. Mr Deputy Speaker, it is appropriate that you are in the chair because you have studied this Act and worked with it probably more than any other member of this Parliament. In 1974 there was a Federal election in this country. As a result of that election, the Whitlam Government regained power with a reduced majority and obtained a second term of office which was terminated in December 1975. In the seat of Denison some 750 votes determined that the sitting Labor member, Mr Coates, would continue to hold the seat, which he did, until I took the seat from him in 1975. The Family Law Act was then brought into this Parliament and was passed by a majority of just one vote. It has often been said that, if the result in Denison had been different in 1974, the Family Law Act would not have been passed and Australia and Australians would have been saved a lot of misery. My only complaint with the amendment in this Bill to the Family Law Act 1975 is that it does not go far enough. If I could have drafted the amendment I would have said that the Family Law Act 1975 should be repealed. I have to say to the Attorney-General quite bluntly that, as one who has deliberately never practised in the Family Court but who has received in his parliamentary office over a period numerous persons complaining about the injustices inflicted upon them by the Family Law Act, I believe Australia would have been better off if this wretched Act had never been passed. I know that that is a big statement to make. But the short point is that, because of the cost in terms of dollars, human misery and a devaluation of the standards that previously existed in this country, I believe that the Family Law Act should never have been passed. I say even at this stage, in 1986, that somebody ought to have the courage to have a good look at it to see whether it should not be repealed lock, stock and barrel. My position is blunt. I believe that this Act has not been in the interests of Australia. I say without any fear of contradiction that, if we talk to people on both sides, male and female, across political barriers, they will tell us that this Family Law Act has, in so many ways, caused so much hardship and injustice. I think it is an Act that was legislated in haste. I think it is an Act that has caused enormous damage to this country. One day perhaps this Parliament might have the courage to take it by the neck, shake it and throw it out lock, stock and barrel. I would like to see the Family Law Act repealed in toto; we ought to start again. In the one and a half minutes remaining to me I turn to the Trade Practices Act 1974. If the Attorney-General does not mind I will read into the Hansard his remarks in the second reading speech relating to the amendment to section 50 of the Trade Practices Act 1974. He said: The first amendment rectifies a possible unintended limitation on what bodies corporate may be considered to be associated with an acquirer. The words to be deleted were originally added during the Senate debate and could operate to create a significant loophole in merger regulation. As the Act now stands it may not apply to takeovers where the takeover vehicle has no market activities. The amendment will correct this. Is that not interesting? In the autumn session of this Parliament this House was packed when we debated an amendment to section 50 of the Trade Practices Act-a section which came about in 1977 when the then Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, the now Leader of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), brought in amendments relating to mergers and takeovers. We debated it back in the autumn session at the time of the greatest attempted takeover of the biggest corporation in the history of Australia-the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd takeover. I remember that debate vividly, as I am sure other honourable members would but, in particular, the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) and the honourable member for Lyons (Mr Burr). Because of what we said-- Mr Campbell —What about Kalgoorlie? Mr HODGMAN —And the honourable member for Kalgoorlie, although he is not in the hot seat that we were in. Because of what we said, within days, a very important person in our political Party said that we should all resign. I just make that comment to show how times change. The Senate, in endeavouring to fix it up, in fact mucked it up. Is that not interesting? Here we are six months down the track. I have not resigned, the honourable member for Boothby has not resigned, the honourable member for Lyons has not resigned and that very important person has not yet resigned, and tonight the House is correcting something which the Senate mucked up in the middle of the takeover of the biggest corporation in Australia's history. I think that is an interesting note on which to conclude. Tonight's debate is mild. The battle sounds of May and April have gone. The Whip is signalling to me but I take pleasure in saying that what I said back in April this year in this House was proved correct. Occasionally, it is nice to be vindicated. I thank the House for its time and its indulgence and the manner in which it has received my remarks. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(9.57) —I want to alert the House and the nation to the fact that the biological control of Paterson's curse is dealt with in this complex measure which embraces a number of amendments to a great deal of legislation. I want to point out to the House that the biological control program is virtually in limbo, notwithstanding the fact that the hundreds, if not thousands, of primary producers bearing the brunt of the impact of Paterson's curse right across the nation could gain real benefit if that biological control could be further expedited and removed from the state of limbo which has been reached at this time. Complementary legislation has passed through the South Australian, New South Wales, Victorian, Tasmanian and Federal parliaments. However, complementary legislation has not yet passed through the Northern Territory Assembly, the Queensland or Western Australian parliaments. It is expected, but there is no guarantee, that that might happen some time next year. Part of the problem relates to the fact that Paterson's curse is not a big priority in those other parts of Australia. Nevertheless, we want to see a breakthrough in the interests of reducing the costs for many primary producers who are hard pressed at this time. On 3 March 1986 the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) made a declaration in respect of the biological control program and also approved eight agents to commence that program. That is only one part of the continuing process necessary to bring about the full scale commencement of the biological control of Paterson's curse. In the meantime, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has advised the plaintiffs of its intention to apply to the Supreme Court of South Australia to lift the perpetual injunction which has been applied against this biological control of Paterson's curse. The whole situation is still very much in limbo, both legally and financially. Because the CSIRO has budgeted that the program will require some $200,000 annually when it commences-that will have to be regularly indexed-during this limbo period the CSIRO has reallocated that $200,000 to other programs. So the path which this nation is trying to go down to bring about the biological control of Paterson's curse is fraught with great dangers and great delays. I appeal to those Federal members representing Western Australian, Queensland and Northern Territory electorates to approach their State counterparts to remind the State governments and State parliaments involved of their requirement to bring forward complementary legislation in respect of the biological control of Paterson's curse. I want to assure the House that this is not some passing issue. It is not something that has been forgotten about. The apiarists, for their part, secured certain injunctions. It is still very much required by many hundreds, if not thousands, of primary producers in these very difficult economic times. They require this assistance urgently. The Bill provides for some additional progress towards bringing about the commencement of the biological control of Paterson's curse, but the reality is that the whole of the project is still very much in limbo. I am delighted to see the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) in the House tonight, because I know that he follows with great interest the activities of the CSIRO, particularly the Division of Entomology, with this program. He would be well aware that a number of stumbling blocks have been reached. I hope that he will use his good offices to lend support to representations to the other States to expedite the balance of the complementary legislation and to expedite the legal action in the South Australian Supreme Court to lift the perpetual injunction so that real tangible progress can be made as quickly as possible in the interests of the primary producers. The legislation also deals in part with defence, and briefly with the Veterans' Entitlements Act. I remind the House that the proclamation of that Act took place at a function, a ceremony, held at the Australian War Memorial earlier this year. What has now emerged in the Ken Jones report on the Australian War Memorial is that a senior staffer from the office of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) issued a minute saying that the Minister wanted the function held at the Australian War Memorial. That is contrary to what the Minister has said in the Senate on at least three occasions. Whilst I agree that this matter is on the periphery of the Bill before the House, I take this opportunity to tell the House that we will continue to pursue properly the issues associated with the Minister and the Australian War Memorial in the interests of the countless thousands of Australians who regard the Australian War Memorial as a unique and vital institution honouring those who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. I asked a question indirectly of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs in another place. I asked what happened in the week leading up to the issuing of that minute by the senior staffer which caused the senior staffer to say that the Minister wanted the function at the Australian War Memorial. I also asked: How can the Minister say that it was not his decision, that it was not with his ultimate approval to have the proclamation of a very controversial piece of legislation held at the Australian War Memorial when the invitations were issued by the Minister, over the Minister's name, to various people in the veteran community and beyond. There are many unanswered questions. The coalition will fight tooth and nail to retain the independence of the Australian War Memorial. We do not declare, because it is not our proper place to declare at this time, whether it is proper for the Director of the War Memorial to continue in office at this time. But we do declare that the Director is entitled to natural justice in relation to all the events associated with the Australian War Memorial and we will fight for that. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(10.03) —I rise tonight to speak on a particular amendment within the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2) relating to the Postal Services Act 1975. For the benefit of honourable members, I will just outline what this amendment is all about. It provides that it is an offence to send through the mail without lawful authority a prescribed narcotic substance as defined in the Customs Act 1901. There will be a penalty of a maximum of two years imprisonment and/or a fine not exceeding $5,000 attached to the offence. This amendment to legislation is the sort of amendment that any thinking, reasonable person would support. I am quite sure that everybody on both sides of this House will be prepared to support it because it gives the law enforcement authorities in our country the sorts of legal tools that they need in order to come to grips with the ever growing drug problem in this country. But, whilst I congratulate the Government on introducing this amendment, I also take a few moments to criticise the Government for taking so long to introduce this legislation into the House. This legislation was first promised to the people of Australia on 2 April 1985. For those honourable members who are interested, that is 19 1/2 months ago that the people of this country were promised that the legislation would be brought into the House and made into law. Nineteen and a half months is an inexcusable and unforgivable delay in the implementation of a very simple piece of legislation. In fact, there is hardly anything to the legislation. It is the most simple, uncomplicated, uncontroversial piece of legislation that any government could introduce. Any government worth its salt could virtually introduce this type of legislation overnight. But no, this Government has taken 19 1/2 months to do it. It really brings into question the sincerity of this Government in its ability to fight the drug problem in this country. We have heard so often, from the drug offensive in April this year and right through, that this Government is doing all that it can to fight the drug problem. This example of unnecessary delay is coupled with the example of the introduction of legislation last week in the House that tidied up a huge loophole in our drug laws brought out by the Taillon case. That loophole afforded drug traffickers free passage through Australia even if they had narcotics detected upon them. That legislation took 17 months to be introduced into the House. That is yet another example of the sorts of unnecessary delays that this Government and this Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) are responsible for in bringing in legislation that is really necessary to fight the drug problem. It really does bring into question just how sincere this Government is in trying to fight the drug problem. In fact, many people are saying that all this Government is doing is a cosmetic attempt to try to give the impression that it is doing something about the drug problem. It spent $3.2m earlier this year in launching the drug offensive booklet, filming the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and flashing it across the countryside. That sort of money will be proven to have been a waste of money. It would have been far better spent on education, treatment or rehabilitation. It is amazing to see how slow the Government is at introducing the tougher aspects of the anti-drugs war but it is so quick to spend the taxpayers' money. Over the last couple of years this Government has had piles of recommendations put before it on how it could fight the drug war better. I have 19 pages of recommendations from the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union and from the Special Prosecutor Robert Redlich's report of 1983-84. Those 19 pages contain hundreds of recommendations. In the years since these reports were tabled in this House, only a handful of the recommendations have been implemented. It is not just people on this side of the House who notice the inexcusable delay in implementation of recommendations and in the tidying up of large loopholes. Only yesterday the Director of Public Prosecutions tabled his annual report and he said: At the time of writing, legislation has not been enacted in any of these areas. The areas to which he refers relate to legislation dealing with the confiscation by court order of the profits of crime and the development of possible amendments to the Telecommunications Act following the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Alleged Telephone Interceptions. That relates to new and increased powers for telephone tapping. The Director of Public Prosecutions notices the sorts of delays that we are noticing on this side of the House-delays that really are giving those associated with organised crime more than a fair run. While this Government fiddles with the problem, it just gets worse. The Mr Bigs and the Mr Big Enoughs are getting bigger; they are getting smarter. Their web of corruption is weaving its way further into our society. Their financial strength is getting bigger and their methods of operation are getting harder to detect. Like it or not, this Government seems to be dragging the chain in fighting the drug war. While this Government delays implementation of the sort of legislation before the House tonight, it will deny our law enforcement agencies the sorts of necessary legal tools that they need to get to the organised criminals of this country. While this Government is delaying, the crooks of this country are making hay while the sun shines. Only last week it was brought to my attention that in Shepparton in Victoria a large drug investigation was called off, after it had been carried out for six months, because, I am told, the police there were not able to acquire sufficient evidence to continue with their investigations. I am told that the reason they were not able to was that they did not have the necessary legal tools, such as telephone tapping powers, to get the sort of intelligence and evidence they needed to make the convictions. The reason they do not have those tools is that despite the fact that this Government promised at the Drug Summit back in April this year that it would introduce increased telephone tapping powers, we have seen all the delays possible. We have seen it put before Caucus and we have seen the Caucus object to certain sections of it; so what does the Government do? It buries it in the joint parliamentary committee that hopefully will bring down its recommendations in the next few days. I guarantee the House tonight that, in relation to this Government bringing into any legislative form the new and increased telephone tapping powers, it will probably take something like two years from the time it was promised to when that action is actually taken. That is what this Government is all about in regard to the drug problem. It is all talk and no action. We talked about the drug offensive earlier. As I have said before, it is just a giant media exercise. The people of Australia thought that $100m was to be injected into the anti-drug war and that we would see new and exciting things happen. It was brought to my attention only in the last couple of days that some of that $100m being spent in New South Wales is being wasted. Some $221,689 of drug offensive funds has been spent on the purchase of things such as sewing machines, blenders, yoga mats, medicine balls, video records and office equipment. These are not the sorts of things that the people of Australia would expect this Government to be spending the $100m on when allegedly it was all to be spent on the new drug offensive. The whole story of this Government's fight against the drug problem is a very sad and sorry saga. There have been gross and inexcusable delays in introducing legislation that would allow today's police to combat properly today's criminals. The drug offensive has failed in part because money has been wasted, as is clearly evidenced by the examples I have just mentioned. The money is not being directed where there is a real need for it, and we need today a government that is prepared to introduce more legislation, such as that before us tonight, as quickly as possible so that the people of this country have a fair and fighting chance of getting rid of the drug problem. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(10.13) —in reply-I thank all honourable members for their contributions. Because of the hour we will need to negative the adjournment but I will commence my reply. I will not hold up the House; there has to be a Committee stage. I say at the outset that I appreciate that the Opposition is not opposing the legislation although in a debate lasting some 2 1/4 hours there has been a fair amount of criticism relating to matters of concern to the Opposition and others. A number of matters in the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which is an omnibus Bill, relate to portfolios other than my own. For instance, there was reference to matters such as Paterson's curse, the Dried Vine Fruits Equalisation Act, the Navigation Act and the Air Navigation (Charges) Act. I am sure they will be dealt with in due course by the appropriate Ministers. As to the issues of moment within my portfolio, there was reference made by the last speaker, the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp), as well as by the first speaker, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), in the debate to what they called the delay in implementing amendments to the Postal Services Act relating to the transmission of narcotics by mail. I acknowledge that the matter was under notice back in 1985. As usual when one is dealing with these matters, other departments have to be consulted. Apparently it was thought at one stage that the matter could have been dealt with in an amendment to the Postal Services Act, which comes within the Communications portfolio. That did not happen; it has come within my portfolio. It should have been dealt with before, but that is the explanation. A number of departments have taken an interest in the legislation. I refer to the Taillon case, which was adverted to this evening. Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Lionel Bowen-I require the question to be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Honourable members will recall that the Taillon case concerned a person in transit to Canada and narcotics being found not in his direct possession but in his baggage. It ought to be put on the record that a prosecution was launched, but of course it was withdrawn on the basis that apparently the circumstances did not provide evidence of possession. That surprised me at the time and I duly wrote to the Australian Customs Service about the matter. In fairness to the Service, it took a view with which I did not agree-namely, that it might have been appropriate to allow the baggage to proceed to its destination, which was deemed to be in Canada, where people also involved in the transmission and carriage of narcotics could be trapped. That was not a risk I was prepared to take because there would have been no guarantee that the baggage would have arrived in Canada. It could have been offloaded anywhere in transit, and we would not have got the narcotics or had an opportunity to arrest the offender, which in fact we did. That was the view of another organisation. My view-the Director of Public Prosecutions may not agree with me-was that there was evidence of importation. On that basis I sought the opinion of Mr Chester Porter, QC, who agreed with me. That view was sent back to Customs, which was told that it had to amend the relevant Act because there was an opportunity to correct a weakness in it. Customs agreed. That is the chronological order of events, and I just put that on the record because there are legitimate arguments put by departments with which an Attorney-General might not always agree, but he has to convince them. What has happened here is in order. The people of Australia expect people who come here, whether in transit or otherwise, with narcotics in their possession to be brought before the courts for an explanation, at least, and if that explanation is not satisfactory, to be dealt with as criminals. The other matters of note in the course of the debate related to narcotics and drugs dealing. I want to put it on the record that my Department has been pretty busy in dealing with a massive number of loopholes involving particularly our failure to have extradition treaties to get back people who leave this country. Honourable members know some of the names I have mentioned previously. Many of them left in earlier years; some of them we have not got back but some we have. It is a major success of our police forces and law enforcement agencies and a tribute to them that they have been able to do that, because substantial charges are involved. In the period in which I have been responsible, as Attorney-General, we have completed 22 extradition agreements. We have 22 agreements which did not exist before. I also make the point that following the Milan conference, where Australia led the resolution that there be mutual assistance with all countries, there was a further conference in Zimbabwe where again we were responsible for the adoption by all of the 47 Commonwealth countries of a mutual assistance agreement which will guarantee the investigation of criminal activities in other countries, and those countries inquiring or making investigation. That would also lead to investigations of bank accounts, the freezing of assets, the transmission of money and many other matters. The legislation has now been introduced here. It is legislation that need only be introduced here because, with the model treaty arrangements, it will automatically apply to another 47 countries. So we now have an opportunity to deal with 69 countries in terms of getting criminals back or guaranteeing that they will leave here should extradition under the treaties be asked for. I mention that because narcotics dealing is of an international character and requires the co-operation of all governments. Other issues have been raised about this legislation. One of the difficulties I find in my portfolio at present is convincing the banks and banking institutions that we need their co-operation, particularly in respect of the transfer of sums of cash. The Americans have it. They are are the only ones who have it at present. The United Kingdom has not introduced it. I want to introduce it as soon as we can get agreement on the fact that the banks are prepared to undertake that, which I do not think is an onerous task at all. We will certainly introduce that legislation in the autumn session. Another matter which the honourable member for North Sydney raised was the criticism by the Director of Public Prosecutions. I know that he is part of my portfolio and comes within its payroll, but apparently there is not much correspondence between him and my Department. To that extent, let me try to find out what has happened to some of the matters that the honourable member for North Sydney mentioned. He mentioned the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act. I am advised that this matter was certainly taken notice of, as soon as there was a weakness in the Act. I pay tribute to the Australian Federal Police and other investigators who had this matter under notice. In one respect the appropriate munitions might have been seized at the wrong time. Nevertheless, they were aware of what was to take place in the way of transhipping those armaments out of Australia. Arrests were made at that time, and the armaments were seized. There was no deficiency in the law enforcement agency. The question is whether there was a weakness in the law, and this is what has been identified. The Director of Public Prosecutions is critical of it, as he can be. The point that I want to make is that the matter has apparently been the subject of some sort of shuttlecock arrangement as to whether the submissions that were before Cabinet in 1985 were strong enough. I am now advised that, after consideration and further comments on more than one occasion from the Director of Public Prosecutions, it has now been agreed that the instructions are in order for the Act to be amended, and those instructions have been given to the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. The other matter was the question of what happened in respect of section 12a of the Crimes Act, which deals with the problem of being able to handle matters on a summary basis with the consent of the defendant, even though they might have been indictable offences. I am told that that matter was referred to Mr Justice Watson, who is dealing with criminal law. I now realise that perhaps we will have to do a little better than that, and the Department will deal with it, rather than wait for Mr Justice Watson's report. I expect that we will be able to deal with that here in the forthcoming autumn session. I have mentioned the question of banking and financial controls. I understand the concern about that, but there needs to be co-operation from the banks. I am hopeful that those matters will be dealt with. In summary, I think the debate has been helpful and constructive. It has been critical, as it is entitled to be. I know that officers of departments will be listening or reading the Hansard record, and they will be aware of that concern. It is not too difficult to amend laws at times, but it is often difficult to get the department to see the need to do it and to get the appropriate priority in terms of getting the legislation drafted. One of the difficulties that modern government is now facing is that, because of the number of pieces of legislation that have to be drafted, particularly in the area of tax and matters related to fiscal and financial affairs which have priority particularly in the Budget session, omnibus Bills such as this have to be introduced to try to catch up. The drafting load on the Parliamentary Counsel is enormous. I can say now that the Bills that have already been drafted for next year would take up more than a year in terms of parliamentary time. This is one of the problems of modern democracy. The Senate has its own rules as to pace, and I think it might well finish this session with some 30 Bills not having been dealt with. So honourable members can see that we always have difficulties in getting the program through. That is not an excuse but an explanation as to the resources available in parliamentary drafting time and the fact that the Office of Parliamentary Counsel has a responsibility which it carries out very well indeed. I thank honourable members for their contribution. We will be dealing with a machinery measure in Committee to alter, in a minor way, the Insurance Contracts Act 1984. I will be seeking leave to move some amendments in Committee. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(10.25) —by leave-The amendments that are drafted to Schedule 1 to the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 provide for matters of renewal and the question of whether some advice should be given by the insurer to the insured pursuant to certain sections of the Act, which are set out in the Act but which have been redrafted on the basis that we will be omitting proposed sub-section 11 (10) and substituting a new proposed sub-section which picks up the contents of what was intended by those amendments but which is drafted on a basis that is more satisfactory. Also paragraph 37 (a) is to be amended by omitting the words that are there proposed. Another amendment relates to the Interstate Road Transport Act 1985, page 26, dealing with the definition of heavy motor vehicles. The final amendment is to page 33, Schedule 2, to what is called the Queensland Grant (Proserpine Flood Mitigation) Act 1976. It is to omit the year 1979 and substitute in lieu thereof the year 1976. I move: (1) Schedule 1, amendments of Insurance Contracts Act 1984, page 25, omit proposed sub-section 11 (10), substitute the following sub-section: ``(10) Notwithstanding sub-section (9)- (a) subject to paragraph (c), where, after the commencement of this Act and at or before the original entering into, or the renewal, extension or reinstatement, of a contract of insurance, the insurer has given information to the insured as required by section 22, 35, 37, 40, 44, 49 or 68, the requirement by that section to give information to the insured shall be deemed to be satisfied at or before any subsequent renewal, extension or reinstatement of the contract; (b) sections 22 and 40 do not require an insurer to give information to the insured at or before a variation of the relevant contract of insurance except where the variation is involved in a renewal, extension or reinstatement of the contract; and (c) sections 35, 37, 44, 49 and 68 require an insurer to give information to the insured at or before a variation of the relevant contract of insurance, but only to the extent that the information relates to the provision or provisions varied or proposed to be varied.''. (2) Schedule 1, amendments of Insurance Contracts Act 1984, page 25, omit the amendment of paragraph 37 (a), substitute- ``Section 37- Omit all the words after ``contract was entered into'', substitute `the insurer clearly informed the insured in writing of the effect of the provision (whether by providing the insured with a document containing the provisions, or the relevant provisions, of the proposed contract or otherwise)'.''. (3) Schedule 1, amendments of Interstate Road Transport Act 1985, page 26, before the amendment of paragraph 11 (3) (b), insert the following amendment- ``Sub-section 3 (1)- After the definition of `heavy motor vehicle' insert the following definition: ` ``insurance'' includes participation in a scheme under a law of a State or Territory relating to motor vehicle accident compensation;'.''. (4) Schedule 2, page 33, omit- ``Queensland Grant (Proserpine Flood Mitigation) Act 1976''. (5) Schedule 2, page 33, omit ``1979'', substitute ``1976''. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(10.27) —I notice that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has referred in the Committee stage to amendments to the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 in the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2). I ask the Minister whether these amendments are of a far-reaching nature or a general nature, or whether they do not matter. I also make the general point that I had hoped that the Committee stage of the Bill would be used by the Minister to explain further other parts of the Bill about which questions have been raised during the debate. I raised the issue only briefly in my speech in the second reading debate as to two Acts that were amended-the Trade Practices Act and the Wheat Marketing Act-and asked for some more details of them that has already been provided to the House. When this type of legislation is debated on the next occasion I hope it will revert to its original purpose of being of a general corrective nature, to get rid of dead wood in legislation, rather than include significant and important changes that should be dealt with in individual pieces of legislation. I ask the Minister to explain the purpose of the amendments to the Insurance Contracts Act. Do they change contractual arrangements between the parties? Will any parties be financially disadvantaged, either prospectively or retrospectively? Why is it that we have another amendment to the Insurance Contracts Act, which was presented to us today, over and above that which was in the original legislation that was introduced into the House? Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(10.29) —I think the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) is right in asking about an explanation. It certainly relates to the same sections in the draft, and I am advised that they are to clarify certain provisions which relate to the uncertainty of the right of an insured to recover an amount greater than the amount of the loss, and they cover this position in which more than one interest holder is involved in the claim on an insurer. They make it clear that notices regarding renewal should be provided even where a broker is acting for an insured. The administrative changes relate in the main to the scope of the requirement to provide certain notice each time a contract is renewed, extended or varied. So, to that extent, it is a benefit to the insured in terms of notices being given. The other matter that the honourable gentleman mentioned was the Trade Practices Act. He will recall that this is the question relating to mergers. There was a debate and the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) was very critical on the issue in relation to the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. Of course, it was well known at the time that the amendment to section 50 involved the question of whether there would be any need for an inquiry where a monopoly had been taken over. In other words, there was no question of affecting competition in the market since there was already a monopoly, BHP holding that monopoly. That was accepted by BHP at the time as being a suitable amendment. But, of course, at the time it was brought before the House there was a fair amount of discussion on the basis of whether that was the right way to go, because the BHP board itself was contesting the issue. There was a fair amount of debate here and the Opposition objected to that amendment at the time. When the Bill went to the Senate, the Opposition put in words which referred to being in the market-place or market activities. As a result there would be a limitation to the extent that, where a merger is taking place where there were no market activities, the Act would not have covered the situation. So the amendment is to remove the words introduced in the Senate to enable us to look at mergers in all circumstances, whether there are market activities or not. In regard to the Wheat Marketing Act, I am told that the purpose of this amendment is to redefine a `wheat season'. The definition of a season relates to wheat which has been sown after 1 January but harvested before 1 October in a particular year. This is an amendment suggested by the Australian Wheat Board and the whole of the wheat industry. It is apparently being made retrospective on the basis, as the honourable member would realise, that there are pools of wheat and it takes some time to administer and disburse the money in the pool. As I understand the situation, the amendment is retrospective to the commencement of 1979 because, apparently, there are wheat pools that have been either partially realised or not realised, and it needs to go back to that time to pick up the appropriate period. That is the explanation I can give the honourable member. If he feels it is insufficient, I will get the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) to elaborate on it. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(10.33) —I am grateful to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) for the way in which he answered the questions and added further explanation. I would hope that that is the way that these debates will go in the future. I will take advantage of his offer of an explanation from the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin); I thank him for that offer. I think, in a general sense, what the Minister has said proves the point that significant changes to individual pieces of legislation are brought before us by way of omnibus legislation. We really do need to stop and think in this Parliament whether in fact this is the proper way to deal with amendments of this nature. It is part of the increasing growth of legislation. I think the Deputy Prime Minister himself said when he was summing up on the second reading debate that already the Parliamentary Draftsman is fully occupied for next year. Obviously the system is choking at every level. The Parliament itself has to have a part to play in this process and I would hope that the Deputy Prime Minister and honourable members opposite would, in a bipartisan way, look at the question of reform so that we can have a more effective and efficient Parliament and better legislation for the people of Australia. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(10.35) —I have looked quickly at the amendments which have been circulated by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). I understand that they are effectively amendments of a drafting nature to overcome some objections that have been put to the Attorney-General and to the Government by the Insurance Council of Australia and the National Roads and Motorists Association. Here I speak of the amendments proposed to the Insurance Contracts Act 1984. On the basis of that understanding of what is intended we do not oppose what the Government proposes. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-read a third time. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(10.37) —On 14 May 1985 the Treasurer (Mr Keating) introduced the 1985-86 Budget initial expenditure savings measures. As part of those measures, the House will remember, it was the Government's intention to make a number of cuts prior to the Budget and thereby induce savings of expenditure which would affect the Budget outcome. The Treasurer, in his statement, said this: These measures, which total $1 1/4 billion, are a progress report-a first and major instalment-towards meeting this Government's budgetary commitments for 1985-86 and for the remainder of our parliamentary term. Further on he said: These decisions follow, and will help consolidate, the undoubted success of the Labor Government's economic strategy since March 1983. Further on the Treasurer said: That is why we have made our trilogy of commitments, in which we have pledged that: There will be no increase in tax revenue as a proportion of GDP in 1985-86 and over the life of the Parliament; The second and third points of the trilogy were: Government expenditure will not increase as a proportion of GDP in 1985-86 and over the life of the Parliament; and the Budget deficit will be reduced in money terms in 1985-86 and reduced as a proportion of GDP over the life of the Parliament. Nobody talks about the trilogy these days, least of all the Treasurer, because in those days when he brought in these measures he was found, by some phoney process, to be the world's best Treasurer. Well, we know he is the world's best banana wrapper these days and he is the world's second worst Treasurer. Finally, the Treasurer said: We have pledged ourselves in the trilogy to ensuring that the burden of taxation does not rise over the life of the Parliament. Deficit reductions will be achieved not by easy resort to higher taxation but through expenditure restraint. So much for the high ideals of the Treasurer and the gross failure of the processes of this Government with its trilogy. The trilogy is scrapped; so is the Government's effort. Tax, expenditure-the whole lot has gone out the window. I followed through some of those matters that the Government introduced as cost saving measures, which were announced by the Treasurer, and I put a question on notice to the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) about a number of matters that were contained in the May economic statement. I asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services about the sale of migrant centres which were to be sold, according to part of the Government's economic statement of May 1985. I asked whether the centres had been sold and, if so, the dates of sale, the prices paid and the purchasers. Honourable members will realise that the Government's statement was made 18 months ago. The Minister's reply came back that none of the centres had been sold-not a single one in 18 months. In spite of the high claims of the Treasurer, the Government had not been able to push through a single sale. One has to consider whether the Treasurer, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) or the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services is at fault. In his reply the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services said: Expressions of interest have been received in respect of Cabramatta, Fairy Meadow, Eastbridge and Endeavour and negotiations are proceeding in each case. Is that not marvellous? That has happened in 18 months of negotiations. It is hard to know whether the Government's failure to make these cuts is an achievement of sheer incompetence or a consequence of the hopelessness of the state of the property market that the Federal Government has created. One does not know whether the failure to make sales is a result of the actions of the Government or the incompetence of the Ministers. A total of $16.6m was supposed to be saved through these sales. Those savings have not been made, and there are many more there. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(10.43) —Yesterday's edition of the Illawarra Mercury ran stories on the front page under the heading `Heathcote poll shock-voters dump Labor' and on the second page under the heading `Libs lead Heathcote poll, Labor heads for a hiding'. Also, in today's edition of the Australian Financial Review under the heading `Poll puts Labor on shaky ground' there was a story purporting to indicate that a poll taken in the Heathcote electorate in New South Wales showed that the Labor Party will be beaten soundly in the by-election on 31 January. I point out that the poll was taken by the Illawarra Regional Information Service for the Illawarra Mercury and I have a great deal of respect for that information service. However, when 268 people are polled-- Mr Hollis —How many? Mr MARTIN —Only 268, and of those 34.3 per cent said that they would vote Liberal, 28.4 per cent said that they would vote Labor, others comprised 20.1 per cent and a massive 17.2 per cent did not know how they would vote. So I cannot really see how it is possible for anyone to claim that that result will eventuate and Labor will be beaten. To illustrate that point I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard two tables which have been cleared by the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman). Leave granted. The tables read as follows- Table 1 Heathcote (March 1984) % First Preference Votes A.L.P. Lib. Dem. Austinmer Sub-division... 54.79 28.61 14.18 57.05 26.82 6.41 Bulli ... 59.32 25.02 12.82 Engadine... 50.03 38.81 8.89 Engadine North... 54.82 47.58 34.96 42.76 8.02 7.81 Helensburgh... 66.87 23.31 7.35 54.32 32.93 10.42 Table 2 Macarthur (Dec. 1984) Percentage first Preference Votes A.L.P. Lib. Dem. Austinmer... 53.90 31.24 14.86 Bulli... 63.84 23.21 21.95 Bulli Hospital... 65.52 25.86 8.62 Bulli North... 64.17 20.95 14.87 Bulli South... 62.47 24.03 13.51 Thirroul... 63.25 21.91 14.84 Thirroul East... 62.65 22.71 14.65 Woonona... 63.49 20.93 15.57 Woonona East... 69.11 18.29 12.60 63.15 23.23 13.60 Hughes (Dec. 1984) A.L.P. Lib. Dem. Other Coalcliff... 75.44 14.91 9.65 - Coledale... 73.76 15.37 9.47 1.40 Engadine Bosco... 52.06 40.66 6.46 0.82 Engadine... 53.96 38.65 6.84 0.54 Engadine High... 52.58 40.23 6.87 0.32 Engadine Plateau... 50.00 44.54 5.06 0.40 Engadine West... 54.19 38.11 7.17 0.53 Heathcote... 53.14 37.51 8.77 0.58 Heathcote East... 56.73 34.10 7.46 1.71 Helensburgh... 68.51 23.47 7.47 0.56 Helensburgh North... 69.46 23.60 6.38 0.58 Otford... 70.77 20.77 8.46 0.00 Scarborough... 73.87 17.09 6.53 2.51 Stanwell Park... 58.89 34.18 6.00 0.92 Waterfall... 63.31 27.34 8.99 0.36 Wombarra... 71.28 22.34 4.96 1.42 62.37 29.52 7.28 0.79 Mr MARTIN —The results in the Heathcote electorate in March 1984 clearly indicate that in the section that is located within the Macarthur Federal electorate 57.05 per cent of the votes were recorded for the ALP, and only 26.82 per cent for the Liberal Party. In the Hughes Federal electorate component of the Heathcote State electorate 54.82 per cent of the votes went to the ALP, compared with 34.96 per cent to the Liberal Party. If one looks at the figures nine months later in the Heathcote component of the Macarthur electorate, one sees that 63.15 per cent of people voted for the ALP candidate, compared with 23.23 per cent for the Liberal Party. In the Hughes component 62.37 per cent voted for the ALP and 29.52 per cent for the Liberal Party. Clearly, this indicates that if one is game enough to be a pollster these days one must be very careful. On the basis of such a small sample I do not think anyone can claim that Labor is heading for a hiding or that the outcome of the by-election is clearly defined. There are other factors that must be taken into consideration. As we are talking about polls, let us have a look at the results of the latest Morgan gallup poll that appeared in the Bulletin last week. It showed quite clearly, for the second consecutive month, that the popularity of the Premier had improved by 11 per cent over a two-month period and that the popularity of the ALP Government in New South Wales was also improving. Quite clearly, one must take those factors into consideration. More importantly, one must consider the effect of Independents and the fact that this will be a by-election. In by-elections in both Rockdale and Bass Hill the one-off effect of those being by-elections saw massive swings against the Government. One cannot deny that. Had it been a general election, I believe that the results would have been totally different. I suggest that the same basic premise holds for the Heathcote by-election on 31 January. There are at least six Independents standing, one of whom is a prominent member of the Frank Arkell team on the Wollongong City Council. As well, environmentalists and representatives of the small business groups from the Engadine section of the Heathcote area are standing. All those candidates will take people away from other parties. A by-election is different. The fact that Independents are standing will play an important part in the outcome of that election. I sum up by pointing out that the Labor Party's candidate, Mr Ian McManus-a former alderman on the Wollongong City Council, a family man devoted to the northern part of the Illawarra and a man who is well known in that area-is a very good candidate. He is a man who knows his electorate. I am sure that he will represent that area quite well in the State Parliament after the by-election is held on 31 January. I certainly appeal to all Labor voters in the northern part of the Illawarra, in the Heathcote electorate, not to desert the Labor Party, because it is the only party that will look after their interests. If they want a voice in the Unsworth Government, they need do nothing more than support Ian McManus. Mr HICKS(Riverina-Darling)(10.47) —Tonight I wish to speak about some of the problems faced by nursing homes in New South Wales and in particular in the city of Broken Hill. Over the last few year the people of Broken Hill have been considering the fact that, although we all know that the Australian population is aging, in the city of Broken Hill the number of elderly citizens per capita is one of the highest in Australia. Some time ago a group under Southern Cross Homes Incorporated formed a committee and decided that it would build a nursing home. At that time in Broken Hill there was the University of New South Wales building which was no longer in use; so this committee decided that it would renovate that building and convert it into a nursing home. I wish to congratulate people such as Kevin Quinn, Harold Williams and the committee on the tremendous work they have done in getting that nursing home under way. The nursing home received a grant of about $800,000 from the Federal Government. The Broken Hill City Council contributed a great deal of money and of course the citizens of Broken Hill also contributed greatly to the project. Mr Cohen —How much was that from the Federal Government? Mr HICKS —I repeat that the Federal Government contributed about $800,000, which was a substantial contribution, and I know that the people of Broken Hill would thank the Government for it. The only problem is that many nursing homes and establishments of that nature which try to get under way run into all sorts of difficulties. Because of the slowness of some bureaucrats within the system, because of regulations laid down by the Board of Fire Commissioners which cause all sorts of problems and increased costs and because of inflation which eats away at the money, such committees have many problems. Just recently a delegation from Broken Hill visited the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) in Canberra, asking for additional funds because of all the problems they faced. Of course nothing was given. Now that the time for opening is coming closer, another problem has arisen. No doubt honourable members have heard about the famous NH5 form. Before any elderly citizen can be admitted to a nursing home an NH5 form must be filled in. A doctor completes section 2 of that form, on which there are questions relating to mobility, incontinence, type of care, diagnosis and treatment. The doctor must sign that form. Doctors in Broken Hill have filled out these forms over the past few months to the best of their ability. The forms have been sent to the Department and after some time some of them have been returned with a letter asking for further information. The strange thing about that is that the further information sought includes some of the things that had already been included on the original form. The Department has asked for further information on mental state, washing, dressing and so on. The Broken Hill Centenary Nursing Home Committee sent away 53 forms and only 28 have been returned. When a senior person from the Department was asked what was happening, he said: `Look, this is happening all over New South Wales and we really have to show the doctors that they have to brush up on their act'. If this is the case, can the Department please either issue a new form or issue a statement to the various nursing homes, particularly the Broken Hill Centenary Nursing Home, saying: `This is our new regulation. The Minister is now saying that you have to forward further information to us. We have to have this information before we can give approval for these elderly people to be admitted to the home'? The situation now is not good enough because in this case, with the nursing home about to open, people have been employed for over a month. That is an extra cost on the burden already being carried by this nursing home. I am asking the Minister and the Department: `For heaven's sake, please brush up on your act or at least let these nursing homes, in particular the Broken Hill nursing home, know what are the criteria and what it is you want. Would you please stop mucking around so that they can get on with the job of caring for the elderly in the city of Broken Hill'? Mr MAHER(Lowe)(10.51) —I wish to raise tonight a very serious matter-the abortion law in New South Wales. I do so because one of my colleagues brought to my attention yesterday an advertisement in the Sydney Morning Herald for women health workers for an abortion clinic in Homebush, which is in my electorate. It is an area which is very close to my heart because I interview there every Saturday morning. It saddened me greatly to read the advertisement because abortion is illegal in New South Wales. I was drawn back to a letter which Mr John Traill, QC, who is now dead, wrote to a weekly paper in 1983 pointing out that abortion is illegal in New South Wales, no matter what people might say. It is illegal under section 83 of the Crimes Act 1900. He went on to note that in 1981 Dr George Smart was convicted in Sydney of performing an unlawful abortion. The sad thing is that this advertisement calls for health workers and says: Experience not necessary but bilingual nursing, herbal or book keeping skills helpful. There is no mention of skills in counselling women who are in difficulties, yet nearby in Strathfield there is a pregnancy help service which offers not only counselling but practical assistance for young and older women who are worried or distressed by their pregnancy. I have had a lot to do with the pregnancy help service. I opened its annual conference at the University of New South Wales and I praise its work. It causes me great concern that an abortion clinic apparently can function in my electorate. Subsequent inquiries have revealed to me that these clinics are advertising abortions in the phone books of the major capital cities. Tonight I want to refer this matter to the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett). The fact that it says that it is an abortion clinic does not mean that it is procuring illegal abortions, but if there are illegal abortions they should not be funded under Medicare and the clinic must be closed. I call on the Minister for Health to investigate this point to find why we do not have a truly women's clinic there to help women, to treat women and to counsel women, because in my electorate a number of general practitioners have refused to bulk bill. There was even a meeting in one area at which GPs got together and refused to have anything to do with Medicare. Women and families were denied proper, cheap and easy access to medical services. That problem has been largely overcome by the development of medical centres in Burwood, but this is a private clinic in Homebush which is blatantly advertising itself and calling itself, in an advertisement in the Sydney Morning Herald, an abortion clinic. I believe that it is run for private profit and private gain. The termination of pregnancies is something that appals me. It is something that I have always opposed and have opposed in this House. No matter what people say about New South Wales and about the Levine judgment in the Heatherbrae case, abortion is illegal in New South Wales and is contrary to section 83 of the Crimes Act. I believe that the Minister should have investigations made into this matter and that he should call for a report on the funding of this clinic at Homebush which may be obtaining money improperly for illegal abortions. I do not know what is done at the clinic. There are no details, except that the advertisement says that people do not have to be experienced, which is pretty appalling and horrendous for people going there to obtain treatment. I tried to raise this matter last night, but there were many members trying to raise other issues. I wanted to raise this tonight because this clinic is in my electorate. It can affect women from my electorate and women should know that there is an alternative and excellent service available in the next suburb of Strathfield. If a women is pregnant she can obtain help and confidential advice and financial and other support right until she has had her child, and afterwards. These women-social workers and the counsellors-at the pregnancy help service are trained people who respect the views and confidences of their clients, and I praise their work. I ask that the Minister for Health investigate the matters I am putting before the House tonight. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(10.56) —Over the last three weeks I have had the good fortune to have visited the United States on a program sponsored by the American Council for Young Political Leaders. During that visit I had the opportunity of going to Washington DC and to the states of Kansas, Missouri and California and on every occasion took the opportunity to raise the concerns that Australian farmers have with United States protectionism and subsidies in areas of agriculture. The overwhelming impression I got from that visit was that the Australian primary producer is facing very massive problems in the United States and growing problems in the year or two ahead and that, if Australia is to overcome these problems, a massive lobbying effort will be needed by the Australian Government and by other people in the Australian community. I went to the state of Kansas in particular because it is regarded as the wheat bowl of the United States and there spoke with the Governor of Kansas, John Carlin, as well as with the State's Secretary of Agriculture. Of course, they emphasised the collapse in farm incomes in that state and pointed out that some 72 per cent of the incomes of wheat farmers in Kansas come from Federal and State Government grants. Those politicians are calling for more help for those farmers, as were all the congressional candidates in the recent round of elections in states which were in any way sensitive to the farm crisis in the United States, and that is an awful lot of states. One of the important points in addition to that is that the Democratic Party controlled Senate which is to take over from the Republican controlled Senate from January next year is going to push as its first initiative a trade protection Bill, and that Bill again has the potential to have a very severe impact on the Australian primary producer as well as some other Australian industries. I spoke to administration officials as well and there was not a lot of hope issuing from those people either. They are still committed, of course, to supporting American primary producers through domestic and export subsidies. The only gleam of hope for Australia is for the United States Administration to attempt to veto the protection Bill that the Democrats are determined to introduce. Through all this gloomy news I came to two very clear conclusions. The first was that it will be vastly important for the Australian Government to lobby as effectively as it can the new, now Democratic Party controlled Senate and to do that not just by traditional methods of diplomacy but also by employing the services of a professional American lobbyist who would have the capacity to understand and to know, through long periods of contact, American congressmen, senators and congressional aides. I do not think that career diplomats, competent as indeed most of them are, have the capacity in just three years of a posting in Washington to have the degree of contacts and influence that a reputable and professional lobbyist in Washington can have. I also think that it is vastly important that the Government agrees to send an all party parliamentary delegation to Washington in the early part of next year to impress on the new Democrat controlled Senate that Australia not only exists but there are foreign policy implications for the United States if it continues to pursue and indeed exacerbate its policies of domestic and, in particular, export subsidies. These are very real concerns for Australia, particularly for Australian primary producers, and I hope that the Government will at least consider this slightly less regular form of approaching the United States Congress because clearly not nearly enough has been done over past years to build our ties with the United States Congress. We must learn the lessons of the past and try to develop those contacts as best we can, using the mechanisms of the United States in the future. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 18 November 1986: Australian National University Act-Statute-No. 189-Deputy Vice-Chancellorship Amendment Statute No. 6. Supported Accommodation Assistance Act-Copy of agreement between the Commonwealth and the State of Victoria, dated 5 November 1986. The following answers to questions were circulated: Mr Barry Jones —On 16 September 1986 (Hansard, page 711-12) Mr Fisher asked a question, without notice, concerning the price of diesel fuel. The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question. The honourable member's question relates to the Prices Surveillance Authority's (PSA) announcement of 12 September that, as a result of the Government's decision to increase the Import Parity Prices (IPP) of domestically produced crude oil on 1 September, the wholesale price of petrol had been increased by 2.12 cents per litre, and the wholesale price of diesel had been increased by 2.11 cents per litre. The PSA subsequently announced on 15 October a further increase in the wholesale price of petrol and diesel of 0.17 cents per litre following the 1 October IPP adjustment. It is the Government's policy that changes in the IPP should have a revenue neutral impact. As the IPP fell during March 1986 and following months, the loss in revenue from crude oil excise was offset by increases in petroleum produce excises. Nevertheless, there were net reductions in wholesale prices. Farmers paid the same lower price as the rest of the community for petrol and diesel used on-road. In addition they received a rebate of the full amount of increased product excise for diesel used off-road. This meant that they received the full benefit of the fall in world crude oil prices for diesel used off-road. This was done to ensure that their competitive position in world markets was not eroded. The effect of this is shown by the following figures: Date On-Road Wholesale Price of Diesel (a) (cpl) Off-Road Wholesale Price of Diesel (cpl) Difference (cpl) 1.1.86 ... 47.76 37.753 10.007 14.1.86 ... 48.76 38.753 10.007 4.2.86 ... 49.19 38.753 10.437 15.3.86 ... 43.00 27.234 15.766 17.4.86 ... 42.02 23.632 18.388 17.5.86 ... 42.02 22.820 19.200 14.6.86 ... 42.35 23.528 18.822 18.7.86 ... 42.35 23.110 19.240 1.8.86 ... 43.12 23.110 20.010 16.8.86 ... 43.12 22.236 30.884 19.8.86 ... 46.12 22.236 23.884 13.9.86 ... 48.23 28.045 20.185 16.10.86 ... 48.40 28.694 19.706 (a) Maximum endorsed wholesale price excluding State Government franchise fees where appropriate. Following the 12 September PSA decision, farmers faced the same increase of 2.11 cents per litre as the rest of the community for diesel used on-road. For off-road diesel, however, they had to bear the full increase in cost of 5.81 cents per litre, reflecting the higher costs of supply of crude oil. Since farmers pay no excise at all on off-road diesel, it was obviously not possible for the Government to off-set the price rise by excise reductions, as in the case of on-road use. The 15 October PSA decision further increased the price of diesel used on-road by 0.17 cents per litre and 0.65 cents per litre for diesel used off-road by farmers. The Government receives no additional revenue as a result of these price changes. The only way in which the Government might have sheltered farmers from the effect of these changes would have been to subsidise them at the rate of 5.81 cents per litre from 13 September and 6.46 cents per litre from 16 October. The annual cost of such a subsidy would have been about $A125 million. It should be noted that even after the latest adjustment to IPP on 1 October 1986 including an increase of $1.15 in the Bass Strait IPP, and the revised product excise rates, the maximum wholesale price of diesel for off-road use by farmers is 28.7 cents per litre compared with 48.4 cents per litre for the rest of the community, a saving of 40 per cent. Farmers are currently paying about 10 cents per litre less for their diesel fuel than they did in early March as a result of the decline in world oil prices. These savings are expected to total $175 million between mid-March and mid-November 1986. Farmers will have also benefited to the extent of $250 million in the same period as a result of the full rebate of product excise for their off-road diesel use. Farmers will continue to benefit after mid-November. Were crude oil prices and product excise rates to remain the same for the next 12 months, product excise concessions would mean a saving of about $370 million in their costs over that period. (Question No. 1590) Mr Smith asked the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 23 August 1985: 1. Will the Minister provide details of all expenditure within his Department in 1984-85 for compensation and legal expenses as outlined in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1985-86. 2. What was the: (a) amount; and (b) nature of the expenditure in each case for: (i) compensation; and (ii) legal expenses. 3. What was the name of each recipient of payment for legal expenses. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. Details of expenditure by my Department in 1984-85 on compensation and legal matters as outlined in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1985-86 (against Division 620/3/23-Compensation and legal expenses $964,400) are provided below. Note: This does not include all compensation and legal expenses of my Department in 1984-85. 2. (i) Compensation Payments pursuant to Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971: (a) Ongoing compensation payments to 56 former employees-$492,800 (b) Medical expenses pursuant to these and other compensation claims: (A) (B) Amount Nature of expenditure $ 35,800 Consultations 18,100 Physio/Chiro 56,100 Hospitalisation 1,400 Pharmacy bills 4,600 Medical supplies 10,700 Medical reports 5,600 Lump sum pay-partial loss of hearing 15,900 Reimbursement of miscellaneous claims 148,200 Compensation total (2i) (a)+(b) = $641,000. (ii) Legal Expenses = $320,300. (iii) Miscellaneous Administrative costs = $3,100. 3. Names of recipients of payments for legal expenses or reimbursement of legal expenses are as follows: ACT Ambulance Service Andrea, Dr B M Andrews, Dr C J Andrews, Heap & Corry (Drs) Ashdown, E Austin, S B Australian Government Printer Australian Government Solicitor Berenson, DR H Biscoe, P M Borrys LTD Bowen, G Brownlie, K A Calder, DR J Carroll & O'Dea Cassar, Dr E Chandran, Dr K N Chesworth, J Pamela Coward & Associates Coyle, Dr W Dante, Dr G Darwin Reconstruction Commission Douglas, F M Galitsky, S Gossip, R D Pty Ltd Gregory, W S & Associates Pty Ltd Griffin, Dr A W Hemmings N A Holmes, M Hording-Smith, Dr J Hudson, Chris & Co Kallinas, C Katz, L Keddie, D King, I W Knight, W H Longbottom, R J Lowes, Dr R McFarlane, I Maher, T & J Matthews, A M & West, J B Medi-Credit Australia Mitchell, Dr R Mullarvey, P J Newcombe, DR R L Newman, P Osman, B Oven Door Pty Ltd Povey, M A Read, C M Reeve & Williams Richardson, G Robertson, A Robson, Dr A Saunders, Dr S Shroot, Dr A D Sly & RusselL Smith, M E Stubbs, Dr G Tamberlin, B J Tranter, P Truman, Dr J Unisearch Ltd Vance, Dr R Vogiantzis G Walmsley, S Williams, R E Woden Valley Hospital Wong-See, Dr J The cost of answering this question is estimated at $204. (Question No. 4039) Mr Milton asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 21 May 1986: (1) Will he take measures, in conjunction with all relevant authorities, to improve the safety procedures for the transport of radioactive materials. (2) What is his Department doing to develop guidelines and codes of practices for the transport, disposal and storage of these materials. (3) Is this Departmental activity in response to new regulations of the International Atomic Energy Commission; if so, what regulations. (4) Is his Department always notified of the loss, theft or release into the environment of these materials; if not, under what circumstances is his Department informed. (5) What legal requirements provide for the reporting of such losses. (6) Does his Department provide advice on dealing with the accidental release of radioactive material into the environment; if so (a) what is the nature of such advice and (b) to whom is it provided. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (3) Extensive arrangements are already in place to ensure the safe transport of radioactive substances in Australia. Radioactive substances represent one of nine classes of dangerous goods. Dangerous goods are transported by air within and from Australia in accordance with the Air Navigation Orders part 33 issued under the Air Navigation Regulations. The Air Navigation Orders in turn adopt the provisions of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air. For marine transport, dangerous goods are transported in accordance with a determination made under 4.1 of Marine Orders Part 41 issued pursuant to the Navigation (Orders) Regulations. This determination requires that dangerous goods be transported in accordance with the provisions of the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code issued by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO). For the transport of radioactive substances, both the ICAO Technical Instructions and the IMDG Code are currently based on the provisions of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Materials 1973, as amended to and published in November 1979. A new revision of the IAEA Transport Regulations was published in 1985. The ICAO and IMO plan in due course to incorporate the 1985 edition of the IAEA Transport Regulations in Technical Instructions and IMDG Code respectively. Regulation of transport, including storage in transit, of radioactive substances within Australia by road or rail is primarily conducted in accordance with the Code of Practice for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Substances (1982) (the ``Transport Code''). The Code was formulated under the provisions of the Environment Protection (Nuclear Codes) Act 1978 after extensive consultation between the Commonwealth, the States and the Northern Territory. The Transport Code essentially takes up the 1973 IAEA Regulations as amended. Implementation of the Code is a responsibility of State and Territory authorities. The Code has been implemented by all States and, in relation to the transport of uranium ores and concentrates, by the Northern Territory, although the means of implementation vary. The Transport Code is presently being revised in the light of new Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material, published by the IAEA in 1985. It is expected that the revised Transport Code will incorporate the 1985 IAEA Regulations and the 1986 Supplement to those Regulations. The revised Code is expected to be published in early 1987 and ultimately to be adopted by the States and the Territories. Guidelines to the Transport Code and a pamphlet, designed for the worker, on safety rules for enhancing radiation protection are also being revised. A working group comprising officers of Commonwealth, State, Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory Competent Authorities for the transport of radioactive substances has been established to discuss matters relating to the administration of the Transport Code such as interpretation of parts of the Transport Code on a uniform basis and co-operation between Competent Authorities. In the context of the effective regulation of the transport of radioactive substances, it should be noted that IAEA Transport Regulations form the basis of virtually all national and international requirements for the safe transport of radioactive materials, and that these Regulations have led to an excellent safety record for the transport of radioactive substances on a world-wide basis. There have been very few accidents involving the transport of radioactive material in Australia which have had any possible public health consequences. Nonetheless, the Commonwealth Government will continue to ensure that appropriate regulations and codes of practice are developed and encourage their implementation as appropriate. Management of radioactive waste is, at the Commonwealth level, within the responsibility of the Minister for Resources and Energy. The development of national facilities for the disposal of radioactive materials, arising from the medical, industrial and research use of radionuclides is under consideration by a Commonwealth/State Committee which is convened by the Department of Resources and Energy. (4) to (5) There is no mechanism for notification to my Department of the loss, theft or release into the environment of radioactive materials. Losses and accidents involving radioactive materials are reported to the Competent Authorities within whose jurisdictions the event occurs (see Table). Nuclear material within Australia is, however, controlled and accounted for by the Australian Safeguards Office (within the portfolio of the Minister for Resources and Energy) pursuant to Australia's nuclear safeguards policy and international safeguards obligations. (Note: In this context nuclear material has the same meaning as in the Agreement between Australia and the International Atomic Energy Agency for the Application of Safeguards. This definition includes plutonium 239, uranium 233 and 235, natural, enriched and depleted uranium, thorium, mixtures and alloys of these elements, but it does not include ores or ore residues.) (6) The provision of advice on dealing with the accidental release of radioactive material into the environment is generally a matter for agencies of the States and the Northern Territory. The Australian Atomic Energy Commission and other Commonwealth agencies, such as the Australian Radiation Laboratory and my Department, provide advice as appropriate whenever it is required. Such advice typically relates to health hazards and potential environmental damage. Table LIST OF AUSTRALIAN COMPETENT AUTHORITIES FOR THE TRANSPORT OF RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES AS AT 1 OCTOBER 1986 Commonwealth/State/Territory Competent Authority Commonwealth (i) sea transport (international and interstate)... Commonwealth Department of Transport (ii) air transport... Commonwealth Department of Aviation New South Wales... NSW Department of Health Victoria... Victorian Department of Health Queensland... Queensland Department of Health Western Australia... Radiological Council South Australia... SA Health Commission Tasmania... Director of Public Health Northern Territory (i) for radioactive ores and concentrates... NT Department of Mines and Energy (ii) for all other radioactive substances... NT Department of Health Australian Capital Territory... ACT Radiation Council (Question No. 4660) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 22 September 1986: Further to question No. 828 placed on notice on 22 April 1985-(a) have more than 16 months passed since the question was first placed on notice, (b) when can I expect an answer to the question and (c) what does this delay say about the efficiency of the internal reporting system in the Minister's Department. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: My Department's internal reporting system is extraordinarily efficient. (Question No. 4685) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 25 September 1986: (1) Is he aware that on 15 August 1986 the United States Ambassador to New Zealand stated that it was a matter of concern to the United States that New Zealand's ban on nuclear ship visits also applied to aircraft. (2) Is he able to state whether New Zealand's proposed legislation banning nuclear ship visits will also be extended to include aircraft; if so, is he also able to say whether this action would jeopardise the continuing operation of the US Antarctic program known as ``Operation Deepfreeze'' based at Christchurch. (3) Has the Government given any consideration to, or entered into negotiations with, the United States to relocate those facilities within Australia. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The United States Ambassador to New Zealand is reported as having said during a radio broadcast on 14 August that the United States had problems with the New Zealand process for approving visits by United States military aircraft similar to those for granting clearances to visiting warships. According to the Ambassador, these problems with aircraft arose from a statement by the New Zealand Defence Minister, Mr O'Flynn, in September 1984 that none of the United States aircraft participating in the TRIAD joint airforce exercises would be nuclear armed; the United States regarded this statement as a violation of its policy of neither confirming nor denying the presence of nuclear weapons. (2) The New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Bill, contains clauses on the entry of foreign military aircraft similar to those for the entry of foreign warships. The main difference is that clause 10 (3) of the Bill provides that, once the New Zealand Prime Minister is satisfied that the foreign military aircraft for which approval is being sought will not be carrying any nuclear explosive device when it lands in New Zealand, the resulting approval may relate to a category or class of foreign military aircraft and may be given for such period as is specified in the approval. I am not aware that the proposed legislation has jeopardised the continuing operation of the United States Antarctic program known as Operation Deep Freeze based at Christchurch. At a press conference following the conclusion of the Australia-United States Ministerial Talks in San Francisco last August, Secretary of State Shultz said that he did not foresee any shift in the United States operation away from Christchurch. (3) No. (Question No. 4779) Mr Hollis asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 16 October 1986: (1) Is he able to say whether the Executive Board of UNESCO on 7 October 1986 urged member states to examine the possibility of ratifying the Convention and Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. (2) Did Australia ratify the convention on 19 September 1984; if not, what steps have to be taken before Australia ratifies the Protocol. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Australia ratified the Convention on 19 September 1984. Before ratifying the Protocol Australia would need to enact appropriate legislation to implement the provisions of the Protocol. It will be necessary to undertake certain preparatory work before the drafting of such legislation can be undertaken. (Question No. 4813) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 17 October 1986: (1) Have the United Kingdom, the United States and Singapore withdrawn form UNESCO. (2) When were these withdrawals effected and what were the grounds given by each country for their withdrawal. (3) Has Australia's funding of UNESCO increased from an actual outlay of $2.113m in 1985-86 to an estimated $4.751m in 1986-87. (4) Is he able to say what formula or criteria are applied by UNESCO in determining the funding commitment of each contributing member country. (5) Is Australia's increased funding, as suggested by the 1986-87 appropriation, an indication that countries continuing to contribute to UNESCO are required to meet some or all of the shortfall in funding as a result of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom, the United States and Singapore. (6) Why have there been such large (a) changes in Australia's year by year actual payments to UNESCO and (b) differences between the initial appropriations and actual expenditure over recent years. (7) Is he able to say whether Australia's Ambassador to UNESCO was correctly reported in the Sydney Morning Herald of 15 May 1986 as saying that it was difficult to defend UNESCO's programs because they were too verbose and too diffuse, and that UNESCO was a mismanaged organisation. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) The United States withdrawal took effect on 31 December 1984. In a letter dated 29 February 1984 from Assistant Secretary of State Newell to the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the following reasons were given for the United States withdrawal: Politicisation of UNESCO's traditional subjects in the introduction of programs, resolutions and debate on disarmament, `collective rights', and other `extraneous themes'; An endemic hostility toward the basic institutions of a free society, especially a free market and a free press; and The most unrestrained budgetary expansion in the United Nations system. The United Kingdom withdrawal took effect on 31 December 1985. On 5 December 1985 the Minister for Overseas Development, Mr Timothy Raison, informed the House of Commons that Britain would withdraw due to its continuing concern over Excessive politicisation and subversion of UNESCO's founding aims; Inefficient management leading to duplication of effort and vague and meaningless programs; Serious weaknesses in staff management; and Excessive staffing and expenditure at the Paris Headquarters. The withdrawal of Singapore took effect on 31 December 1985. The Singapore Government's decision to withdraw was based on budgetary considerations. (3) Australia's 1985-86 payment to UNESCO of $A2,112,511 was at an unusually low level due to the fact that two credits were received from UNESCO. There was a credit of $US1,249,344 for currency fluctuations for the 1981-83 triennium, a credit of $US288,339 for budgetary surpluses and a debit of $US40,927 advance to the working capital fund. The Australian contribution of $A4,750,600 for 1986-87 reverts to a normal pattern of contributions. (4) The scale of member countries' contributions to the UNESCO budget is based on the scale of contributions to the United Nations. (5) See answer to (3) above. (6) Variations in Australia's annual payments to UNESCO have been caused by changes in Australia's assessment which is related to the UNESCO budget approved biennially by the General Conference, and to credits received due to currency fluctuations. Variations between appropriation and expenditure have also been the result of currency fluctuations. (7) In an intervention on 13 May, 1986 in debate on the Director-General's oral report during the 124th session of the UNESCO Executive Board, the Australian Ambassador to UNESCO, the Hon. E. G. Whitlam, referred to the major programs of UNESCO as `too verbose and too diffuse'. He did not, however, say that UNESCO is a mismanaged organisation. Following are the relevant extracts from Mr Whitlam's intervention: `There are problems with the presentation and explanation of the present Medium Term Plan. The 14 Major Programs are simply too verbose and too diffuse. They make it almost impossible for those of us who are required to explain the Medium Term Plan, or more broadly to explain what UNESCO does, to do so by reference to the 14 Major Programs . . . We shall not in my view be able to justify and promote UNESCO adequately unless and until we concentrate our work under the five main elements in our Constitution: peace and justice, education, science, culture, communication. In order to do so we do not have to reduce or displace any of our 14 Major Programs. We do need to focus and concentrate attention on our Major Programs and all our Programs under these five headings.' The proposal to concentrate UNESCO's major programs under the five headings in the UNESCO Constitution is one measure Australia is pursuing in the context of the continuing process of reform of the Organisation. (Question No. 4823) Mr Cleeland asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 21 October 1986: (1) Is he able to say whether an anti-semitic book has been written by the Syrian Defence Minister, General Mustafa Tlas. (2) Has his Department received a letter and copy of the book from the Dean of the Simon Weisenthal Centre, asking the Australian Government to protest against the publication of the book. (3) Will he make such a protest to the Syrian Government. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am advised that Syrian Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Mustafa Tlas has written a book `Maztzoh of Zion' dealing with the alleged ritual murder of a Capuchin friar and his servant in Damascus in 1840. The book was first published in Damascus in 1983. It is apparently no longer available in bookshops in Damascus. (2) No. (3) As I am unaware of the book or its contents personally I don't see how I can.