Wednesday, 25 March 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Debate resumed from 24 March, on motion by Dr Blewett: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(10.00) —I am getting signals from the Whip that I have only 10 minutes to speak on the Australia Card Bill 1986. Mr McGauran —Too long. Mr MARTIN —I sat here for three-quarters of an hour last night waiting for my turn and having to put up with nonsense from the other side such as the nonsense we have just heard from the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran). It is important to remind the House of the objectives of the Bill that is before us today. They are two-fold. The first objective is to enable the combating of tax evasion and avoidance and welfare fraud and the second is to assist in the identification of illegal immigrants. I find it necessary to redefine the purposes of this Bill because honourable members opposite have indulged so much in scaremongering and flights of fantasy during the debate so far and during the debate on this Bill in November last year that the straightforward and laudable objectives of the Bill certainly need to be restated. It is also important to remind the House of something of the history of the Australia Card legislation and the Australia Card as a concept. We all remember that this proposition first came to light in the draft White Paper on tax reform introduced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in mid-1985. When the draft White Paper was published, the suggestion that an Australia Card, a national identification system, come in to play was welcomed by the majority of the Australian people and, indeed, by any person who had the capacity to think clearly about the advantages that would flow to the Australian people from the introduction of such a card. When the proposal was subsequently presented by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) at the National Taxation Summit, again it met with overwhelming support. So the history of the Australia Card began back in mid-1985 when the laudable objectives of clamping down on taxation fraud and welfare fraud and being able to identify illegal immigrants were first considered. The proposal was adopted by the majority of commentators and people in Australia who had a clear and obviously well thought out position on the Australia Card issue. We found broad support then for the Australia Card on both sides of this Parliament. One has to conjecture whether that broad support for the Australia Card has been dissipated simply because of tensions on the other side between the National Party and the Liberal Party and internal divisions in the Liberal Party and the National Party. One wonders whether, if all the different groupings within the conservative forces in Australia today were left to go their own way, there would be a difference of opinion. Perhaps I will come back to that a little later. As I have said, it is important to look at some of the history of the Australia Card legislation and the views of honourable members opposite. As I mentioned in November last year during debate on this issue, a number of those opposite took a principled stand on the Australia Card when it was first introduced. Mr Carlton —I did. Mr MARTIN —Of course, none more principled than the honourable member for MacKellar who is at the table now. I want very quickly to refer to some of those principled positions that were taken by honourable members previously. For example, in 1982 the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) said in the Parliament: What we need in Australia to effectively fight all forms of abuse is a proper identification of each Australian with a number, a photograph and . . . a fingerprint. That was the view taken by the honourable member for Dawson back in 1982. He went on to say: This will identify each of those who are on the employment register or the taxation records, or those who are social security recipients and receiving health and education subsidies or any form of government assistance. We need a policeman to safeguard the public purse. He was spot on. Mr Robert Brown —Who was that? Mr MARTIN —The honourable member for Charlton asks me who said that. It was the honourable member for Dawson, who at the time I understand was spokesman for social security and therefore obviously had a great deal of interest in it. The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), Deputy Leader of the National Party, on 5 June 1985 was reported as follows: The proposed national identification system offered dual benefits to the Australian people. . . The use of plastic cards for an effective means of identification would streamline the collection of tax revenue, imposing a greater accountability on that small minority of taxpayers who sought to evade their responsibilities to the community. . . The second major benefit would be to cut down on fraud affecting Government outlays, especially social welfare payments. . . I will be making representations to the government strongly supporting this aspect of the `White Paper' proposal. That was from the Deputy Leader of the National Party. I indicated earlier in my speech this morning that I believe that the divisions in the various ranks of the conservatives in Australia at the moment may see some changing attitudes. We have seen some Press reports about certain dissident Liberals who may cross the floor in the Senate to support this legislation when it gets there. But one has to speculate as to what will happen after this week. I am pleased to see that the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar) and the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) are here. I ask those gentlemen what will happen after this weekend. What happens if those gentlemen leave the coalition and start their own little Joh group or ginger group? Will they have a rethink on this? Let us be frank: Some of their colleagues-in fairness I will not name them here-have indicated privately that they support the Australia Card legislation. Yet, because they have been bound into this coalition policy for political expediency and for no other reason, they have decided: `Well, we will have to take this line that we do not support it because it really will not achieve all the things that the Government says it will'. That is nonsense and unprincipled. I just ask the two gentlemen from Queensland particularly who are here this morning to have a rethink about that and maybe they will be able to get to their National Party colleagues in the Senate and, dare I say, instruct them, or at least talk to them and implore them to support the legislation when it gets into the Senate. As we have seen, and as many of my colleagues on this side of the House have said in the last day during debate, the overwhelming majority of Australian people support a national identification system and the Australia Card. They see the benefit in it. It comes down to a very simple philosophy, which is probably one of the reasons that the Opposition has difficulties grasping this whole thing-the fact that it is such a simple philosophy. It was put to me by one of the car drivers as late as this morning as I was coming into the Parliament. He said: `If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about'. That is a fairly simple-- Mr Robert Brown —Very perceptive. Mr MARTIN —It was very perceptive of the car driver, and I think it is the general feeling out there in the Australian public. I am getting a little away from what I was doing, which was pointing out the principled position that was taken by people on the other side in days gone by. I take, for example, the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt). As we all know, because he puts out Press releases that show it at the top, he is the shadow spokesman on social security. On 8 June 1985 he said: The introduction of a national identification system using ID cards offers benefits to the Australian people which outweigh any civil liberties consideration. That is what the honourable member for Richmond said at that time. But what does he say now? There just happens to be floating around the Parliament a memorandum entitled `Background Information from Charles Blunt MP, National Party Federal Member for Richmond-ID cards'. This purports to suggest points for argument that perhaps can be used here in the debate. I remind the House that back in 1985 the honourable member for Richmond stated that he believed that the ID card system was very important and that the introduction of an ID system using identification cards offered benefits to the Australian people which outweighed any civil liberties consideration. But he has now put out this background information paper in which he says: Labor's sloppy and inefficient administration of Social Security and Tax allows fraud. The real solution is better administration, not an ID card, the ID card is a cover up for bad management. That is what he is now saying. How does he justify the position he is taking now in this paper compared to what he said in 1985? We talk about the principled positions of people in this Parliament. We like to see principled positions because, after all, we are elected to represent the views of our wider constituency and we are supposedly here to take those principled positions, yet we see that this is not the case. In this little background information paper the honourable member for Richmond has indicated that what he would rather see is the theft of social security stopped by requiring strict and positive identification of all claimants requiring prime documents-birth certificates and these sorts of things. I heard him argue in this place yesterday that things such as the production of driver's licences and other forms of what I consider prime documents can easily be forged and that the same thing will happen with an identification card. We saw the ridiculous situation last year where the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), in the greatest publicity stunt of all time which backfired and which did not get any coverage at all, offered $100 to the first person to produce a fake ID card. We find that this is the attitude that honourable members over there are taking. They are suggesting that we need to produce all of this other documentation. Let us get realistic. How many times, even when the people opposite and their constituents go to a variety of places, whether it be a bank, a financial institution or when applying for a variety of other services in the community, is it necessary to produce some form of identification and to pull a driver's licence out? How many people do those opposite seriously think will walk around with their birth certificates in their pockets and will pull it out and say: `This is me, you can definitely see it is me, I was born 24, 36 or 76 years ago' or whatever it happens to be? I just find that quite incredible. This document that was released provided some interesting points which have been taken up by those on this side of the House very nicely. In the time that is left to me by the Whip I want to mention a number of other points that were made in debate on this Bill last year. The honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) referred in debate to the coalition's `consistent and principled opposition' to the Australia Card. I have demonstrated that there has not been anything consistent about the position which has been adopted by those opposite. When I look back through Hansard I find that all the Opposition speakers in the debate last year so muddied the issues and clouded and distorted the debate that one would be hard pressed to say that the Opposition was either consistent or principled. I think I have drawn that out today. I come back to the other point-that people in the Joh Party group, the ginger group that is going to be a separate group after this weekend, represent constituencies in Queensland that support the ID card. Those constituencies have told me that they support it, but those opposite are going to vote against it in the House yet again. Now might be an appropriate time to suggest that we should delay this Bill for debate in this House until next week. We should come back and debate it on Monday because we might see a bit of a change in attitude of those opposite. I think that is something that the Leader of the House (Mr Young) could give some thought to and we will see what happens. I turn to a couple of other comments that were made. Privacy is an issue that has been raised time and again. The honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) talked about the Government's Big Brother computer. The honourable member for Flinders talked about the Government's control over citizens ensuing from a centralised data system. The honourable member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur) expressed fears of the Opposition that Big Brother Australia will be watching every man, woman and child through a major computerised surveillance network. Honourable members opposite should not be worried about that; they should be worried about the scanners which we have talked about over the past few days. Never mind the ID system; it is the electronic surveillance from scanners that will blow honourable members opposite out of the water-not the Australia Card. Let us get back to the basics. I will conclude on this note: The Australia Card is there for a simple reason, and that is to enable the Government to ensure that there is equitable and fair collection of taxation receipts; that welfare fraud can be stamped out; and that illegal immigrants in this country can be detected. Each of those goals are laudable objectives for this Government to pursue. I believe that they should be pursued. I come back to what the car driver said this morning: `If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear'. I cannot understand, in simple plain logic, why honourable members opposite are consistent-it is the only thing they are consistent about-in their weak opposition to this proposal. I hope that honourable members opposite re-think their position before the vote is taken. Perhaps the Leader of the House will consider delaying the vote until next Monday so that the Joh party people can do some clear thinking and perhaps support the ID card legislation in the House. Failing that, perhaps they will talk to their senatorial colleagues and get support for the legislation in the Senate. Perhaps they will get a number of their colleagues to cross the floor and vote with the Government, along with those dissident Liberals in the Senate who are prepared to do so. Hopefully some sanity will prevail among the Joh party people. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(10.17) —The honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin), who has just addressed the House on the Australia Card Bill 1986 [No. 2], asked Opposition members to re-think their position on the Bill. It is now many months since the Australian Labor Party sought to inflict the Australia Card on the people of Australia. It was introduced into this chamber in October 1986. Many days have passed since that time. Has the Government learnt a lesson? Has the Government taken into account the wishes of the Australian people? Has it responded to the community outcry, the absolute outrage and fear by Australians right throughout the country? Has the Government taken on board the very real concerns of ordinary, decent citizens? Has it reversed its sinister intentions? Of course not. The Government insists on proceeding with its ID card proposal which will result in the dog-tagging of every man, woman and child in the whole of Australia. Let us consider why the Government has reintroduced the Bill into the chamber this week. Does it think that it will be able to persuade Opposition and Australian Democrat senators in the Senate to push the ID card legislation through, that legislation which was rejected, and rightly so, in December 1986? No; we have another exercise in cynicism. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has paraded before the people of Australia on many occasions saying that there will not be an early election; the Government will run its full term. What do we see in the legislation? We find a sham. We find that the Government has introduced this legislation-the same legislation that was rejected last year-back into the Parliament for the purpose of obtaining a double dissolution trigger, for the purpose of being able to hold a gun at the head of the Opposition, and indeed the people of Australia, and for the purpose of giving the Government the chance to take us to an early election. We would certainly welcome the opportunity of defeating the Hawke Government. If the Government does go to the people early, it would be yet another broken promise on the part of the Prime Minister to add to the litany of broken promises which has marked his prime ministership since that day in 1983 when he crawled into the Lodge. The inspiration for this legislation comes from the Eastern bloc. While there are 55 countries throughout the world where people have ID cards, only in two of those countries do people not have to carry the card at all times. While the Government speakers say: `Oh yes, this legislation will ensure that the ID card is being used only for a limited number of purposes', we ought to take into account what certain people in the Health Insurance Commission are saying. They are saying that once the ID card has been accepted by the people there should be extra, more controversial data and uses introduced. So the Government stands exposed as a fraud. The Government has said that the ID card will only be used for certain purposes and yet the Government's own Health Insurance Commission is saying: `Look, let us just bring it in the way it is now. Let us fool the Australian people and then we will bring in the more sinister uses for the ID card in the future'. The Government continues to ignore com- munity views. Respected bodies such as the Law Society of New South Wales are totally opposed to Labor's ID card proposal as it presently stands. I will quote from a letter I received from the President of that Society. It states: The Law Society of New South Wales wishes to reiterate its opposition to the Australia Card system as set out in the Australia Card Bill 1986, which was re-introduced to the House last Wednesday. The Australian Bankers Association has also pointed out that the ID card proposal will be unworkable. It will obviously set back the Australian banking system many years and the Government refuses to take this into account despite the fact that on 7 February this year, the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) said that the Government would take on board necessary changes and would be prepared to make reasonable alterations to the ID card legislation. Yet this has not happened. The Government has reintroduced the Bill to the House in its unamended form. A very important group in Australian society-that is farmers and rural people-also oppose the ID card. An eminent Australian, Mr Michael Tooth, President of the New South Wales Farmers Association wrote to the Minister on 10 February just three days after the Minister offered to accept reasonable improvements to the legislation. I would like to quote from Mr Tooth's letter. He said: The Association's members, like many in the community, would support initiatives which bring to an end fraudulent practices in the Taxation and Social Welfare areas. However, the Association believes that such practices could be effectively eliminated by tightening up the existing provisions of current legislation and, if necessary, the introduction of a Card to social welfare recipients would assist to crack down on social security fraud. Unfortunately, the Government's current proposed legislation does not appear to fulfil this objective. In its proposed form, the legislation will add considerably to the cost of primary production at an excessive and unacceptable cost to the innocent majority. Mr Tooth's letter to the Minister concluded with a plea. This plea should be taken into account when one looks at the rural crisis confronting Australia at present. He said: In view of the difficult trading position Australian primary producers now face, it is imperative that farmers do not have additional costs placed upon them. As usual, this plea from the rural sector has fallen on deaf and unsympathetic ears. Even the Victorian Council for Civil Liberties, in a brochure on the cover of which are the words `Oppose Canberra's UNAustralian Australia Card', opposes this legislation. It states: The ID card will take away your basic rights as an Australian citizen. The government will decide if you can have a card, you have no right to have a card. Without a card- you cannot get a job-no card-no job; you cannot lease or buy a home or flat; you cannot open a bank account; you cannot use hospital services; you cannot spend money or travel overseas. The Council goes on to say: If a computer blows a microchip or makes an error you will not be able to function in Australia. You will be under the bureaucratic control of Canberra. Labor's claims that the ID card will stop social security fraud and tax cheats are patently false. The Government has failed to take the firm and decisive steps which are necessary to stop social security fraud. The Opposition has suggested many positive means of stopping theft from the Australian social security system. In January this year I called for an Operation Noah style phone-in where people would be able to telephone officers of the Department of Social Security to report instances of welfare fraud. The Government has ignored this idea. We could certainly go a long way towards stopping social security fraud by requiring strict and positive identification of all claimants. The Government could enforce the existing eligibility tests with regular checks. We could increase field officer checks giving power to investigate all accusations of fraud. Most importantly all offenders should be prosecuted. It is interesting to note that while this ID card will be used by the Government for the purposes of identification for welfare benefits, less than 0.6 per cent of welfare fraud and overpayment is related to false identity. This is a very serious matter confronting the people of Australia. The Government's proposed aims with this legislation will not succeed. The Government will not answer the allegation that it will cost up to $1,000m to implement the ID card. That, incidentally, is approximately the cost of the new Parliament House on current figures. The burden of business complying with the Card has not been addressed by the Government. It has been estimated that $2 billion will be paid out by business in meeting the cost of this legislation. This legislation, if implemented, will ensure that every Australian must carry an internal passport, an Eastern bloc practice. The Government stands condemned in the eyes of all Australians. This is the Government which has masqueraded before the people on so many occasions. This is the Government which claims to be the supporter of the underprivileged. This is the Government which claims to represent ordinary Australians. Through this legislation the Government is condemning 16 million Australians to carry this identification card. We in Opposition, we in the National Party of Australia, are totally opposed to the Government's aims in this area. Labor is once again guilty of misleading the people of Australia. Its deception in this Bill is transparently obvious. Australians will be shackled-man, woman and child-to a system which extinguishes individual liberties. The Australia Card Bill would be, without doubt, one of the most insidious pieces of legislation ever introduced to a Western parliament. It is reminiscent of the practices of nazi Germany. The ID card is an expensive and bureaucratic waste of taxpayers' money, and this waste comes at a time when Australia's national debt is going up by $1,300 every second. It is going up at an enormous rate. In the time it takes to deliver a five-minute speech in the Parliament Australia's national debt goes up by $390,000. It goes up by over $4m per hour. Australia is virtually bankrupt. Notwithstanding that, we find that the Government introduces nazi like legislation which will not achieve what it is claimed it seeks to achieve, which will shackle Australians and which will cost Australia dollars which it can ill-afford. If this Bill becomes law the nation should stop still for a minute's silence, for democracy will be well and truly dead. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(10.30) —It would be tempting to respond to some of the comments in the contribution by the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper), but I shall not, except to note in passing that members of his Party, in the fragile coalition, are bullying senators to ensure that they do not cross the floor and vote in favour of the Australia Card Bill in the Senate. It is a matter of record that within the coalition parties there is a strong sentiment in support of the Australia Card proposal. Mr Nehl —Just as there is opposition in your Party. Mr GRIFFITHS —The initial opposition to it was predicated upon- - Mr Nehl —Has anyone from your side ever crossed the floor? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Cowper will extend to the honourable member for Maribyrnong the same courtesy the House gave the honourable member for Fisher. Mr Nehl —But I'm right, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —He will also heed the Chair. Mr GRIFFITHS —I was embracing my more statesman-like approach, but I might be tempted now to give honourable members opposite a good bucketing. Madam SPEAKER —I do not think I would yield to temptation, if I were you. Mr GRIFFITHS —I defer to your judgment, Madam Speaker. The Australia Card debate is indicative of the coalition's obviously opportunistic approach to issues before this Parliament. It is a matter of public record that there is wide sentiment among the coalition members of this chamber in support of the Australia Card proposal. There is hardly a member on this side of the House who has not had discussions of a private nature with honourable members opposite. I will not indicate who those people are; nevertheless, a number of them strongly support the Australia Card proposal, but will not vote for it because they can see that there is a bit of political gain to be squeezed out of the issue. Senators from the coalition parties have indicated as recently as today that they may cross the floor and vote in favour of the Australian Card proposal. The reason becomes irrelevant. The question still must be: Why are some of those senators prepared to do that if this is such a terrible thing? The previous speaker talked about how terrible this matter would be coming from the Australian Parliament, but no mention was made of the fact that Canada, the United States of America, France, Italy, the Netherlands, West Germany, Denmark, Austria, Switzerland and Sweden, among others, already have identification card systems. Why do they have those? The reasons are perfectly obvious. Most people on this side of the House, including my self, referred to those reasons in some considerable detail when this matter was discussed late last year. Madam Speaker, I would like to make a couple of points- - Mr Hodgman —`Mr Deputy Speaker'; are you going blind? Mr GRIFFITHS —I am sorry, there has been a quick change. I could say a lot of things about Mr Deputy Speaker, but I would never refer to him as Madam Speaker. There are a number of important issues surrounding the Australia Card. I have a whole table of quotes from senior members of the Opposition, including the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Chaney), the one-time President of the Victorian branch of the Liberal Party of Australia, the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Hunt) and the shadow Minister for Social Security, the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt). I shall not go over those because I referred to them in the debate late last year, but they confirm my initial comments about the widespread sentiment in the coalition ranks in support of the Australia Card proposal. At the end of the day decisions before this House have to be put into some kind of perspective. It is no secret that when the Australia Card proposal was originally mooted I, with some of my colleagues on this side of the House, indicated public opposition to the proposal. Dr Harry Edwards —Is that so? Mr GRIFFITHS —That is right. I indicated opposition to the concept because at that time there was no talk of appropriate safeguards for privacy. Of course, much of the legitimate opposition to the original concept has now been addressed by the Government and it is accurate to say that this package of proposals from the Government will enhance the privacy of all Australians. Coming from a background in the law and having had for a considerable time an active interest in issues of civil liberties, I would take a bit of convincing on any proposal that might minimise the civil liberties of ordinary Australians. A good issue to compare this one with, just to show how hypocritical the Opposition can be on these issues, is telephone interceptions. The Opposition is saying that the Australia Card proposal, albeit with all the package of safeguards that is being incorporated, is such a terrible thing-it will be the downfall of Australian civil liberties and so on-and, at the very same time, it is arguing for a massive extension of telephone interception powers to all the State police forces. The two issues are fundamentally different. One, of course, by definition implies a potentially much greater invasion of civil liberties. Yet the Opposition takes two completely different approaches. Of course, its views are predicated on the political advantage it believes will accrue to it by adopting its two courses on those issues. It ought to be condemned for that. The Opposition has taken that approach on a range of government proposals. Perhaps it has to as an opposition. Nevertheless, there is a fundamental inconsistency and hypocrisy involved when it approaches these two issues on a different basis. It is worth looking at the amounts of money that will accrue. There is considerable debate about the amounts of money that will be saved in terms of fraud and taxation avoidance and so on. That is a legitimate area of debate. But, if one area of agreement seems to be emerging, it is that the Government's figures used initially are conservative. Many hundreds of millions of dollars are involved. I think most honourable members on a regular basis are at the coalface of politics where they have to make decisions about competing priorities and limited resources. I was very interested to read a document which received wide publicity recently, the coalition savings options paper. This is what it is all about at the end of the day. As a government we need to ensure that, to the greatest extent possible, ordinary honest Australians are not subsidising others who are not prepared to contribute their fare share to running our society, our democracy. To put this debate into financial context, the coalition savings option paper, for example-I do not say it is at this point official; I know it is only an option papers at this point-refers to the abolition of the indexation of pensions. For goodness sake, that would have a massive impact on the ordinary pensioners of Australia. It would significantly reduce their living standards. Yet, at the same time as this paper is being circulated as an official option paper within the coalition, members of the coalition are in this House arguing against a quite sensible proposal that will garner hundreds of millions of dollars that can be used, as an example, to ensure that we do not have to knock off the indexation of pensions. I challenge Opposition members to go out into the community to Australia's pensioners-those who rely on the whole range of government benefits-and to say to them that they may have their level of pensions reduced. At the same time Opposition members are opposing a massive potential revenue source in a sensible proposal, that is, the Australia Card. Of course, the absurdity of that situation would not be lost on them; they would not have the guts to do it. A whole range of other areas were referred to, such as the tightening of the supporting parent's benefits. `Tighten' is a great word, is it not? No detailed proposals are given; just a reference to `tighten', an attack on single mothers. They are always seen by those opposite to be an appropriate target around which some hysteria can be built up. Again, this is an easy political option. Another option given is the phased removal of pensions for women aged less than 65 years. That has drawn comments that indicate that it will not be proceeded with. Personally, I do not trust that. At the end of the day this Opposition has indicated a level of expenditure cuts and other savings. It will have to look at some of these areas; there is no doubt about that. The Opposition proposes to subsidise free lunches. That is its policy. It is not a matter of my subjective view; it is the official policy of the coalition that it will reinstitute taxation arrangements whereby business men and women spending a couple of hours over lunch, having the best of wines and the best of food will be able to claim that expenditure as a legitimate taxation deduction. This is proposed at the same time as honourable members opposite are talking about attacking the living standards of single mothers. For goodness' sake, I find it almost obscene. Nevertheless, I suggest that they go out into the community and argue their case. Of course, they will not. We will not hear a word about it unless they have their backs up against the wall and have to come clean on what their policies are. In the health area, those opposite propose to reduce the Medicare rebate from 85 per cent to 75 per cent. Again, they should compare that proposal with the Australia Card proposal. For goodness' sake, the Opposition is going to attack people in a whole range of areas. It says that it will abolish bulk billing, increase charges for pharmaceutical benefits, abolish the community employment program and Jobstart, abolish Austrade and abolish the fertiliser subsidies. It intends to freeze Commonwealth staff numbers-attack a public servant; a fairly common proposal. In education, it intends to abolish the participation and equity program, abolish the Commonwealth Schools Commission and abolish the Education Department. It will abolish, for goodness' sake, the first home owners scheme. It is difficult enough, and has been for a very long time, for young couples to get started. Honourable members opposite come into this House to support the return of an obscene tax policy under which entertainment expenses for businessmen will again be legitimate taxation deductions and at the same time to support the abolition of the first home owners scheme. It is almost unbelievable, but it is all here in this document. There has been a whole range of expenditure cutting proposals. It is a fundamental reality that if, as we assumed, the Opposition backs down on its consumption tax proposal and substitutes an extension of wholesale taxes as per the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) on 11 March, it will have revenue of $2,000m to offset against promises of-wait for it-$14,700m. The absurdity of that credibility gap is patently obvious, yet a legitimate and sensible revenue raising proposal before this Parliament-the Australia Card Bill-is being opposed. This Opposition ought to be seen for what it is. It is hypocritical across a whole spectrum of policies, but nowhere is it so obviously hypocritical as in the context of this Australia Card debate. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(10.43) —While it would not have been very evident from the last part of the speech of the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths), we are debating the Australia Card Bill. Neither the honourable member for Maribyrnong nor any other Australian Labor Party speaker has recognised the point that we are debating today precisely the same Bill that we debated in this place last October. Why are we doing that? On 5 February last the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) indicated that there were a number of amendments that the Government believed desirable to make to the Bill. He also expressed the Government's willingness to accept `reasonable suggestions' proposed by others. Yet the Bill is back in the House with no changes made or to be allowed. So much for the word of this Government. The Australian Bankers Association has put forward a lengthy submission that unless changes are made a substantial number of banking transactions will be unworkable, but the Government takes no notice. That exposes, I believe, the hypocrisy of what is afoot here. The Government's purpose is not to get a workable identification card-it uses the name Australia Card for this instrument of socialist dogma for a national identification system, a licence to live and work in free Australia-its purpose, as exposed, is deceitful. But that is not the biggest deception. The biggest deception is the claim that only with such a card can the Government meaningfully tackle social security fraud, tax evasion and illegal immigration. That is what the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) keeps saying over and over again. He follows the Goebbels principle, that if one says a thing often enough, over and over again, it becomes the truth. But it is not the true position, which I will come back to in a moment. So why is this legislation, totally unchanged, trotted back in here? Obviously, as is now widely canvassed, the Hawke Government wants to open up the option of a double dissolution of the Parliament with the ID card as the central election issue. Why fight on the ID card? Because, firstly, the polls show that as of now the majority of people support the proposal. Of course they do-in the belief, due to the Goebbels onslaught, that the ID card is the only way to combat fraud and tax evasion. A second reason is that the Government is fearful of fighting on the real issues: The truly serious plight of Australian families, the high and rising prices of food and everything else, the crippling interest rates, the barely affordable any more mortgage payments which have risen by up to $50 per week for a typical housing loan under this Government-virtually cancelling out the effect of increases in wages over the past few years-the ever higher taxes and so on. Underlying all that is an Australian economy brought low by this Hawke Government to a point where as a nation we confront a situation of real peril, a frightening and quite desperate situation-a crisis situation aptly described by the Prime Minister as `a situation akin to war'. He put it that way in his address to the nation last June, speaking truthfully in that respect. But now neither he nor his glib, complacent Treasurer (Mr Keating) or any other senior member of the Government will tell it as it really is-a situation the primary manifestation of which, as my colleague the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) pointed out, is the massive continuing deficit and the worsening balance of payments. Every day this nation goes $40m extra into the red, further into debt. This is not just a passing thing; it is a relentless, ever-mounting buildup of debt which will be passed on as a great burden to future generations. The other dimensions of the problem could be easily outlined but we are under a time constraint. But what is the Government about? Perhaps a double dissolution election on the ID card. But the Prime Minister does not really need a double dissolution. He could have an election anyway on the basis of the hypocritical nonsense he was talking at the weekend about the problems of the Opposition destabilising the business climate. What rot! What a prospect-running around the country debating the Government's big lie on the ID card, with the Australian nation in a frightening situation of deep crisis which this Government will not tell us it is. Talk about fiddling while Rome burns. An early election would pre-empt the promised 14 May economic statement-maybe that is what the Government wants. That statement is crucial to coping with Australia's desperate economic situation and that is what this Government and this Parliament should be on about. I referred a moment ago to the big deception in all this. The Government's line is totally and utterly misleading. That is the essence of this matter. Nothing which the Prime Minister, the Treasurer or the Hawke Government generally have said changes the following position, which one hopes the Australian people will be persuaded is the true position. First, the ID card proposal is the most intrusive, Big Brother government proposal ever to surface in this country. I quote the all-party, Liberal, Labor, Democrat, majority of the Joint Select Committee of this Parliament which inquired into the Australia Card proposal and reported in May of last year on the Australia Card: It will provide the mechanism by which the very fabric of our Australian society will be irreversibly altered, opening the way for the greatest attack on the privacy of individuals as the `Identity Bureau'- that is, the division within the Health Insurance Commission which is to administer the card and keep the register- identifies, monitors and updates information on every person in Australia. Second, in respect of each of the objectives the ID card is supposed to serve, namely to combat tax evasion, to reduce welfare fraud and to identify illegal immigrants, the Hawke Government's proposal fails to do anywhere near what is claimed for it. That is what the all-party Committee found after extensive inquiry. I repeat: The proposal fails to do anywhere near what it claims to do. Yet the cost of implementing and administering the proposal is enormous. There will be 2,150 new public servants, a total of $1 billion will be spent in the public sector and a massive additional cost to the private sector over 10 years. The ID card proposal is simply not cost-effective. Third, there are alternative approaches. This point is quite central. Perhaps the predictions of the financial yield that could be obtained from those alternatives are in some respects more modest-I would be inclined to say more realistic, more hard-nosed and more accurate-but equally they do not involve the enormous cost which I have just referred to or raise the fundamental civil liberties concerns the ID card raises. They are on every consideration more cost-effective and most certainly should be implemented and tried before there is any attempt to move down this dangerous, authoritarian and unacceptable ID card track. These are the three points which the Opposition is putting to the Australian people. We have put them in our consistent, principled opposition to this proposal. We will go out and win on this issue, just as we did with the Bill of Rights, on which the Government backed off eventually-for the time being at least-when it recognised that the electorate at large had perceived just what a dangerous, undemocratic and potentially evil thing it was. Mr Webster —And they will find out about this one. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Similarly, they will find out about this one. They will come to appreciate what an authoritarian, dangerous, intrusive and-I emphasise-fraudulent proposal, in terms of the results claimed for it, the Australia Card proposal is. I will briefly reiterate the three points: First, the ID card is the most intrusive, Big Brother government proposal ever to come forward in this country. Honourable members should make no mistake. The ID card, plus computerised data linking, opens the way to the computerised surveillance of the entire Australian population. Mr Justice Michael Kirby put it in this way: What is at stake is not just catching a few tax avoiders . . . What is at stake is nothing less than the nature of our society and the power and authority of the State in relation to the individual. Second, the government proposal will not achieve-this is the finding of the all-party Committee-anywhere near what is claimed for it in respect of each of the objectives stated, tax evasion, social security fraud and illegal immigration. Yet the cost of this proposal is enormous. Third, and very importantly, there are alternative approaches which are less costly, less intrusive and yet effective in relation to these objectives. Because of an arrangement with the Whip I will not go through the alternatives in detail. We will establish a centralised computer register of births, deaths and marriages. In the area of tax we will ensure that the Australian Taxation Office immediately upgrades its technological capability, especially in its computerisation. We will require the Office to enforce existing legislation which requires interest-paying agencies to provide to the Office information relating to all dividend and interest payments. In the social security area, the truth is that it is Labor's sloppy and inefficient administration of social security that allows for the fraud that we have. The real solution is better administration-not an ID card. The ID card becomes a cover-up for bad management. Indeed, the only way to stop the social security rip-off is to fix the social security system-not to dogtag 16 million Australians, as my colleague the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) put it a moment ago, at very high cost under this ID card proposal. I recognise that public opinion polls have until recently shown that a majority of the electorate supports the Government's proposal for the ID card. I say only this to my constituents in the electorate of Berowra and to the Australian people at large: I am certain that opinion will change. In the meantime, I recall the words of that great parliamentarian, Edmund Burke, who said: Your representative owes you not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinions. I stress that the Opposition's attitude in this debate has nothing to do with covering up for tax cheats, rorters and the like-the crude absurd charge that the Treasurer started in this place. In conclusion, I am convinced that the Australia Card, so-called, proposal will indeed come to be seen for what it is, namely, a glib political promise to deliver a benefit, but of dubious validity, and yet a mea-sure that can result only in a serious erosion of the privacy, the self-respect and the personal freedom of Australians. Mr FREE(Lindsay)(10.57) —As the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards) observed earlier, the Australia Card Bill 1986 has already been discussed and passed by this House. It will be debated again shortly in the Senate. As the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) observed yesterday, if the Australia Card Bill 1986 [No. 2] fails to pass the Senate, it will become the trigger for a double dissolution. I hope that the Senate comes to its senses and passes this Bill. If not, I hope that that trigger is pulled. I hope that the trigger is pulled because the gun is aimed firmly at the honour- able member for Barker and his colleagues opposite. If they go through a debate on this measure a second time with their ignorance and double standards intact, they deserve to pay an electoral penalty. Mr Hollis —Which they will. Mr FREE —They will, as the honourable member observes, because the public understands only too well the benefits and safeguards that the Australia Card will provide. Contrary to the empty assertions of the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) in this debate, the public knows that the Australia Card will ensure that everybody is treated fairly by the taxation and social security systems. The public knows that it will result in less tax evasion and social security fraud and more revenue for the Government to distribute. The public is well aware that, when fully operational, the Australia Card will provide net total benefits of at least $800m a year. The public is well aware that in its first 10 years the Australia Card will save at least $4.7 billion which otherwise would be lost in tax evasion and social welfare fraud. The public knows that more money will be available for the Government to expand valuable community services to help those genuinely in need, and to lower the tax paid by honest Australians. The public is well and truly aware that the Australia Card will bring with it the most effective safeguards ever introduced in this country to protect the privacy of the individual. That is why members of the public have shown such overwhelming support for the Australia Card; they are so well aware of the benefits and safeguards of this proposal. Like other honourable members, I have encountered evidence of this support throughout my electorate. People have been eager to sign petitions in support of the Australia Card. Pensioner groups and other community groups have expressed support, and individuals who are not normally supporters of the Australian Labor Party. All recognise the evils of tax evasion and welfare fraud and the injustice created by illegal migration. They all applaud what this Labor Government is doing. A local Liberal supporter said to me: `People who oppose the Australia Card must have something to hide'. That is a very common sentiment out there, I can assure honourable members. The public are sick and tired of the rip-off merchants in the welfare area. Recently we have seen some spectacular examples of social security fraud. I refer to the case of the aptly named Murray Hurd Hustler, who pleaded guilty to 11 charges of defrauding the Commonwealth of $58,618, using multiple identities. He was convicted in September of last year. I refer to the case of Ronald Bruce McKenzie, who was sentenced to 6 1/2 years gaol after using 18 different aliases to obtain $340,000 in social security benefits. I refer to the case of Monica Caldaras, who used false names to get sickness, unemployment and special benefits to a total of $108,000. I refer to the most notorious social security con man yet discovered, Wayne Thomas Patterson, alias Harold Jansenberger, who also had another 52 aliases. This man took a total of $380,000 over two years. He used 53 false identities, 50 post office boxes and 41 bank accounts in an operation that generated a weekly income of $5,000. Given those cases of social security fraud, is it any wonder that the Opposition finds itself in a difficult position in opposing the Australia Card legislation? The Opposition knows that the public is fed up with social security fraud and that the public is well aware of the abuses that the card will prevent. That is why the public supports the card so overwhelmingly. Members of the Opposition are now in a very uncomfortable position, in which what they are saying is diametrically opposed to what they really believe. That is why they have had to resort to a number of slick devices to resolve the conflict situation in which they find themselves. I have categorised some of these devices. I have been interested in them and I have named some of them in honour of their originators. Let me give honourable members, for example, Blunt's flight of fancy. The honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), when faced with this perfectly reasonable proposal, which is what the Australia Card is, pretends that it is something else. That is why yesterday he spoke about dog tags. Extreme practitioners of the flight of fancy talk about tattooed numbers. That is an example of Nehl's hysteria as practised by the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl). Opposition members are happy to talk about anything in this debate but the facts. Let me refer to what I call Connolly's trivial pursuit. Who in this House will forget the question last year from the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) about the application of the Australia Card to traditional Aborigines? Who will forget his demolition by the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) on that occasion? But the central aim of Connolly's trivial pursuit is to seek to ridicule a measure by digging up exceptions or concocting trivial special cases. This is a favoured Opposition tactic. It is one used when Opposition members discuss the assets test. It is one they use when dealing with the Australia Card. It is one they use when debating the fringe benefits tax and it is one that they are using now when discussing prices. Let me turn to a group of devices that require the invention of a plot. Practitioners of these devices say: `We do not want to debate the Australia Card on its merits. That is too hard. Let us instead talk about a conspiracy surrounding the Australia Card'. So in this group of devices we have Porter's canard practised by the honourable member for Barker, who claimed early in March that a secret plan existed to get the Australia Card legislation passed and then to extend its use once the debate had died down. A further device of this kind is Reith's deceit, from the fertile imagination of the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), who on 15 March claimed that the Government had been considering-- Mr Tuckey —I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The point of order is that we know the rules relating to members of this place. The honourable member cannot refer to their deceit and he should withdraw. He would be better off talking about-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! I think the honourable gentleman should withdraw that comment. Mr FREE —On the point of order, I did refer to the honourable member for Flinders in terms of his seat. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order until the matter is withdrawn. Please withdraw that comment. Mr FREE —At your request, I am happy to withdraw. I was talking about the honourable member for Flinders who, on the fifteenth of this month, claimed that the Government had been considering secret and potentially draconian amendments to the Australia Card legislation which would probably never be revealed. That is the tactic practised by the honourable members for Barker and Flinders. They invent a plot and when they are asked for evidence, they throw up their hands and say: `Well, it is a secret plot. If we had any evidence, it would not be a secret any more'. It is self-evident. Let me turn to the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster), who has developed no fewer than four ploys to deal with the Australia Card. First of all there is the honourable member's `big threat' ploy. In the Blue Mountains Gazette of 21 January under the heading `ID card traps', the honourable member for Macquarie said: Any publican or barmaid who requested production of the Government's proposed ID card would face a fine of $5,000 or two years' imprisonment, or both. That is not true. It is true that unauthorised people cannot demand the production of the card any more than unauthorised people can demand the production of a person's drivers licence. Nevertheless, I expect that over time voluntary uses-I stress that, voluntary uses-will be important in many areas, as they are with drivers licences at the moment. The second ploy of the honourable member for Macquarie was the `appeal to authority' ploy. It is always a good ploy when one is in trouble in a debate to appeal to authority. That is what the honourable member for Macquarie did in the Blue Mountains Gazette of 4 February when he claimed to have identified at least three dozen objectors to the Australia Card. In his Press release he did not get to three dozen objectors but to nine. In those nine objectors he quoted the name of only one authority, Frank Costigan. Otherwise he resorted to unnamed authorities-which are always handy-such as American investigators who are against the card. That is a favourite ploy. When I was teaching, I remember students using that ploy in essays. If one is in trouble in an essay, one can invent an authority and work from there. Mr Hollis —And you always marked them down accordingly. Mr FREE —Exactly. The third ploy of the honourable member for Macquarie was the `injured innocence' ploy, which is also a handy ploy when one is in trouble in a debate. In the same article he complained that the Government is branding any critic of the Australia Card as a friend of the tax evaders. We are not saying that at all. What we are saying perfectly correctly is that, judging from the Opposition's attitude towards this debate, the Liberals and those opposite are not interested. Because they are not supporting this Bill they are showing no interest in fighting tax evasion, welfare fraud and illegal immigration. We are quite correct when we say that. The fourth ploy employed by the honourable member I have termed the `red herring' ploy. When one is really in trouble, one throws in a red herring. The Opposition is not prepared to talk about what the Australia Card will do so it talks about what it will not do. That is what the honourable member for Macquarie has been doing as well. He has been saying, quite correctly, that the Australia Card will not deal with the problems of the cash economy. That is quite true-it will not deal with the problems of the cash economy directly. It will in some indirect ways. The card was not intended to deal with the cash economy any more than it was intended to provide a cure for the common cold or to save the honourable member at the next election. They are very skilled political contortions, indeed, from the honourable member for Macquarie but reflect poor behaviour from someone who just last week in this House exhorted us all to behave as statesmen rather than as politicians. It is becoming increasingly apparent that consistency is not the long suit of the honourable member. In the conservative leadership stakes he is backing a couple of rival stables. In the Liberal Party of Australia he has dumped the colt from Kooyong and has put his money on the plodder from Bennelong. As well as that, I read in the Hawkesbury Gazette under the headline `Re-endorsed Webster backs Sir Joh's Canberra campaign' that he is having a few bob on the old bolter from Kingaroy into the bargain. The Opposition's misrepresentations of this legislation go on and on. It exaggerates the costs of the card, underestimates its benefits and ignores its privacy provisions. Speaking briefly of the privacy provisions before I conclude, the Liberals only pretend to talk about privacy. It is only a pretence. The evidence I have for this is in the dissenting report of the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception tabled in this House on 20 November last year. Opposition members of that Committee proposed that information obtained by interception ought to be used in all but the most minor offences. The Opposition has one attitude to privacy when it is talking about telephone tapping and an entirely different attitude when it is debating this legislation. The Liberals survived that Committee inquiry and the first Australia Card debate with their ignorance and their double standards intact. They know, however, as we know, that the Australia Card will succeed because correctly and deservedly it has the overwhelming support of the Australian people. I commend this Bill to the House and I wish it a speedy passage through the Senate. Mr MILES(Braddon)(11.11) —I am interested in some of the comments which the honourable member for Lindsay (Mr Free) has just made, particularly when he says that the public knows the benefit to the community of the Australia Card. Yet, in this debate the Government has not listed one major group in Australia that has come out publicly and supported the Government's position. Not one person has mentioned any public groups which have announced publicly that they support the Government's position on this. Yet there is a great long list of people in Australia who are vehemently opposed to this legislation. Who is the Government trying to fool on this issue? Dr Harry Edwards —The Australian people, that is who they are fooling. Mr MILES —It certainly is. It certainly is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the Australian people. Yesterday the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) gave a very long list of people in Australia who oppose this legislation. I say again that the Government has not brought to this House or to the Australian people one major group which supports its proposal. I will list just a few of those people in Australia who oppose this legislation: The Australian Catholic Social Welfare Commission, the Council of Social Service of New South Wales, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Policy Committee of the Australian Labor Party, the Society of Labor Lawyers, the International Commission of Jurists, the Confederation of Australian Industry, the Real Estate Institute of Australia, the Victorian and South Australian Chambers of Commerce, the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia, Justice Kirby, Frank Costigan and Professor Walker. The Government would have us believe that these people support the crooks, cheats and rogues in our community. It is utter nonsense. These people are well qualified, are thoughtful and are constructive Australians who know what they are saying. They are well experienced and are totally opposed to this type of legislation in Australia. Why have the educationalists in Australia not come out and supported the Government on this? Why have the trade unions not come out and supported the Government on this? Why have the teachers and the farmers not come out and supported the Government? No group in Australia supports the Government on this legislation. Yet we have people coming into this House saying that the public knows the benefit to the community of this legislation. In the Government's attempt to gain community support for the proposed identity card, it has claimed that the introduction of the Australia Card will do four things: Reduce tax avoidance and evasion, reduce social security fraud, help combat organised crime and, lastly stop illegal immigration. Quite simply, it will do none of that. The honourable member for Lindsay, who spoke previously, said that we ought to debate the topic. Yet he spent three minutes criticising the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster), that is, 20 per cent of his speech criticising a person. That seems to be a ridiculous approach to the issue. Tax cheats, social security bludgers and organised crime are matters of considerable community concern. Any government that can come to terms with those problems can expect widespread support. I agree with that. However, it is widely known that an ID card will not serve as a means of achieving the Government's objectives. In fact, the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card specifically rejected the introduction of an ID card, stating that the proposals failed to address the major problems which were to be overcome by the introduction of a national identity system. Rather than help to combat organised crime, an ID card will help to entrench it. The scheme is so full of loopholes that criminals can easily circumvent it. There will be a flourishing trade in false ID cards which will legitimise false identities and entrench fraud. Mr Frank Costigan, QC-if anybody in Australia knows anything about crime, he does-believes that the card will be used by organised crime to legitimise its activities, and he does not advocate its introduction. Illegal immigrants with a false ID card will be able to avoid detection and freely partake in this country's resources. The United States, which has a large scale problem with illegal immigrants, has not adopted an ID card. The ID card will not be of much assistance in reducing tax avoidance and evasion. Much of the professional tax evasion industry conducts its business through companies and trusts and it will be untouched by the proposal. In addition, the card will simply fail to apprehend the users of the cash and barter economy. In Sweden, where citizens must have an ID card, the Government loses 20 per cent of its current revenue through tax evasion. In Italy, the Government loses 30 per cent of gross domestic product. Should Australian citizens have an ID card imposed on them in order to catch six out of 100 social security cheats who use a false identity? Surely that is too ludicrous even to contemplate. Even the Department of Social Security is sceptical about the Government's proposal. Not only is it appalling that the Labor Government is trying to hoodwink the Australian public with plastic magic-that there is a quick and easy solution to the problems of tax evasion, social security fraud and organised crime-the cost involved in establishing an ID system cannot be justified. Mr Roger Clarke, reader in information systems in the Faculty of Economics and Commerce at the Australian National University, has studied the costs involved. He has questioned the Government's underlying assumptions and believes that the Government's figures are poorly explained. In fact, as recently as February of this year the Australia Card secretariat, within the Health Insurance Commission, admitted that it had not costed the card. Is it not incredible that this Government claims that the card will save the taxpayers millions of dollars, yet it has not costed the introduction of the system? It is absolutely incredible. However, Mr Clarke gave the Government the benefit of the doubt. He found: If the Government's estimates of tax savings prove reasonable, then in seven years time each taxpayer's disposal income will be a mere $50 p.a. more than it otherwise would have been. One really wonders who the real tax cheats are in this country because, over the past three years, this Government has ripped 17 per cent more tax out of the Australian people than would have been the case under a Liberal, conservative government. That is a simple fact. Quite frankly, this Government is cheating the Australian people. Now it is trying to put the onus back on the Australian people by saying that, at the heart of the matter, they are the cheats. The Australian people are being cheated by this Government regarding taxation. The ID card is an example yet again of the Labor Government's squandering of taxpayers' money. The money could easily be spent in making existing systems more efficient. In the process of introducing an ID card, the Government is depriving the Australian people of their fundamental freedoms. Even James McClelland, a former Labor Minister, has opposed the ID card. He said: Even if the ID card would ensure that every cent of dodged tax would be caught in its net, I still don't think that it is worth the price of making every citizen wear a dog collar. The honourable member for Lindsay mentioned that a member of the Opposition talked about people having to wear a dog collar. Of course, that comment came from a person on Labor's own side-a previous Minister. It is ironic that a government which tried to impose a human rights Bill on the Australian community is, in introducing an ID card, so cavalier in its attitude to the classic doctrine of the protection of human rights which is based primarily on the need to protect an individual against the action of public authorities. The ID card will entrench a system of bureaucratic surveillance in which each man, woman and child will have a complete womb to tomb individual dossier kept on him or her. In the final analysis, we can say this: It boils down to whether we value our democracy and the freedoms in which Australians have so long come to believe. If Australia accepts an ID card the irony will be that it will have gained little in the material sense. It will, however, have given in to an ill-conceived sense of pragmatism-political expediency-which has led us further down the path to what I regard as serfdom. People should not be mistaken by the power grab-that is what it is all about; getting power over people's lives-that is the hidden agenda of this Government. We saw it in the Australian Bill of Rights and we see it again now. It is power over the Australian people so they can be manipulated as desired by the Government. The coalition is totally opposed to any legislation that has a hidden agenda, that reduces freedom and that does not have a chance in hell of meeting its stated objectives. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(11.23) —In rising to support the Australia Card Bill 1986 [No. 2], I must say that throughout all my thinking life I have been a champion of civil liberties. I do not believe there is one member of this House who has, throughout his or her life, been a more consistent supporter of civil liberties and personal freedoms than I have. Indeed, with parents such as I had, it is not surprising. I recognise that civil liberty is not civil licence and that personal freedom is contingent upon personal responsibility. We live in a world of complex technology. Not one of us can be sure that we are not under surveillance, a fact to which the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) would attest. I am sure that my phone is being tapped. I have had the tell-tale signs of a drop in signal strength at the beginning of conversations, or the clicks and whirs of recording machines, or simply the inexplicable drop out of the phone line. I have no idea who is doing it, but I assume that it is not the authorities because it is done in a most amateurish way. I am sure that an official tap would be much more discreet. Enough of my personal paranoia. Let me turn to many of the other invasions of our privacy that we take for granted. My passport contains much more information about me than the Australia Card would. I do not think that any of that information is unnecessary. I have found it very useful when I have needed to identify myself. A drivers licence, or a licence of any sort, contains detailed information about a person. In my wallet I have over a dozen different credit cards, all of which have encoded information about me that, in total, is far more detailed and intrusive than the information contained on the Australia Card would be. I have absolutely no control over this knowledge or control over people who use it. The amount of targeted mail that I get testifies to the fact that somebody gets access to it. I mentioned when this issue was last before the House that in my youth back in the bad old days before Brigadier McKinnon cleaned up the South Australian Police Force and made it into what was then arguably the best police force in Australia, I suffered constant harassment from the police. At the time I lived in the middle of Adelaide and every night would encounter often very aggressive behaviour from the Police Force. On those occasions had I had an identity card with a photograph, the police would have had no option but to leave me alone or to arrest me. The contribution from the Opposition to this debate has been interesting. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) regaled us in his own inimitable style of articulated sophistry delivered in the most modulated tones and told us of all the evils of this card. Another contribution delivered on air last night was that of the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl). I would like to paraphrase what the honourable member had to say because he was at least as rational as his colleagues. I took special notice of his contribution and was prepared to look beyond the amateur Gielgudian with which he delivered it. Basically it sounded like this: Out, out damn spot. This is an unweeded garden, socialist oppression, to be or not to be, murder most foul, dripping urine, Gestapo, road to Philippi or was it Gundagai, alas poor Yorick, tattoos and bicycles. That is a fair summation of the standard of debate that has been made from the people opposite. The truth is that the people opposite are not civil libertarians for they want to increase phone taps. They never complain about commercial infringements because it is basically their people that commit these infringements. Their double standards know no bounds. Repeatedly they get up in this House and denounce just about every recipient of social security payments as a welfare fraud. Consistently during this debate, however, honourable members opposite have said there is very little welfare fraud. They even use and endorse the views of the Department. They say the problem is one of overpayment. I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker: How do you come to grips with overpayment? Of course, the cross-referencing of a unique identity system, such as the Australia Card, would be very useful. During his discourse the honourable member for North Sydney mentioned the many people who have opposed the Australia Card. These range from Mr Justice Kirby and Frank Costigan to Labor Lawyers and Young Labor. None of these people are overendowed with what I would call common sense and most have a puffed up sense of their own importance. I have a list here of the organisations which support the Australia Card. They are: The Australian Retailers Association, the Business Council of Australia, the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia, the Australian Taxpayers Association, the Australian Hotels Association, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia, the Australian Society of Accountants, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Medical Records Association, the National Heart Foundation of Australia, the Doctors Reform Society, the Council on the Ageing, the Smith Family, the Salvation Army, Sydney City Mission, St Vincent De Paul Society, the Returned Services League and the Royal Surf Lifesaving Society. So I can at least say to members of the Opposition that that is a Roland for your Olivier. The honourable member for North Sydney does need some consideration, for whatever his case he puts it together well. I would like to make a point that I have made before in this House. I have a basic philosophy not to trust lawyers and, above all, to keep them away from the money. There is a very real danger with our national predilection for things American that we could go down the disastrous road of litigation that costs Americans proportionately more than industrial action costs this country. I am reminded of an English research establishment that has decided to replace its white mice with lawyers in the more dangerous experiments. It says the lawyers are easier to get and in any case it has got to like the mice. This is the same Bill that has already been rejected in the Senate. Why should it not be reintroduced? Those charlatans and bleeding heart opportunists that make up the Australian Democrats have said that they will reject anything that this Government puts up. Besides, the lead time for this Bill is such that we can make any necessary machinery alterations as we go along. In the meantime, public revenue is bleeding at the rate of $2.5m a day, every day. This is just one more testament to the fiscal irresponsibility of the Opposition. If the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) wants a trigger for a double dissolution, I feel he may be thwarted as there are many Opposition senators who do not want an election and who know in their hearts that the Government is right and has popular support. I recently had a letter from the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia, an organisation that I used to belong to and one for which I have some affection. It raises concerns about the Bill that are quite unfounded. I will deal with the substance of these concerns. It is concerned about the impact on isolated people and particularly their members. But the Government has recognised that people living in isolated areas or those who lack mobility may sometimes find it difficult to visit their produce agents, marketing authorities, et cetera, to have their cards sighted. So just as occurs now when people apply for a passport, the Government will allow certain groups of people who are prominent within the community to sign certificates of identity. The certificate of identity works like this: Say, for example, a person wants to open an account with a stock broker in Sydney or Melbourne but being a remote dweller he is unable to travel there just to produce his Australia Card. He will go to a designated person in his local community who is authorised to sign certificates of identity. That person will sight the Australia Card and sign a form verifying that the Australia Card has been produced and that it would not have been reasonably practical for the card to have been physically produced, and everyone is satisfied. The certificate of identity can then be posted to the stockbroker, marketing authority, bank or produce agent who will use it instead of the Australia Card as proof of identity when an account is opened. Recorded on the certificate will be the Australia Card numbers of both the card holder and the authorised person filling in the form so that it will be possible to trace the person who provided the certificate. The authorised person will be made fully aware that if he knowingly makes a false statement on the certificate he faces severe penalties. Thus both the security and integrity of the card will be assured, while a convenient service will be provided for those who might have been inconvenienced by the tyrannies of distance. Once an Australia Card has been sighted or a certificate of identity received, customers may continue to transact all business in their preferred way, including by mail or by telephone. After the card or certificate has been produced once to an agent, marketing authority, et cetera, and the number recorded, there will be no further need to produce the card for normal business with these bodies. Once a stock and station agent or marketing authority has recorded a farmer's Australia Card number, for instance, the farmer may conduct further business over the phone or by mail. An Australia Card will not need to be produced for one off sales of produce or livestock which are not conducted through a marketing authority or produce agent. That is quite clearly in the Act. This is the only area where one is assured by legislation of the security of information. Unfortunately that is not a privilege a person has if he has credit cards of any sort. I would like to turn to immigration because this is an area of concern to me. We have what passes for a bipartisan program of immigration in this Parliament. It is my view that the policy is wrong. I am often confronted with the heart rending situation of people who have settled very well into small towns in my community being apprehended as illegal immigrants. What we have in Australia is an immigration policy which seems to impact immigrants disproportionately into Sydney. There is no doubt that this is having an effect in Sydney and is forcing up the rental market. That is not the case in the rest of Australia. Many of these immigrants are very welcome in my small towns. When one extracts somebody from a small town whose kids are in the school, in the cricket team or the dart team or active in the community one wrenches the whole of society and alienates the whole town. I would quite happily endorse a system where the Government rigorously enforced extradition or deportation of illegal immigrants living is Sydney, but let it be known that this policy will not be pursued in remote Australia. The fact is it is much easier to catch people living in remote Australia who, for the most part, make no attempt to hide their identities and in some cases are unaware that they are illegal immigrants. If this system were implemented it would be much harder for people to get to that stage where that wrench is forced upon them. I believe that this is preferable to the present system. While I will be working for a complete overhaul of the immigration system in an attempt to get a more rational policy, I know that in the short term the Australia Card will alleviate some of the pain. Mr CONQUEST(Hinkler)(11.35) —When I was researching the Australia Card Bill 1986 I came across a very interesting article written by Graham Greenleaf of the University of New South Wales Faculty of Law and Jim Nolan of the New South Wales Privacy Committee in the Australian Quarterly, Summer, 1986. I think that the introduction was rather pertinent to this Bill. I will read it verbatim: In May 1985 Australians were treated to a re-run of the entertaining `Yes Minister' television series. One episode had the hapless Jim Hacker win a rare victory over Sir Humphrey. He prevailed against a proposal to introduce a `Europass', an EEC-inspired identity card for Britain. No doubt the program got much of its comic force from the assumption that a British audience would find the very idea preposterous-a Continental impost out of keeping with their way of life! While we laughed, life imitated art. In June 1985 the Australian Minister for Health-like Hacker, a junior Cabinet Minister and former civil libertarian-unveiled to the National Taxation Summit the `Australia Card', a green and gold photo-identity card for all Australians. The history of this card started a little earlier than that, in fact in April 1985, when we find the first origins of this proposal to come before the Australian people. I suppose that it was from one of our own Sir Humphrey Applebys; in fact it was the Second Commissioner of Taxation, John McDermott, who, perhaps trying to find some new issue to raise at a seminar in Hobart, raised for the first time that we can find the question of an Australia Card. Most of us perhaps thought that it was preposterous at that time, much the same as those people in Britain would have. What Prime Minister Hacker was saying was true of the British people and, I say, true also of the Australian people. The proposal then gained momentum. By May 1985, just one month later, the Australian Taxation Office and the Government produced a White Paper on a national identification system, referring at that time just to tax evasion. Then in June 1985, a month further down the line, we found that the Caucus of the Australian Labor Party started to show concern and was sufficiently concerned to try to ensure that this matter would be taken out of the bureaucratic field and placed in the political arena. It referred it to its Caucus Legal and Administrative Committee. By then the policy development was well under way. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and Cabinet were co-ordinating an interdepartmental committee review of policy in regard to this Australia Card. There were representatives on that interdepartmental committee from all those departments that could be seen to be potential users of the Australia Card. There were representatives from the Australian Taxation Office, from the Department of Social Security, from the Health Insurance Commission, from the Department of the Treasury, from the Department of Finance, from the Attorney-General's Department, from the Electoral Commission, from the Department of Veterans' Affairs, from the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, from the Department of Foreign Affairs and from the Department of Health. The Health Insurance Commission decided that it was better able to put forward a plan for this, and it produced a plan for the interdepartmental committee. There was no doubt in that plan put forward by the Health Insurance Commission that there would be no restrictions on the use of an Australia Card or an identity card by Commonwealth departments and State departments. I quote again from the Australian Quarterly: The Health Insurance Commission, in their Outline Plan prepared for the IDC had no doubts that the scheme would be used without restriction by Commonwealth and State government bodies, and that the information traffic would be two-way: This quote is from the Health Insurance Commission: It is envisaged that arrangements would be made (subject to agreement and compliance with any legal requirements) to access databases in all participating government agencies, i.e. those that hold basic identifying data for a significant number of Australians and have a legitimate interest in matching that data against other Government records. It is expected that participating agencies would include Medicare, Australian Taxation Office, Foreign Affairs (Passport Office), Department of Social Security, Department of Veterans' Affairs, Australian Electoral Office, State Registrars of Births, Deaths and Marriages and any other authorities with data suitable for inclusion in the system. That quote was from the Health Insurance Commission, which was going to try to take over the implementation of the Australia Card. As we know now, it will be charged with that. Later we see on the agenda a consideration of tactics-that tactics rather than principles are to be used to sell the Australia Card to the Australian people. Nearly every member of the Labor Party who has stood up to speak in this debate has used the tactic of pointing out that people on this side of the House were the friends of the tax evaders, those who are into tax rorts, and those who are feeding off the system. That is exactly the type of tactic those opposite are using and it is all part of a plan. The HIC outline plan states: It will be important to minimise any adverse public reaction to implementation of the system. One possibility would be to use a staged approach for implementation whereby only less sensitive data are held in the system initially with the facility to input additional data at a later stage when public acceptance may be forthcoming readily. That same outline plan went on to spell out exactly what I just said about what would happen-that if there was a concentration on tax evasion and what could be accomplished with the card to combat tax evasion, tax rorts and minimisations, it could be sold to the Australian people. That has been successful-let us be fair-in selling that one point to the Australian people, but as soon as the wider debate begins, I can tell the House, the deception that the Australian Labor Party has tried to perpetrate on Australians will be found out. Let us look at another section in this paper in regard to the proposed limitations. It states: The ostensible rationale for the limitation, according to the Labor Parliamentary Caucus resolution supporting the `limited' scheme, and proposed by Dr Blewett himself, is `to limit the use of the card to three key departments or agencies focusing on the elimination of tax and welfare fraud'. This justification of the scheme in terms of reducing tax and welfare fraud has been consistently expressed throughout government documents as the scheme developed. So we will say to the Australian people-and they will listen-that the Australian Labor Party has been deceptive about the introduction of the Australia Card, right through from the use of Australia's colours on the card to the name. In every avenue where it has put forward this proposal for an identity card it has used deception. It has not told Australians that those databases will be linked and will in the future be utilised to control the lives of everybody. To answer the point made by a couple of the previous speakers in regard to the costs and benefits that will be derived from this, I note that in an article by Ron Castan QC, President of the Victorian Council for Civil Liberties, his assessment of the savings, utilising figures from Government documents, has shown that the cost for social security is shown at exactly the same amount as the claimed benefit over 10 years. It appears to me that the Government is still using figures of some $4,500m without deducting the amounts for those departments that will not now come under this identity card proposal and so will not get the savings. The figures are contained in an article in the Age of 24 March 1987, for anybody who wishes to read it. Those who read it will find that the deception goes on and on. The Australia Card will be an identification system of the Australian people. The dangers inherent in it go way past catching the tax evaders and tax minimisers. We have had letters from banks showing how difficult it will be in the electronic transfer of funds. We have documents from law societies throughout Australia and from many different groups within the community. I believe that the Australian people in the end will wake up to the deception that is being perpetrated against them, merely to get the Australia Card on the way, then later to introduce other agencies which can use it for their own purposes. Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(11.48) —That was a very interesting historical overview of the development of the Australia Card, but there are a few facts which should get much greater emphasis. First of all, the great majority of Australians actually want this card. All fair-minded men and women want this card. Mr Conquest —They're being deceived; tell them the truth. Mrs KELLY —Is the honourable member saying that the men and women of this country are stupid? Mr Tuckey —Yes. Mrs KELLY —The honourable member said yes. That is what he thinks of the people of this country. The reality is that they want this card. When they are asked in all the opinion polls, they say that they want this card. The reason is that they are fair-minded and honest people who believe that welfare should be directed to people in need and that everyone should pay a fair amount of tax. This is the basis underpinning this Australia Card. Another point that should be made about it is that it is directed in very specific areas. It moves only in the area of social security fraud and tax evasion and will be used to replace the Medicare card. The third area is how much money we will raise from this Australia Card. We are looking at $880m. When we look at the savings from the Australia Card we have to look at the alternatives presented by the Opposition. We have some idea of those alternatives from the document that was leaked last weekend. The Opposition talks about not introducing the Australia Card. If it will not get the savings from the introduction of the Australia Card, where will it get the money? The Opposition will get it from the pensioners, because it will abolish indexation of pensions and will phase in the removal of pensions for women aged between 60 and 65. It will tighten the eligibility for widows' pensions. These are the people who will pay for the Opposition's policy of opposing this Australia Card. That must be remembered when we are talking about selling this Australia Card, as the honourable member for Hinkler (Mr Conquest) did. The point has to be made clearly that if there is no Australia Card there will be no savings of $880m. Tax evasion and social security fraud can continue. How will the Opposition make the money? It will abolish indexation of pensions, tighten eligibility for widows' pensions and cut out the pension for women aged under 65. They are the alternatives we are looking at in this debate today. The other document I found particularly useful when preparing to speak on this Australia Card Bill was a memorandum prepared by the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt). He set out in that some of his ideas of the arguments which should be used in this debate. Of the two pages, 90 per cent concentrates on social security fraud and tax evasion gets only two points. I suppose that says something about the priorities of the Opposition. The Opposition's alternative proposals put emphasis on its policy of policing and punishment. Unemployment benefit fraud, instead of being surely and comprehensively discouraged by the Australia Card, will be treated by giving police powers to a new cadre of field officers who, the Opposition claims, will make sure that all who are caught practising this fraud will be prosecuted. What courts does the Opposition suggest we use for this swag of prosecutions? Does it plan to set up a new nation-wide judicial system to deal specifically with the vast number of cases that the field officers will surely uncover? The Opposition's policy will require investigating officers, court officers and people to prepare the documents for prosecution. For parties which are so-called committed to cutting down the size of government departments as a whole, this seems to have some inconsistency. When we add to the burden of the Department of Social Security the fact that under the Opposition's plans its economic and industrial policies will increase the number of unemployed to a level of at least parity with Thatcher's 11 per cent, we have a policy which goes well beyond consistency to stupidity. The Government's solution is the introduction of the Australia Card which, as the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) has argued consistently and rationally, will be a highly secure and basic means of identification for all Australians. It will work. The Opposition's cumbersome, unthought-through knee-jerk reaction will create as many problems as its economic policies will lose jobs. When we are looking at this card it is important that we examine the savings figures involved. The Australia Card will raise $880m annually. Over 10 years it will cost about $759m and will save the Government $4.7 billion. It is sound economics. The document of the honourable member for Richmond points out that most Australians are honest. The Government believes that-of course it is true. That is why most Australians support the introduction of the Australia Card. It will make all Australians as honest as the majority are. Opposition members-Ha, ha! Mrs KELLY —Opposition members laugh. They do not believe that the majority of Australians are honest. Most Australians want this card because they are fair-minded people. The only people who do not want it are those who have something to hide. Mr Robert Brown —Including the Opposition. Mrs KELLY —Including the Opposition. Access to information on the Australia Card computers will be restricted. The information will not be released, even though the information on it will be less than is required to fill out a form to apply for an American Express card. When I was speaking previously in the Parliament on this issue, I read out all the details one has to provide to get an American Express card. Mr Hawker —That's by choice. Mrs KELLY —It is by choice. However, if one wants to do any transactions, if one wants to borrow money or to live by normal standards in the community these days, one does this with credit cards. It would be interesting to do a survey in the Parliament or in the gallery. I wonder how many people have no credit cards-not many. These days most people use these cards. The use of the Australia Card will be very limited. It will be used only in the social security area, the tax area and to substitute for the Medicare card. Mr Hawker —Oh, come on! Mrs KELLY —It is true. It is in the legislation that that is to be the use of the card. The memorandum of the honourable member for Richmond tells us that the Opposition will obviate all the present problems of identification by `requiring financial institutions to upgrade the identification procedures for account holders'. I do not know how that will work. At the same time, he maintained that the cash economy is the main stumbling block to the effectiveness of the Australia Card. I have no idea how these simplistic solutions that the Opposition outlines in its memorandum will work. I recall a cautionary tale about what can happen in a system that relies on a form of identification that does not carry a photograph. I am very keen on the idea of the Australia Card with a photograph. I believe it would be ineffective without the photograph. This is a story which I think is quite amusing but it shows the need for an Australia Card with a photograph: A Sydney police constable arrested ``himself'' in a city pharmacy late last year. Constable Douglas McKenzie was called to a city chemist where a man was suspected of trying to pass false prescriptions. Asked for identification, the man said he was Douglas Mckenzie, and produced a birth certificate, university card, two bank books and a health care card. ``At first I thought it must have been a coincidence when I heard my name,'' . . . ``But when he produced my university card I recognised my student number.'' Constable McKenzie, then a student, had the documents taken from his car two years earlier. The man later appeared in court on forgery, theft and receiving charges. This highlights the need to have a photograph on the Australia Card. The two real issues in this debate are these: The Australia Card is a method to stop those with the will to defraud their fellow Australians from being able to do so or, at the very least, to stop financial institutions from becoming unwittingly their accomplices in fraud. This card is a simple, painless and effective means for the honest taxpayer, for most Australian citizens, to take their overdue revenge on those who have been ripping them off. No longer will the honest have to bear the burden placed on them by those who have a will to cheat. Secondly, the savings from the Bill will ensure that the Australian economy will continue, even in this most difficult period, to guarantee to the most needy and the most deserving the level of social security and support that they require. I recommend the Bill to the House. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(11.59) —That contribution from the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) is one of the most unconvincing arguments I have ever heard as to why Australia should have an identification system for every single Australian-every child, every age pensioner, everyone in this country. The honourable member for Canberra talked about the need for this extra cost and burden and then said that it is not a cost or burden. It has already been estimated that it will cost Australians $2 billion on top of the figures she mentioned. She said that the ID card would somehow make all Australians honest. That is one of the most marvellous statements I have ever heard and it ought to be remembered. If we can make people honest by giving them a little piece of plastic, social engineering has nothing on that. The honourable member referred to the Opposition's policies. It was so difficult for her to talk about the Australia Card that she had to talk about policies that probably do not even belong to the Opposition. She said that improving the policing of the existing social security legislation is somehow worse than the ID card proposal. I remind the honourable member for Canberra that the ID card is the first step towards a police state. All the totalitarian societies require that every person in those societies carry an ID card and in some cases we have heard of numbers being imprinted on the arms of people. We oppose the ID card because quite simply it will not work; it is a gross invasion of privacy; it will be a costly failure; and it will create a bureaucratic monster. I could go on and on. As has been pointed out by my colleagues on this side, we all know that, despite the assurances of the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), if and when the card is introduced it will be only the first step. Many other uses for it will be found and so it will be expanded and expanded further, as I said at the beginning of my speech, to be a step down the line towards a police state. Mr Slipper —Big brother. Mr HAWKER —Exactly. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) today seems fond of the expression `snake oil politics'. This is exactly what this legislation is. We are being told that here is some magical new cure, that if we have an ID card suddenly social security fraud, dole cheats, and tax cheats will disappear. This argument for the ID card system is unconvincing and does not fit. If the Government were fair dinkum, it would tell the people of Australia that the ID card is a cover up for bad administration. There is no doubt that already all the problems that the ID card is supposed to solve can be solved by good, sound administration. We do not even need any more laws; in fact, we probably need fewer. With good administration we could solve all these problems and collect all the revenue that the Government says it needs or wants by stopping those who are either cheating the system or avoiding their obligations. It could all be done with good administration. The Government is covering up its own weaknesses by saying that it needs this very costly bureaucratic intervention with an ID system. Since the Minister for Health is sitting at the table, I ask him whether he will give an undertaking that when it is proved that this system is a failure-assuming it may get through-he will get rid of it. If he is fair dinkum in saying all the things he has said about this proposal, when it is proved a failure he should be quite happy to give the undertaking that a Labor government-even if it is not the current one, even if it is some years down the line-would get rid of it. I think what the Minister really has in the back of his mind and what he so far has not spelt out to the Australian public, what really is behind his thinking, is that this is the first step towards the socialist state. By using this deception, as my colleague the honourable member for Hinkler (Mr Conquest) has pointed out, by using a nice sounding patriotic name, the Australia Card, and by using Australia's colours, the Minister thinks that somehow he will deceive people about the real reason for the card. The real reason is that it is a move towards a socialist state. As I said before, one has only to look at all the totalitarian societies. What they have in common is an internal passport, an ID card. A Government member, the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent), who has not been allowed to speak this time, called the ID card a Hitler card. He was speaking from first hand experience. This is what the debate should be about-exposing the Government for the real motives for introducing this card. I would like to talk on a couple of specifics. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) spoke about how people in the country and in remote areas would have to fill in forms and get somebody-he will not say who, of course-authorised to sight an ID card to sign a statutory declaration that the card had been sighted and send that off in the mail. If ever there was a weak link in a system that would have to be it. For those who want to exploit the system, those who want fraudulently to claim an existence, here is their opportunity. All they have to do is get somebody to sign this form and send it in and they can identify themselves in half a dozen different ways. As all honourable members would know, a system is only as strong as its weakest link. Therefore those who want to cheat the system will continue to cheat it. The statement of the honourable member for Canberra that the ID card will make Australians honest seems to me to be a rather sick joke. It is worth looking at a few details about the ID card and what it will mean in practice. What will it mean when Australia's old people in old folk's homes have to have their photographs taken? Can honourable members imagine what it means for the millions of people who will have to have their photograph taken? Do they realise the practicalities of this? Let us look at what this system will mean to people if they suddenly do not have their ID card, if for some reason there has been a delay in renewal-the card has to be renewed every five years-and they become non-people? What will happen then? They will no longer be able to open a bank account and, if they are eligible for welfare, they will suddenly be denied that, not because they are not eligible but because the practical problems of the system are such, and the system is such an enormous thing, that if for any reason a card runs out of date and renewal has not been made on time the person concerned suddenly will be denied the normal rights that we take for granted in this society. We can see all the little things it could mean to people. Without the card, they will no longer be eligible for Austudy, if the happen to be unemployed they will no longer be eligible for the dole, and they will no longer be eligible to open a bank account. This problem could arise in other ways, too. If someone happens to lose the card he will have the added problem of going through all the bureaucratic red tape of having to apply for another one. In the meantime, people will not respect that person's identity and it will cause untold headaches. Everyone of us would know just how easy it is to lose a card. The card will not be chained around our necks and the number will not be tattooed on our arms-not yet, anyway. As has been pointed out already in the debate, the Health Insurance Commission, when it made its submissions back in 1985, put its finger on the real motives behind the ID card. It suggested that the Government should bring it in gradually-bring in the less controversial aspects first-and, once it is accepted, expand it. We also know that it was the Health Insurance Commission, the body for which the Minister for Health, who is at the table, is responsible, which dreamed up all the wonderful ideas such as the name for this identification system, the colours for the card and the general publicity that surrounded it. The other point about the ID card that honourable members opposite and the Government try so hard to cover up is the question of data linkage. It is data linkage that presents the most dangerous concept of this whole identification system. With modern computer techniques it is becoming so easy to institute data linkage and to use this to build up a profile on a person, for people to have their records searched for totally the wrong reasons, information given in the first place being quite unrelated to what the system is being used for. Despite all the assurances of the Minister about privacy, we cannot in all seriousness believe him because the number of people who will have access to this card will ensure that somebody somewhere will be able to leak that information at the most embarrassing time for the individual concerned. Mr Braithwaite —That is the hidden agenda. Mr HAWKER —It is the hidden agenda indeed. Despite all the assurances of the Minister, I do not think he can in all honesty expect anyone to believe him. After all, he knows what leaking is all about. It is done by the Government and by others. Once more than a few people have access to a document-in this case it will be thousands-I do not think the Minister can expect every single person who has that access to be completely trustworthy. That is just being realistic and practical. It does not cast aspersions on anyone. But the Minister cannot say that every person who has access to that data will be subject to a complete integrity test of the type that only the secret service would know about. Naturally, it is to be expected that there will be leakages of confidential information. Worse than that, as the Law Council of Australia pointed out recently, one of the other problems concerning privacy is that the data protection agency, which the Minister puts so much store on, is not given any effective means of penalising infringements of privacy. It is not just a question of people having access and being able to abuse it; they will be virtually free to do so anyway. There will be no real penalties. I suggest that the Minister try to give an answer to the Law Council on that matter. As time is limited, I conclude by saying that this is one of the most cynical exercises that a government has ever done. The Minister himself admitted a couple of months ago that he should amend the original legislation introduced into the Parliament last year. He has now been overruled and is bringing in this legislation for ulterior reasons, namely, to try to cause some embarrassment in the Senate. But the fact is that once all Australians see the real motives behind the introduction of the ID card and are aware that it will not work, that it will be a costly failure and that it is the first step towards a police state, not only will they reject the idea of an identification card but, what is more, they will reject this Government. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —by leave-I present notes on clauses 32 to 51 of the Australia Card Bill. These notes were circulated during the debate on the Australia Card legislation on the previous occasion it was before this House. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(12.12) —The honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) referred to this exercise on the part of the Government as being one of the most cynical exercises that any government could be involved in. Mr Braithwaite —Absolutely right. Mr ROBERT BROWN —The cynicism is not on our side. Our position has been consistent and solid right from the start. The interjection from the honourable member for Dawson is probably the most inappropriate that could be made because the honourable member himself is on the record as one of the most solid supporters of the Australia Card concept of anyone in Australia. I give him now the opportunity to answer yes to the following question: Is he for or against the card? Other supporters include the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), and the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), among others on the Opposition side, who are on the record as having said that one of the greatest opportunities available to Australia to overcome the twin abuses of tax evasion and social security fraud is a national identification card of the kind proposed by the Government in the Australia Card Bill. There are two fundamental issues surrounding this question. The first is whether or not it is the right of a national government to determine adequately the identity of its citizens in a modern, complex society, where that government makes calls upon the citizens to contribute to the common wealth and at the same time provides out of that common wealth benefits of all kinds to members of the community, and where its capacity to do both of those things depends upon an adequate system of identification of those who will contribute or draw from those resources. If the answer to that is yes, as it must be, the next question is whether or not it is legitimate and appropriate for a national government in any complex, modern society to put into place a system which will do that with absolute certainty and absolute efficiency so that the identity of the citizens can be adequately determined. The second fundamental question is whether the vast majority of Australian people will in the future continue to be ripped off by tax evaders and social security fraudsters as they have been in the past. I do not propose to go into all the statistical evidence which indicates the enormous dimensions of the extent to which this has been taking place. I remember that when we were in opposition we used to make claims that the amount of Commonwealth government revenue lost each year as a result of taxation evasion alone would probably be in the vicinity of $3,000m. The Government of the day-the coalition parties-and particularly the present Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), who was then Treasurer, would laugh at that proposal, that suggestion. The Opposition now endorses it. It has now become convinced of the accuracy of those estimates. In fact, $3,000m a year as a figure for the possible extent of tax evasion in Australia is almost certainly an understatement. Tax evasion runs into hundreds of dollars for every taxpayer in Australia, the genuine taxpayers, the honest taxpayers, those who are not only genuine and honest but who are also locked into the system, the pay as you earn taxpayers, the ordinary wage and salary plugs in Australia who have to pay more tax in order to compensate for the sharks. Mr Humphreys —They have been footing the bill for years. Mr ROBERT BROWN —As my colleague the Whip says, they have been footing the bill for years and they have said `enough', as well they should. That is why 80 per cent of the Australian people are now indicating their overwhelming support for this proposal. Members of the Opposition were able in a matter of a few short minutes to go through the entire list of people and organisations in Australia opposed to the card. We have indicated that if we were to attempt to identify all the people in Australia who support the card we would have to get all the members on the Government side to read through the list literally for weeks because there are 12 million such people. I want to take up an issue which has been repeated constantly by Opposition members. It relates to the claim they have made that because, according to them, the cost to the Government of this proposal will be about $1 billion, the cost to business will be $2 billion. The honourable member for Barker, who was a member of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card and should know better-and does know better but refuses to present the correct position-again made the claim about the card costing business, the private sector, $2 billion. He said that the figure was based on an estimate by the Director of the Business Regulation Review Unit that the cost to business of regulations applied by the Government generally worked out to be twice the cost to the Government itself. Then it was said that if it is going to cost the Government $1 billion to introduce the card it will cost private business $2 billion. In the first place it is not going to cost the Government $1 billion at all. It is going to cost the Government only $759m over 10 years. That is the first fallacy in the Opposition's claim. The second fallacy is based quite clearly on the evidence. It is also based clearly on a denial by the Director of the Business Regulation Review Unit in a letter he sent to the Minister for Health that he had made the remarks which were reported initially in the Australian Financial Review. In fact, he went further and said that there is no evidence that the cost of the Australia Card to business would be twice the cost to the Government. The honourable member for Barker said that that claim had been made by Government members but that it had never been substantiated. Let me do so. Firstly, when a government introduces regulatory controls by way of legislation the cost to the government is minimal. Why is it minimal? It is minimal for these reasons: Firstly, all the government has to do is to prepare the legislation. We have already got counsel within the bureaucracy to do that. So the cost of preparing the legislation is minimal. Then all one needs is some sort of administrative device, or supervisory device, to ensure that those regulations are then complied with. Generally the mechanisms already exist within the bureaucracy. So for a second reason the cost to government would almost be minimal. But, once the regulations are imposed on the private sector, the private sector is generally required to set in place a whole series of new business processes, a whole series of new administrative structures, a whole series of new procedures, a whole series of new devices of all kinds, in order to comply with those regulations. Why, then, under those circumstances would it not cost the private sector significantly more than the Government to introduce, apply and adopt new sorts of regulatory procedures that are imposed by the Government? Why is this situation involving the Australia Card substantially different? It is substantially different because on this occasion practically all of the cost is going to rest with the Government-the cost of establishing the whole structure to issue the Australia Card, of identifying 16 million Australians, of providing the cards, of providing the office facilities, the agencies, to make it possible for the system to operate efficiently. Why will it not cost private business very much at all? It will not cost private business very much at all because, in general, if I go along to my bank, for example, I indicate what my number is. If I go for a job I indicate to the employer once and once only what my number is. Where is the cost to private business of an employer, in taking on a new employee, recording his or her number and ensuring that it is recorded on the group certificate as well? They are essentially the reasons why the cost to the private sector will be substantially less in relation to this matter than it is normally. Where would we expect the greatest burden, the greatest financial cost, to rest with the private sector? The answer has to be in the banking system. The Australian Bankers Association has advised the Government that its establishment cost, the cost to the whole of the banking system, will be up to-get this figure-$60m alone. After that, it is estimated that it will cost the banks $4.6m a year to comply with the Australia Card. The claim has been made, quite dishonestly, by the Opposition in the light of that evidence that the private sector will be up for a cost of $2 billion. The cost will be nothing of the kind. In Australia we now have the opportunity to introduce a system which-on the admission of officers of the Australian Taxation Office and all the other qualified, informed and reliable experts who came before the Committee-will, in the simplest and easiest way, make it possible for the most significant attack to be made on tax evasion, social security fraud and illegal immigration that this country has ever seen. The beneficiaries of that attack will be 16 million Australians-less a few cheats. Mr PORTER(Barker) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Does the honourable member wish to make a personal explanation? Mr PORTER —I do, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr PORTER —The honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) claimed in the early part of his speech that I had supported an ID card proposal such as has been adopted by the Government as a method of cracking down on social security fraud and tax evasion. That is quite wrong. I have never done so. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(12.25) —Perhaps it is time that we got away from some of these set piece speeches and had some real debate on the Australia Card Bill 1986 [No. 2], although I understand I am to be the last speaker before the vote on the second reading motion. The honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) proceeded down the path of arguing that the coalition, the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia, should support this measure because it is popular and because millions of Australians allegedly support it. I point out that that did not prevent the honourable member for Charlton from supporting a very unpopular measure in the Caucus when he moved for a pay rise for Federal members of parliament and got raked over for his sins. He also did that a couple of weeks ago. He was proceeding down a very unpopular course on those occasions in these tough economic times, so let him be a little more consistent in his approach. The honourable member for Charlton referred to the objective of the Australia Card Bill. Let me say that both sides of the Parliament share the same objective of cutting out welfare fraud, eliminating the black economy and the rorts that are reducing the taxation revenue in this country and allowing people to get away with receiving income and not paying their proper taxes on it. That objective is common to both sides of the Parliament. It is the method of achieving that objective that is the subject of debate on the Australia Card. It is the method about which we disagree, and disagree strongly. Of course, the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) also launched down the path of saying that the majority of people want a card and therefore the Parliament should meekly go along with that. I contest, firstly, that the majority of Australians really want another unnecessary bureaucratic dog collar. But in any event I just remind the House of a quote from Edmund Burke, a former member of the House of Commons. I paraphrase the quote because it has some relevance. Edmund Burke, in a famous speech, told the House of Commons in effect that members of parliament have a licence to lead as well as to be led and members of parliament have a responsibility to examine legislation and to have the courage of their convictions if they find that legislation to be fraudulent or flawed or in any other way unacceptable. That is what the Liberal and National parties have done. We have examined this legislation responsibly. We have studied the report of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card and we have reached the conclusion, as in fact the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent) has said-I use his words-that this card is a Hitler card. This card is in fact a deficient card, a cynical manoeuvre that will do nothing to reduce effectively welfare fraud in this country. I want to turn briefly to an aspect of what the honourable member for Hotham said in calling it a Hitler card. He is an esteemed member of the Australian Labor Party in the eyes of the honourable member for Charlton. He is an esteemed colleague of his who sits along the row from him. The honourable member for Hotham has said that this is a Hitler card. I know that there are thousands of veterans around Australia who are very concerned about this Australia Card. They are very concerned about its practical application and about its invasion of civil liberties. They fought for their country. They fought for the right of freedom, for their liberties and for the protection of those liberties. Yet they are being assaulted by the very provisions of this Australia Card Bill. Time does not permit me to detail all that is involved in this Bill but I just refer to clause 53 relating to hospital patients. It states: A recognised hospital shall, as soon as practicable after the admission of a person to the recognised hospital as an in-patient, notify the Commission of the Australia Card number of the person. Clearly, every veteran going to a repatriation hospital-indeed every patient going to a hospital-will be caught up under this clause 53 provision of the Australia Card Bill. It provides an additional burden on patients, particularly on veteran patients who tend to be elderly and who get very upset about provisions of this nature. A burden of additional administrative paper work will be associated with their hospitalisation and their receipt of benefits. This Australia Card Bill will impose an additional burden on veteran patients. As a matter of responsible approach, I will not dwell on this as I am very conscious that veterans as a community and as a constituency tend to get upset about discussion on provisions, cut-backs and changes introduced by this Government. But it is my responsibility as a member of this Parliament to point out some of the deficiencies of this legislation, and not just simply to accept the so-called popular path that the Government would have us believe, on the basis of some opinion polls, is supported by the nation. There are just two things that I want briefly to add. Firstly, quite often, through a lot of courage, benefit can accrue from following unpopular courses. Indeed, as the only country member on the Staysafe Committee, the Joint Standing Committee upon Road Safety in the New South Wales Parliament, I supported random breath testing before it was fashionable, against the opinion polls and against the perceived attitude in my electorate. I signed a unanimous report supporting random breath testing. The honourable member for Charlton testifies to this. I was also in company with the then member for Liverpool, George Paciullo. That report went to the Parliament and legislation was introduced. As a result of random breath testing 1,000 fewer coffins are required for road victims in New South Wales on a permanent basis, even though the road toll is creeping up again from that lower base. I appeal to the Parliament and to the nation to think again about this Australia Card legislation and to look at the fundamental provisions of it. They will see that it is a flawed, cynical, sinister piece of legislation that simply will not work. I commend to the nation the alternative way ahead which would enforce strict identification requirements on the 2.8 million social security clients, would require work or community service in return for unemployment benefits, would tighten and strictly enforce the work test with more field officers and would provide a number of provisions to ensure that there is a complete crackdown on taxation fraud. It is for these reasons that the Liberal and National parties quite properly and responsibly oppose the Australia Card legislation. Motion (by Mr Humphreys) put: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. H. Drummond) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 54 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 17 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R. Beddall, D. P. Jakobsen, C. A. Bilney, G. N. Jenkins, H. A. Blanchard, C. A. Jones, BarryBlewett, N. Keating, P. J. Bowen, Lionel Kelly, R. J. Brown, John Kent, L. Brown, Robert Keogh, L. J. Brumby, J. M. Kerin, J. C. Campbell, G. Klugman, R. E. Charles, D. E. Lamb, A. H. Charlesworth, R. I. Langmore, J. V. Chynoweth, R. L. Lee, M. Cleeland, P. R. Lindsay, E. J. Cohen, B. McLeay, LeoCross, M. D. Maher, M. J. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Martin, S. P. Darling, E. E. Mayer, H. Dubois, S. G. Mildren, J. B. Duffy, M. J. Milton, P. Duncan, P. Morris, AllanEdwards, Ronald Morris, PeterFatin, W. F. Mountford, J. G. Fitzgibbon, E. J. O'Keefe, N. P. Free, R. V. O'Neil, L. R. T. Gayler, J. Punch, G. F. Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D. Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, J. L. Griffiths, A. G. Simmons, D. W. Hand, G. L. Snow, J. H. Hayden, W. G. Staples, P. R. Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Willis, R. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W. Hurford, C. J. Adermann, A. E. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Aldred, K. J. Hodges, J. C. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Hodgman, W. M. Beale, J. H. Hunt, R. J. D. Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B. Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S. Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J. Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G. Cameron, Ewen Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ian Moore, J. C. Carlton, J. J. Nehl, G. B. Cobb, M. R. Peacock, A. S. Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R. Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K. Conquest, B. J. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C. Dobie, J. D. M. Shack, P. D. Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J. Edwards, Harry Slipper, P. N. Fife, W. C. Spender, J. M. Fischer, Tim Sullivan, K. J. Fisher, Peter Tuckey, C. W. Goodluck, B. J. Watson, D. J. H. Hall, Steele Webster, A. P. Halverson, R. G. White, P. N. D. Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Dawkins, J. S. Smith, W. McHugh, J. Ruddock, P. M. Young, M. J. Sinclair, I. McC. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. H. Drummond) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 56 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 17 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R. Beddall, D. P. Jakobsen, C. A. Bilney, G. N. Jenkins, H. A. Blanchard, C. A. Jones, BarryBlewett, N. Keating, P. J. Bowen, Lionel Kelly, R. J. Brown, John Kent, L. Brown, Robert Keogh, L. J. Brumby, J. M. Kerin, J. C. Campbell, G. Klugman, R. E. Charles, D. E. Lamb, A. H. Charlesworth, R. I. Langmore, J. V. Chynoweth, R. L. Lee, M. Cleeland, P. R. Lindsay, E. J. Cohen, B. McLeay, LeoCross, M. D. Maher, M. J. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Martin, S. P. Darling, E. E. Mayer, H. Dubois, S. G. Mildren, J. B. Duffy, M. J. Milton, P. Duncan, P. Morris, AllanEdwards, Ronald Morris, PeterFatin, W. F. Mountford, J. G. Fitzgibbon, E. J. O'Keefe, N. P. Free, R. V. O'Neil, L. R. T. Gayler, J. Price, L. R. S. Gear, G. Punch, G. F. Gorman, R. N. J. Scholes, G. G. D. Grace, E. L. Scott, J. L. Griffiths, A. G. Simmons, D. W. Hand, G. L. Snow, J. H. Hayden, W. G. Staples, P. R. Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Willis, R. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W. Hurford, C. J. Adermann, A. E. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Aldred, K. J. Hodges, J. C. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Hodgman, W. M. Beale, J. H. Hunt, R. J. D. Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B. Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S. Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J. Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G. Cameron, Ewen Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ian Moore, J. C. Carlton, J. J. Nehl, G. B. Cobb, M. R. Peacock, A. S. Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R. Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K. Conquest, B. J. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C. Dobie, J. D. M. Shack, P. D. Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J. Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F. Everingham, P. A. E. Slipper, P. N. Fife, W. C. Spender, J. M. Fischer, Tim Sullivan, K. J. Fisher, Peter Tuckey, C. W. Goodluck, B. J. Watson, D. J. H. Hall, Steele Webster, A. P. Halverson, R. G. White, P. N. D. Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Dawkins, J. S. Smith, W. McHugh, J. Ruddock, P. M. Young, M. J. Sinclair, I. McC. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 12-by leave-taken together. Mr CHAIRMAN —Order! It being past 12.45 p.m., in accordance with Sessional Order 101a, I shall report progress. Progress reported. Sitting suspended from 12.47 to 2 p.m. Mr COWAN —I address my question to the Minister for Primary Industry. I refer to reported media statements that the advancement of agriculture in Australia in the years ahead may well fall behind that of our competitors. Is it a fact that the present adverse economic climate makes it extremely difficult for our farmers to have confidence in improving efficiency? I refer particularly to high interest rates. What economic measures is the Minister prepared to recommend to the Government to assure the future profitability of rural industries? Mr KERIN —The question of interest rates was addressed yesterday in discussion on a matter of public importance raised by the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia. I think that the honourable member for Lyne was referring to some publicity that was recently given to statements made about farm productivity. Some of that is coming from the New South Wales Farmers Association. The Secretary to my Department made a statement recently about productivity and the need for continued emphasis on research. I think that he particularly instanced the fact that yields for wheat have been going up faster in other countries than they have in Australia. There are many reasons for that and they extend over a long time. I would like to say, in defence of the performance of our research facilities and the performance of the wheat industry generally, that we work in a much harsher environment and we do not have the massive amount of subsidisation which for example, the European Economic Community has, which has stimulated greater production per hectare. With the new arrangements that the Hawke Government has put in place with respect to research-the re-formed Research Council-the amount of money going into research has almost doubled during the life of this Government and we now have a far greater orientation in that research, concentrating, I think quite sensibly, a little more on marketing and definition of markets for the products that we produce. I think that, in the short term, there are probably more gains to concentrate on marketing and management than there are in a straight-out increase in production per se. Nonetheless, the effort is being more than kept up with respect to on-farm productivity. There is always a need for a central core of research funding and that is best delivered through the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. The amount of funds going to agricultural research in that organisation still ranges between 28 and 29 per cent. Great progress is still being made there, particularly in the plant area. My colleague the Minister for Science recently opened such a facility at Black Mountain. I believe that the amount of money being spent on production research is very high, and this is by far the most important thing that government can do for the farm sector, because it is a true public responsibility. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon a parliamentary delegation from Sri Lanka led by the Hon. E. L. Senanayake, MP, Speaker of the Sri Lankan Parliament. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to the members of the delegation. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Ms FATIN —Is the Minister for Social Security aware of statements made by the Opposition that it is not necessary to have a Child Support Agency to collect maintenance orders? Will the Minister inform the House why the Child Support Agency is necessary and who will benefit? Mr HOWE —I thank the honourable member for her question. The honourable member for Richmond said yesterday in the House: Why is it necessary for this agency to collect all orders? He asked why it was necessary to have Big Brother if people going their separate ways can come to a mutually agreeable settlement. Similarly, on a Channel 9 program Peter Harvey said: but there's a lot about this the Federal Opposition doesn't like. In particular, it's worried about the plan to compulsorily get the money through taxation. The shadow spokesman replied: We don't know why it has to be compulsory. If people are complying with maintenance agreements now, why does the bureaucracy have to get involved? In general terms-I will preface my remarks by-- Madam SPEAKER —Will the Minister speak into the microphone? Some honourable members are having trouble hearing him. If honourable members are silent they will hear the Minister. Mr HOWE —I preface my remarks by saying that the honourable member for Richmond communicated to me at the beginning of Question Time-I did not hear his various remarks-the fact that the Opposition would support the establishment of the Agency. We need the Agency because-- Mr Spender —That is a complete misrepresentation of what he said. Mr Blunt —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for North Sydney will be silent. The honourable member for Richmond is perfectly capable of speaking for himself. Mr Blunt —I did approach the Minister before the beginning of Question Time. In case the Minister did not hear what I said, I will repeat it. I said that we would not oppose the establishment of an agency and that, although I had not heard the Australian Broadcasting Corporation report, I did not believe that it was an accurate commentary. Mr HOWE —I am sorry. Let us make it perfectly clear: Her Majesty's Opposition will not oppose the establishment of the Child Support Agency. Quite clearly, we need the Agency because 70 per cent of non-custodial parents do not pay regular support. There are 450,000 children in sole parent families being supported by the social security system. There are 250,000 lone parents on benefits. The scheme, which I announced yesterday, will mean that regular child support will be available for the first time ever. Social security will no longer have to carry, to the same extent, the full costs associated with the financial responsibility for those children. Let me make it clear that all court orders made after the start of the Agency will be forwarded straight to the Agency for collection. Collection will be automatic unless both parties agree to opt out. Let me repeat that: Collection will be automatic unless both parties agree to opt out. Couples who come to their own arrangement do not have to use the Agency. Custodial parents on social security, however, will not be able to opt out of having their orders collected. The most valid reason for the establishment of the Child Support Agency is clearly related to the fact that there is so much child poverty in Australia today. I want to extend my answer very briefly to clarify a report that appeared today in a Sydney newspaper-- Mr Sinclair —Is it relevant? Mr HOWE —Opposition members should calm down for a moment and consider the subject that we are talking about. We have had enormous stress and concern in relation to the Family Court of Australia because people have generated an enormous amount of emotion around the issue. I think that it will help the House if I am permitted to complete my answer. This afternoon a story appeared in a Sydney newspaper-the Daily Mirror-entitled `$153 a week child support'. It stated: . . . a divorced father on average weekly earnings could pay up to $153 a week or 34 per cent of his wage. I make it clear that, in terms of the formula, the Government has made no decisions about a formula and will not make any decisions-- Mr Sinclair —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. The question addressed to the Minister related to a statement made by the honourable member for Richmond. The Minister yesterday had leave of the House to make a statement. If he seeks to make another statement he can have leave again today. I suggest that this is entirely irrelevant to the question that was asked of him and that he should be ruled out of order. Madam SPEAKER —I find the Minister in order. I call the Minister, in conclusion. Mr HOWE —I was saying that in this area, which is a very emotionally charged area, very misleading reports are not damaging to government but are very damaging to people who have a concern about this matter. That figure is a total misrepresentation. Mr Blunt —It was based on your paper. Mr HOWE —It was based on an option in the discussion paper which was released last October and it referred to five children. However, the report ignored the fact that the particular option to which it was referring has an exemption level. The effect of that exemption level would mean that the payment in the option-and it is only an option in the discussion paper-if it was correct, would have been of the order of $92 to support five children, not $153. If there had been a second family involved in terms of the non-custodial parent, the payment required under that option would have been $46. I think it is very important, and certainly the Government sees it as important, that the discussion about the proposals that we have in this area is not tinged with emotion and that the Press as far as possible makes some effort to get the facts right. I believe that the course that the Government has announced will not only result in some savings to revenue, but will also result in a great deal less poverty in sole parent families in Australia. Mr ANDREW —I refer the Minister for Transport to his highly publicised visit to the far north of South Australia on 15 February in which he officiated in a ceremony marking the sealing of the final section of the Stuart Highway. I also quote from the Minister's statement prior to this ceremony in which he said: Everyone taking advantage of the highway-from truckies through coach companies and families of tourists-will appreciate how much safer the new highway is. Will the Minister confirm that for three weeks following this ceremony that particular section of the highway was not available for use by any form of transport; that major transport companies in South Australia, assuming the Minister's publicity to be correct, sent fragile freight on this section of the highway but were diverted on to a lengthy section of dirt road causing considerable damage to the fragile freight and also to the trucks; and that up to 10 days ago trucks were driving through the barriers in order to avoid travelling on the dirt road? Now that the Minister has officiated at the second ceremony on the Stuart Highway, will he confirm that the highway is now open to all traffic? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the honourable member for his question. The difficulty the Opposition has is that the people of Australia are recognising that this Government has done more to improve the road systems of this country than any other government in a comparable period of history. I say to the honourable member and to the Opposition: `Eat your heart out'. If ever I saw a case of sour grapes, it is the question which has just come from the honourable member because his constituents and the people of South Australia want to see the roads better; they wanted to see that highway finished. Here we have this piddling question saying: `Oh, we thought the road was open on 15 February or 10 February, but it really was not'. That is what the honourable member is really saying. He did not really want the highway to be finished. But the people of South Australia and the rest of Australia want that highway finished, they want the roads improved, and this Government is doing it. The previous Government had years and years to improve this system but could not handle it. Mr Shipton —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order under standing order 145, which states: An answer shall be relevant to the question. I would have thought that, when asked a question whether a road is open or not, the answer would be yes. The Minister is being irrelevant in his answer at present. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member does not have a point of order. Mr Downer —Is it open or not? Mr PETER MORRIS —Eat your heart out, my friend. It really hurts because the problem is that this Government is achieving and this Government is doing something that the previous Government in all its years in government was unable to do. That is the problem. As to the details of the question the honourable member raises, all the members of the gallery and all the journalists who were there on the day heard the speech I made. They saw the work being done; they knew that the sealing ceremony was effectively the completion of the sealing and not the opening of the road. It was announced there and then that the opening of the road would take place a few weeks later. Everybody knew that. I know that the honourable member for Wakefield has difficulty at times in understanding, but everybody else knew that and it was publicised in this House. I am very surprised that the honourable member, given his background, would have raised a question of that nature that he has raised. The highway was officially opened for service yesterday by the Premier of South Australia and myself. It was an excellent example of co-operation between State government and Federal government. It was a tremendous achievement on the part of the people who built the road, some 932 kilometres, through very harsh and inhospitable conditions. I thought the honourable member might have said something about that. I thought he might have had something good to say to the people who built the highway rather than this kind of ignominious question trying to put down the achievement. That was the last great new piece of road to be built. That highway being completed means that South Australia now sits at the junction of the east and west links of the national highway system and those from the south and the north. It will benefit from the traffic, the development, the more efficient road transport and the more efficient passenger transport that will come from that highway being sealed. It is an achievement of which this Government is duly proud and is something that will benefit the people of this country and, more than anything else, the honourable member's electorate. Mr LAMB —Can the Minister for Trade report on any progress at the Trade Ministers meeting at Taupo on the question of agricultural reforms? Mr DAWKINS —I thank the honourable member for his question. Whilst one hesitates to be too optimistic about the circumstances confronting at least some sections of the inter- national agricultural market, I think we were able at the meeting over the last couple of days to achieve important progress in an international addressing of issues involving agricultural trade. There was a clear acceptance, probably for the first time, by all the countries participating that there was an urgency attaching not only to the question of agricultural trade reform, but also to other areas of trade reform which have been bedevilling the world and certainly savaging the economies of some of the smaller countries around the world. We have always recognised that action will be forthcoming only when the political will exists, particularly amongst the major developed countries. What was refreshing is that, amongst those countries represented, there was a shared commitment to get on with the task of negotiating a better arrangement internationally. Indeed, when the Uruguay round was launched, people were talking in terms of an outcome in four to five years. It is now not inconceivable that we could see some progress on some of the issues as early as late next year. There is a very important reason why we should be trying to work towards that timetable, not least of all because of the circumstance which exists within the United States of America and perhaps the uncertainty of the United States position beyond the end of next year. We were also encouraged by the presentation of an initiative on the part of the Canadians. Their initiative follows very closely on the heels of, and conforms in almost every respect to, the initiative of our own Prime Minister made in Switzerland earlier this year. There is no question that the Prime Minister's initiative, now being followed by the Canadian initiative, indicates that greater attention is being placed on the issues which Australia itself has identified. The Canadian Minister, Miss Pat Carney, will be in Australia in the next couple of days. We will take the opportunity of her visit to further co-ordinate our activities. It is important to note that Australia has played a very constructive role-- Mr Tim Fischer —And Thailand. Mr DAWKINS —As I was going to say, through its leadership of the Cairns group of countries. The Cairns group of 14 countries played a very significant role. Australia has been proud to be the leader of that group, in bringing these issues to the forefront of international attention. We will continue our efforts through the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, in every other forum, and in our bilateral discussions, to ensure that the momentum that has been created is maintained. Mr HICKS —Is the Minister for Communications aware that many farmers are facing cash liquidity problems because of the necessity to pay high interest rates which are unparalleled in Australia's history? Is the Minister also aware that this has resulted in delay in payments of some telephone accounts with a subsequent cutting off of the telephone service by Telecom Australia thus leaving some women and children on isolated farms without telephone communication? Given the seriousness of this situation, will the Minister assure the House that no family living in an isolated location will be left without telephone communications for any period as a result of the Government's high interest rates policy? Mr DUFFY —A few points have to be made that arise from the question. First, as the honourable member for Riverina-Darling will understand-I hope-Telecom is an independent statutory authority, and it will not be directed by this Government on matters such as that. Opposition members-Oh! Mr DUFFY —Do some Opposition members disagree with that? Having made that point, I return to the question which obviously is a matter which causes genuine concern to the honourable member. Quite a few representations have been made on this matter. I can assure the honourable member that if in fact representations are made by him on behalf of constituents, or by the constituents direct, they will be considered by Telecom on the basis of those representations. However, I think it is worth pointing out because it raises a point which is very close to a debate which is going on in this country at the moment. It is interesting that the question has come from the honourable member as a member of the National Party. Currently there is no communications policy from his side of the House. One of the reasons for that is that a somewhat damp policy, but a reasonable enough policy in many ways was put out. Although I think it is not thought through in the direction in which it is going in certain areas, at least the shadow Minister did have a policy. That policy is currently being squeezed by the dries. One of the things I would have thought that the members of the National Party ought to be considering very seriously at this stage would be the result of the policy which would come from the dry members opposite in telecommunications. I remind the honourable member who asked the question that currently there is a cross-subsidy to rural areas in this country by Telecom of half a billion dollars. I heard from the Leader of the Opposition, in a television debate with me one evening, that the Opposition would put that on budget. Mr Carlton —That is not correct and you know it. Mr DUFFY —The shadow Treasurer interjects that it is not correct. I will get the transcript. It is correct. That is what the Leader of the Opposition said, or has it changed again? I am sorry. When is the Opposition going to get the policy out? It will save me some confusion. Get it out. I repeat that the matter raised by the honourable member is a matter of genuine concern to him. I think he would better serve his constituents if he pulled that mob into line to ensure that the cross subsidy that operated so well in rural Australia will not be destroyed by the Opposition. Mr STAPLES —Can the Treasurer inform the House of the Government's intention regarding cuts to Commonwealth spending in 1987? Mr KEATING —The Government has already announced its intention to bring down a statement of changes to outlays which will anticipate changes in the next budgetary year-in part through this calendar year-to see that fiscal policy in this country adjusts with the external conditions which Australia faces. That will of necessity mean, by the very precise mathematics of the Budget, that the Government's numbers simply will add up as they have added up in the last four Budgets and that the Government will be accountable to the public in terms of the kind of changes to public outlays that it will judge to be necessary to produce the kind of fiscal policy it believes Australia needs. This is in marked contrast to the Opposition which is, as I have said in this House before, tugging away at the structure of discipline in fiscal policy and in other areas of policy by seeking to have massive additions to the Budget deficit, but at the same time not saying where it will fund them. Today there was a most revealing interview with the Leader of the Opposition in the Sydney Morning Herald. It gives one cause to wonder why the public is concerned about the state of politics in this country and the integrity of politicians. I will read to the House the two paragraphs concerned-one paragraph apart. Mr Steketee was questioning the Leader of the Opposition about the Opposition's proposed $5 billion cuts. The Leader of the Opposition is reported to have said: I think part of the disillusionment of people with politicians and politics is their dogged determination to try and have it both ways-to be a macho generalist but benignly specific- One paragraph later he is reported to have said: The significance of the document in the longer term context is that it shows that we are serious about making the big changes in the first six months even though no-one should assume any of the decisions have any status. He is saying in one paragraph what is wrong with politics, what is wrong with the disillusionment of people with politicians is that they are macho generalists. I refer to the quote: . . . we are serious about making big changes . . . He went on to say: . . . but benignly specific . . . In another paragraph he went on to say: . . . though no-one should assume that any of the decisions have any status. This is the sort of stuff from a leader of a major party, the Leader of the Opposition. No wonder the Leader of the Opposition has problems with his leadership. On the one hand he is saying that people are disillusioned with politicians who talk tough and will not say what they are doing, and in the following paragraph he is saying: `Yes, we're going to get into it, but none of the decisions have any status'. That is the sort of amoral position that the current Liberal Party is in. Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Treasurer is not here to answer questions or to make comments upon statements which have been made outside this House. This is, as you know, Madam Speaker, quite contrary to the ruling which you yourself sought and which you yourself gained. Madam SPEAKER —The Treasurer will conclude his answer. Mr KEATING —I will if Clarence Darrow will permit me to continue. In other words, the Leader of the Opposition junked the lot. He went on to say: . . . to deny the abolition of the first home owners scheme, raising the female pension age and retain pension indexation . . . That accounts for more than half of the $5 billion or the $2.3 billion of recurrent expenditure savings listed in the supposedly leaked document. He went on to say: . . . there was also a need to come clean with the electorate. He said that in the same interview. Then he said: . . . while the specific cuts in Government spending outlined in a leaked Liberal Party draft document had not been approved, there were elements of the general approach with which he agreed. These are the politics of Ash Street. In case anyone in the House does not know what Ash Street is, it is where the former Liberal Party headquarters were in Sydney. These are the politics of the Sir Robert Askin school of politics-to say that black is white; to say in one paragraph that what is wrong with politics is that we have all these machos who talk tough but will not be specific; and then in the following sentence say: `We will make the big changes, but none of the decisions have any status'. This is the Liberal Party at its hustler worst; cheap hustler politics which mean nothing; all talk coming from the cynicism of the Askin years, the boys in Ash Street. The big debates in this country have been on the hordes coming downwards from China, F111s, state aid and the Petrov affair. All of that cynicism which Australian politics is laced with is turning up now in our national politics from the mouth of the Leader of the Opposition. Is it any wonder that the Opposition has no leadership, when it cannot even say that it has any savings to match the $16 billion of additions to the deficit? We have annotated that $16 billion line by line, yet the Opposition still leaves it on the public record and seeks to have credibility. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Prime Minister to his address last night to the Australia-Japan Relations symposium in which he boasted that at his own request `trade unions and business are currently engaged in an examination of ways of eliminating outdated work and management practices'. Is it a fact that a confidential paper prepared by the Treasury earlier this month for the Treasurer and the Minister Assisting the Treasurer claims that the working party looking into work practices issues `appears to have made very slow progress so far', `is in danger of becoming excessively institutionalised', `is dominated by Public Service and organisational bureaucrats and in fact there is not a single businessman amongst them' and `has given excessive attention to elaborate planning and insufficient attention to actually promoting changes in work practices at the enterprise level'? I ask the Prime Minister whether there has been any progress at all in the six months since the work practices summit was held, or is the Treasury's scathing criticism absolutely correct? Mr HAWKE —I suppose this is the devastating document that the Leader of the Opposition talked about on the steps of Parliament House this morning. What devastation! The first thing to say is that I do not know whether there is such a document-I have not seen it-but what is relevant are the facts. I know that that is a commodity that the Opposition shies away from all the time, but let us concern ourselves with the facts. The facts as to the achievements of this Government in the area of industrial disputation should be repeated in the light of the Leader of the Opposition's question. He had the opportunity, when he was a leading figure in the previous Government, to enunciate an industrial relations policy against which we could test what would happen. We know that-- Mr Tuckey —I raise a point of order. Standing order 145 deals with relevance. A very important question about work practices was asked of the Prime Minister. He said that he has not seen the document. That should be the end of his answer, but he might tell us why he is wasting his time and the country's time. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. He does not have a point of order. Mr HAWKE —That is the background with which the Leader of the Opposition comes with his question. He ruined the industrial relations scene in this country and it has been the task of this Government to put the pieces together again, which we have very successfully done. As to what has happened since I called together the representatives of business and trade unions, all I can say is what has been conveyed to me in many conversations I have had with leaders of business since that time. They have conveyed to me that the environment that has been created following that calling together of people has in fact led at the enterprise level to very significant improvements. In this matter not only I but the people of Australia would prefer to listen to those people there at the face of industrial relationships, the businessmen of this country, who are saying that there has been significant improvement, than the mouthings and posturings of the fast-disappearing Leader of the Opposition. Mr GEAR —Will the Minister for Science inform the House of the significance of a grant from the Department of Science under the Australian research grants scheme for an amount of $45,000 for a study into seventeenth century shipbuilding techniques and in particular its relevance to Western Australia? Mr BARRY JONES —It has to be said that sometimes the actual titles of research grant projects are not sufficiently explicit to make clear what is intended. This project was called `An investigation of seventeenth century shipbuilding techniques and methods of recording these ships' structures'. It was pilloried by the celebrated Waste Watch Committee-- Mr Keating —Philistines. Mr BARRY JONES —Indeed-which was presided over by Senator Michael Baume. It is a classic illustration of rushing to judgment. The members of that Committee assume that the mere listing of a project is enough to disqualify it. Out of 4,500 awards over three years they picked out 62 cases; that is to say, 1.4 per cent of the total. The number of projects they checked out is zero. Not one of these projects was ever checked out with the Department of Science, the Australian research grants scheme, the proponents of the scheme or me as the Minister. They do not mind rushing to judgment, but they have never sought any information. Let us have a look at this project. In 1629-I suppose I should explain for honourable members opposite that that was in the seventeenth century-the Batavia, the flagship of the Dutch East India Company, sailed from Amsterdam for Jakarta' or Batavia as it was then called, via South Africa, across the roaring forties, up the coast of Western Australia and was wrecked off Abrolhas Islands. It was carrying tools, crockery, furniture and building material. Mr Carlton —I raise a point of order. This question should have been answered by the Minister for Transport. Madam SPEAKER —The question was directed to the Minister for Science. Mr BARRY JONES —It was carrying tools, crockery, furniture and building materials intended for a stone archway for the head office of the Dutch East India Company in Batavia. The arch has been reconstructed in the Western Australian Maritime Museum. The restored Batavia is the centrepiece of the Museum in Fremantle and it is a major contribution to our maritime history. It is the Australian equivalent of the Vasa in Stockholm and the Mary Rose in Portsmouth. It is of great educational significance and is a major tourist attraction. I say to honourable members opposite: Is it a worthwhile project or is it not? Mr Cobb —It is not. Mr BARRY JONES —We hear some of the illiterates in the corner say that it is not. Let me assure them that it is a project that we ought to be very proud of, which extends our maritime history and gives us a tremendous insight into the early exploration of this country and the areas around it. Of course, the humanities are always subject to superficial abuse. They are an easy target because it is not immediately obvious why these subjects are studied. In a sense, the situation is even worse than Senator Michael Baume depicted: Not only do we research in the humanities, we even teach them-German history, German language, English literature, Roman culture and so on! We study political parties and political decision making and what makes nations what they are. Of course, we could have a society in which people were taught engineering, accounting, business writing and tax law but not the human subjects. This might appear to represent a considerable saving but it would lead to a culture that was incomparably poorer. To reduce our culture to the level where we can no longer afford to study history, ecology, language or literature would be the ultimate poverty. Mr BURR —Has the attention of the Minister for Communications been drawn to the February edition of the Journalist? In particular, has his attention been drawn to an article contained in that magazine that makes the accusation that a secret deal was entered into between Mr Rupert Murdoch, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer to the effect that Mr Rupert Murdoch would ensure that certain of his publications would publish editorial comment favourable to the Government in return-- Mr O'Neil —When are they going to start? Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr BURR —This would be in return for the Prime Minister and the Treasurer ensuring that legislation would be passed enabling Mr Rupert Murdoch to undertake business measures favourable to his organisation. Is the Minister aware that the article contains the following accusation, and I quote-- Madam SPEAKER —This is a very long question. Mr BURR —And a very important one, too, Madam Speaker. I quote: The Prime Minister told Murdoch that he would carry his Labor Party colleagues in the Herald and Weekly Times takeover and the controversy surrounding foreign ownership of Australian television licences provided there was some ``written proof'' that News Corp could be presented as ``the friend of Labor''. Is that accusation correct? Mr DUFFY —I have not read the article referred to; I gave up reading fairy stories some time ago. If those opposite interested in these areas are still reading those sorts of articles, that is a matter for them. In relation to the matters raised, I think it is indeed unfortunate that a member of this House of the honourable member's standing would ask such a ridiculous question. Mr Burr —There it is; it is printed, Michael. Mr DUFFY —From looking at the facts of the matter, one would totally reject the allegations made, which could be described as nothing better than scurrilous. In relation to a few factors, let us have a look at a couple of points for a start. After what I must say were years of inactivity in the broadcasting area, when we came to government all people in the broadcasting areas were saying: `Will you please do something? It does not matter really what; just get on with it'. They had to sit through years of inactivity from the people sitting opposite. Mr Sinclair —Now we are hearing a fairy tale. Mr DUFFY —One of the worst is interjecting. The record of the Leader of the National Party as Minister for Communications was pathetic. I refer to the reforms that we introduced in November last year. This reflects a bit on the question that was asked by the honourable member for Riverina-Darling. Our attempts to bring more choice in television and radio to country areas have been currently frustrated in the Senate by one of the most incredible reports one has ever seen. The four Labor members involved managed to get on the same track; that is not difficult for us. They came down with a report. There are three different reports. The Opposition put in a report and the Democrats put in another one. In relation to the matters the honourable member referred to, when we announced the changes in media policy in November 1986 the response of the Fairfax Press, for example, was that the first victim of this Government's media policy would be Mr Rupert Murdoch because he would be in the position of ultimately being required to divest himself of television stations, which in fact has now taken place. So the person mentioned in that magazine, the Journalist, who is supposed to have done some extraordinary deal with the Prime Minister became the first victim. While the question was being asked there was an interjection about when the editorials are going to start. Not only is the article ridiculous, if there was anything in it, two people should be suing for breach of contract-Mr Murdoch and the Prime Minister. Mr LANGMORE —Can the Minister for Territories comment on the advertisements placed in the Canberra Times by Australian Capital Territory doctors over the last few days? In addition, can the Minister comment on claims made in an article in today's Canberra Times that, on average, doctors' incomes from fees which would attract Medicare benefits and the treatment of Medicare hospital patients have risen from $124,873 to $152,048 in a period of two and a half years? Mr SCHOLES —I cannot comment but I can give information to the House on the current state of the dispute with doctors in respect of the treatment of Medicare patients in Canberra hospitals. I think I should first inform the House that the claims which were made by the doctors, and which have been subject to negotiation between the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority and the Australian Medical Association and representatives of some of the specialty unions within the medical profession, have been taking place since September last year. They were based at all times on a fee for service arrangement for the medical profession in Canberra, which it has had-and insisted upon-for several years. The offer made by the Government to increase the proportion of the schedule fee which is paid in respect of each service provided was to increase that proportion from 70 per cent, under the contracts which expired a short time ago, to 85 per cent of the schedule fee fixed under the Medicare arrangements. That 85 per cent is the highest level of fee for service paid. It is higher than the proportion paid in New South Wales. It is the level paid in Victoria and represents the highest proportion of the schedule fee paid in respect of medical services under Medicare in Australia. Canberra doctors have claimed, in addition to fee for service-which is, as I would have understood it to be, a comprehensive payment for the services provided-a range of other benefits which are associated directly with sessional payments which are paid alternatively in some areas and which were subject to massive and, I would say, unjustifiable increases by an arbitrated decision in New South Wales last year. As the honourable member said, the incomes from Government sources paid to doctors, in respect of both Medicare treatment in hospitals and payments for Medicare services under the national health arrangements, have increased in the last two years by in excess of 22 per cent and, on average, from $120,000 to $150,000. Equated with some of the salaries which are paid to leaders of the most important government organisations and the biggest organisations in Australia, that is a fairly generous remuneration. In respect of the fees for services in Canberra hospitals, which represent a portion of doctors' incomes, the proportion of the annually adjusted fee would be adjusted by 21 per cent, which is substantially higher than any adjustment made in respect of any other section of the Australian community which is dependent on government for its fees. I believe that, given the restraint taking place in the Australian community, and the call for restraint, the medical profession is not entitled to expect that governments will exempt it from levels of sacrifice which are nowhere near as great as those being sought from other members of the Australian community. The Opposition has said that an increase of $10 for wage and salary earners is too much and should not be paid. The order of change offered to doctors in the Australian Capital Territory is equivalent, on average, to over $20,000-that is what the 21 per cent represents in this case-yet we are still told that that is insufficient. At this stage no member of the Opposition has said a word about the claims of the doctors' professions in the Australian Capital Territory. Apparently $22,000 is not too much, but $10 is. As to the claim that I have not been prepared to discuss the matters with the doctors, I could use a crudity but I will not. The facts are that on Friday an agreement was made between the Australian Medical Association, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and me to meet on Monday evening. Subsequent to that I was asked by the AMA whether I would increase the numbers to include its entire negotiating committee. On Monday I was informed that the doctors would not be coming, and on Saturday morning advertisements were placed in the Canberra Times, as they have been on subsequent occasions, attacking me for not meeting with the doctors. I can assure the House that those advertisements were placed even before the agreement was made for a meeting to take place. I think the doctors have to face up to the fact that there are hard economic times in Australia, that they are Australians the same as everyone else and that they are being treated by this society extremely well. They should accept what has been offered, which is extraordinarily generous and which I think, by the criteria the Opposition uses for opposing an increase to $200 per week wage earners, is too generous, and meet their obligations to the community as everyone else is asked to do. Mr DAWKINS —Madam Speaker, I seek your indulgence to add to an answer I gave last week. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr DAWKINS —Last week the honourable member for Dawson asked me certain questions about some details of the Australian Council of Trade Unions Trade Development Council Mission to Europe. In the course of his questions the honourable member had been rather free with his accusations against Mr Kelty and the ACTU, which Mr Kelty has very forcefully rejected. Now, of course, the honourable member is anxious to learn whether or not there is any substance to his claim-so anxious, in fact, that a member of his staff rang my office last night asking whether the information could be provided. My Department has now provided me with a report on the questions asked by the honourable member and I will table that report for his information. I will not go into any detail about the matters here except to say that the advice from the Department shows that, far from overclaiming, Mr Kelty is owed a refund by the Department and that, separately, the ACTU has overpaid its contribution to this highly successful mission and also will be receiving a refund. Mr N.A. Brown —Madam Speaker, on a point of order, will you be good enough to consider asking the Minister to seek leave to make a statement so that we have the opportunity to reply? This is going beyond the normal indulgence. Madam SPEAKER —The Minister is tabling his paper and I gather that he has finished. Mr DAWKINS —No, Madam Speaker, I was just going to say that I hope that when the honourable member reads this-- Mr N.A. Brown —Well, it is not to his advantage to advance the-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister has indulgence to add to a question. He has added to the question and he is tabling a paper. I cannot see where the problem is. Mr DAWKINS —I simply say that when the honourable member for Dawson reads this material I hope he will have the decency to apologise to Mr Kelty. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to sub-section 9b (4) of the Fisheries Act 1952, I present a subsidiary agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Korea concerning squid jigging by fishing vessels of the Republic of Korea. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —Pursuant to section 74 of the Australian Capital Territory Radiation Ordinance 1983, I present a report of the Australian Capital Territory Radiation Council covering the period May 1984 to June 1986. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —Pursuant to sub-section 61 (6) of the National Crime Authority Act 1984, I present the annual report of the National Crime Authority for 1985-86, together with a statement by the Inter-Governmental Committee and the text of a statement by the Special Minister of State (Senator Tate). Motion (by Mr Cohen) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —Pursuant to sub-section 33 (1) of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, I present the zoning plan for the central section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. I seek leave to make a statement on the zoning plan. Leave granted. Mr COHEN —Honourable members will recall the proclamation, as part of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, of the central section on 11 October, 1984. The zoning plan I have just tabled provides the basis for managing human use and enjoyment of the marine park so that activities do not conflict with each other, and the natural qualities of the reef are conserved. Honourable members will also, no doubt, recall the declaration of other sections of the marine park which brought almost the whole of the Great Barrier Reef region, 98.5 per cent of it in fact, within the marine park, during the first year of office of the present Government. Declaration of marine park sections is not an end in itself but is only the first stage in a process of zoning and management. The Government's initiative in declaring such a large area in such a short time has involved the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority in an accelerated program of zoning and management activities. These activities will become evident to honourable members in a series of zoning plans for regulations to be laid before the House between now and 1988. It is intended that zoning plans will be in operation for all sections of the marine park in our bicentennial year. The concept of the marine park is based upon the need for conservation of the reef and its prolific animal and plant life, while providing for all reasonable uses by tourists, fishermen, collectors, divers, charter operators and others. To protect the reef, mining is strictly prohibited, except for approved research purposes. Oil drilling is prohibited throughout the region. The use of the reef by tourists is increasing at an annual rate of approximately 10 per cent. All other uses are increasing annually as well. These activities are vital to the nation both economically and socially. This Government is determined that the marine park will be managed so that the reef's natural qualities on which these activities absolutely depend are protected forever. The central section of the marine park extends from just south of the Whitsunday Islands to Dunk Island in the north. The section covers 77,000 square kilometres in area and comprises approximately one-fifth of the total area within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. The zoning plan for the central section has been developed following a process of scientific research, information gathering and public review. A draft zoning plan was prepared for this section following a four-month period for receipt of public representations. The draft zoning plan was then released for a further period of public review. The plan was subsequently revised, where appropriate, taking into account representations received. Four hundred and eighty six representations were made on the draft zoning plan, many of them by organisations representing large numbers of people. Users of the central section are many and varied. The area is best known for its rich fishing grounds, tourist resorts and charter boat operations. Many major tourism developments are occurring, including a floating hotel off Townsville and large resorts in the Whitsunday Islands. Sport and recreational fishing is growing rapidly, doubling approximately every decade. Much marine research is also focused on this section because of the proximity of two major research centres, the Australian Institute of Marine Science and James Cook University. Prior resolution of potential conflicts between users of the marine park is a major role of the zoning and management undertaken by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has, with the help of public participation, developed a zoning plan for the central section which balances human use with the need to conserve the reef. In summary, the main features of the central section zoning plan are as follows: The central section zoning plan provides for commercial, recreational and scientific use of the reef consistent with conservation, by creating six zones. The general use `A' zone comprises slightly less than 75 per cent of the central section and provides for all reasonable activities. Of course, mining is not permitted. The general use `B' zone, comprising 22 per cent of the section, provides opportunities for activities free from trawling and generally free from shipping. Two marine national park zones, comprising approximately 3 per cent of the section, provide for unrestricted public access to areas maintained generally free from harvesting or extractive activities. A scientific research zone and a preservation zone provide small, special areas protected in their natural state undisturbed by man except for approved scientific research. Within the zones, small areas of restricted activity are provided for, namely: Replenishment areas which can be closed from time to time to activities which remove fish and other living natural resources to allow for the recovery of those resources. Special management areas may also be declared to regulate the use of particularly sensitive or heavily used areas, providing an ability to deal with unforeseen needs and changing circumstances. Provision for national and international shipping and the requirement for defence training areas have also received careful consideration by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, and are dealt with in the plan. The tabling of this zoning plan is but the first step in the establishment of management arrangements for the central section. Regulations to give effect to the plan are being developed. The plan will come into operation on a date to be specified by public notice. The ever increasing and changing usage of the marine park necessitates an innovative approach to management which is reflected in this zoning plan. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority believes that the opportunities for human use and enjoyment of the reef should be maximised consistent with the conservation of the natural qualities of the system. In keeping with this view this zoning plan has kept restrictions on activities to a minimum necessary to protect the reef. Management of the marine park focuses on achieving the co-operation of users through education, although repeated or serious infringements are prosecuted. The Great Barrier Reef aquarium in Townsville, which was originally conceived and proposed by the Chairman of the Authority in 1980 as part of the Great Barrier Reef wonderland project, is the Authority's principal education tool. It will be open to the public on 24 June 1987. I understand that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Premier of Queensland will jointly open the venture. I hope that honourable members who have taken a longstanding interest in this project will take the opportunity to be present. Mr Everingham —It might be the same person by then, Barry. Mr COHEN —The Leader of the Opposition is going to change again, is he? We have to live with that. The principles followed in the development of the zoning plan which I have described are applied to all developmental and environmental issues in relation to the Great Barrier Reef and are consistent with the goal of the Authority to provide for the protection, wise use, understanding and enjoyment of the Great Barrier Reef in perpetuity through the development and care of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. The Government thoroughly endorses the goal and I commend the zoning plan for the central section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park to honourable members. I would like to conclude by paying a tribute to the Chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Mr Graeme Kelleher. I believe that no Minister could have a more dedicated and competent public servant than Graeme Kelleher. I regard him as one of the outstanding members of the Australian Public Service. Whilst a great deal of the credit goes to the Government-he was appointed by the previous Government-I believe that it has been his continual, persistent work and diplomacy in getting the two governments to work together which has made this project a reality. I hope that history will record the great role that he has played in making the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park a reality. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —by leave-The success of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, which was established by the Fraser Government, demonstrates quite clearly how Federal and State governments can work together successfully to achieve environmental aims. It is a pity that in many respects the present Federal Government has not seen fit to conduct its affairs with the States with the same success which it is quite happy to claim in this House when it comes to issues relating to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. It is worth noting that in October 1979 the first ministerial council meeting was held, attended by a Minister of the then Federal Liberal-National Party Government. It was decided at that meeting that the first section, namely, the Capricornia section, of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park should be declared. In quantitative terms the area was quite small. It was only 2.4 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef. The Opposition joins the Government in applauding the fact that now virtually the entire reef is subject to management plans. What is left will be subject to management plans in the context of the bicentennial in 1988. In no way would we resile from the obvious satisfaction which the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen), who is at the table, has in that he was able to play some small part in achieving that worthwhile objective. I join him in placing on record the Opposition's support for and continuing encouragement of the work of Mr Graeme Kelleher, the Chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. As the Minister rightly said, Mr Kelleher was appointed by the Fraser Government. He has been an excellent person for that function and has carried out his activities in the best interests of the Marine Park Authority, keeping in mind the fact that dealing with two sets of masters, the Queensland Government on the one hand and the Commonwealth on the other, is not an easy task. Nevertheless, he has carried it out with considerable success, as demonstrated by the fact that once again we are supporting the zoning plans which were nominated initially by the Authority. As the Minister said, this program is part of an accelerated program of zoning and management activities. It needs to be emphasised that the Great Barrier Reef remains Australia's number one domestic and international tourist destination. We face the fact, therefore, that millions of people, both Australians and foreigners, will be visiting the reef on a regular basis, both in and out of season because our seasons are the opposite of those in the Northern Hemisphere. Therefore, there will be a constant stream of people into the area. For that reason the need to establish an environmental management plan which will ensure that the standards of reef protection are adequate is of great importance to all of us. Older people who have lived on the north Queensland coast for most of their lives claim that they have seen some deterioration in various aspects of the reef. That is regrettable. As some would say, possibly it is merely a fact of life. The pressures on the reef now include the number of ships passing relatively close to it, the constant risks of pollution-especially oil pollution-and the effect of major fishing activities, not necessarily of a formal, commercial nature. One of the most interesting facts, if not a somewhat obvious fact, is that the greatest predators of fish in the Great Barrier Reef are not the professional fishermen but the amateur fishermen who, as I said earlier, number in the thousands-- Mr Cohen —Many, many thousands. Mr CONNOLLY —Many, many thousands, as the Minister rightly points out, of tourists who visit the reef annually. Accordingly, one of the other major difficulties is going to be to what extent coral outcrops can withstand the constant impact of visitors who walk over them, pick up pieces of coral and shells and so forth and, over a period, significantly disturb the ecological balance of the area. Consequently, the management plan which the Minister has put forward will cover some 77,000 square kilometres in area, which represents about one-fifth of the total area of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. The management plan does take account of the realities of fishing, of the need to have access to rich fishing grounds, of tourist resorts, charter boat operations and major tourism developments. He noted, in particular, the establishment, which as I understand it is unique, of a floating hotel off Townsville, and also the larger resorts in the Whitsunday Passage. The sport and recreational pressures of this major increase in the concentration of and investment in tourism in the area must be watched and monitored on a regular basis. Otherwise, as I said earlier, there is a fundamental and clear risk that the quality of the reef as we like to think of it will literally disappear before our very eyes. The resolution of potential conflicts, which was precisely the reason why the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority was set up, remains of great interest to all of us. For example, in recent days there has been some discussion about the introduction into the Queensland Parliament of legislation relating to a proposal to allow people who currently have leasehold access to parts of the islands to be able to change that to freehold. Whether the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority was adequately involved in this is a matter for some conjecture at this stage. But it is fair to say that all parties in this Parliament would expect that the Authority would be fully consulted about any changes in the environment of the reef, especially as to whether management of the land above the water line, as distinct from management of the reef and the surrounding waters below it, is not really a distinction in terms of State and Federal jurisdiction in absolute terms. The very reason that we established the Authority was to ensure that problems of long term human management and development of the region would come under some effective managemental control. We naturally hope that that situation will not in any sense change in the foreseeable future. I note in particular the point made by the Minister about the proposal to open a Great Barrier Reef aquarium in Townsville. This is a novel and far reaching concept. It will have substantial advantages for school-children and for many thousands of short term tourists to Townsville who may not be able to actually visit the reef but who will be able to see, in the context of the aquarium, shall we say, a window into the ecosystems of the region. Again, that will be of substantial benefit to all people because it will increase man's knowledge of what is undoubtedly one of the world's very great natural treasures. 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 in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Mr Kent,Mr Milton and Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth that whereas: They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Give a speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a Referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beale and Mr Lloyd. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled, we the undersigned citizens call upon all Members to pay due respect to pensioners and concessional card holders and cease the constant erosion of our entitlements by the Hawke Government. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth: That we strenuously object to the Government's decision to delete 45 commonly prescribed drugs (including analgesics, anti-histamines, cough mixtures and expectorants) from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme; That we strenuously object to the Health Minister's assertion that the health problems for which these medications are prescribed (e.g. arthritis and allergic rhinitis) are `relatively minor, self-limiting illnesses'. That we beg the House to reconsider these deletions from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards and Mr Hawker. 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 Dr Harry Edwards and 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 sheweth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under it proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``The existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker and Mr Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth that: Any proposals to abolish the Department of Veterans' Affairs gravely concern ex-servicemen, ex-servicewomen and their families because they renege on clear and unequivocal commitments from various Commonwealth Governments to properly care for Australia's veterans. Your Petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Parliament to: Ensure that the Department of Veterans Affairs continues to exist as a separate and distinct Department of State servicing the needs of veterans and their families. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Nehl and Mr Ruddock. 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 Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: that the Bill of Rights is a dangerous piece of legislation which gives us no new legally enforceable rights that the Bill of Rights leaves out vital rights such as the right not to belong to a trade union, the right to own private property, the right to a private education that the Bill of Rights gives dangerous new powers to a Federal Government Commission to investigate in private, without legal representation and with criminal penalties for refusing to co-operate that the Bill of Rights deals with our rights; therefore we, the people, should say whether we want it by a referendum. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will oppose the Bill of Rights, support Liberal amendments to improve it in case it is passed, and pledge to repeal it should it become law. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the many anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions brought to its notice, the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we strongly oppose the introduction of the `Australian 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. This Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that- (1) A cessation of the testing of nuclear weapons would break the cycle of research, development and deployment of nuclear weapons and prevent the acquisition of new and ever more lethal weapons of mass destruction. It would thus be a major and significant step towards ending the arms race and beginning the disarmament process; and (2) The Soviet Union has extended its unilateral moratorium on nuclear weapons testing until August 6 this year and has again invited the United States to cease its nuclear testing program. Your petitioners therefore urge the Australian Government to put the strongest pressure on the United States Government to join the Soviet Union's nuclear test ban. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows- That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That the North Coast section of the Pacific Highway, from a point just south of Port Macquarie and just north of Woolgoolga, is in urgent need of major road improvement works in order to bring it up to road safety standards. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: The Federal Government immediately divert National Highway funds or make available other funds towards the improvement of this section of the Pacific Highway. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will humbly pray: by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, Parliament house, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600. We, your petitioners, humbly showeth: That Australia has over 2,500 threatened species of native plants and animals. All these species face extinction if their habitats are not properly protected. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House: Call upon the Commonwealth Government in co-operation with the States and Territories to urgently institute protective legislation for endangered species and their habitats throughout Australia. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Reith. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strongly object to the sale of The Queen Elizabeth II Rehabilitation Centre at 59 Missenden Road, Camperdown, N.S.W. as it would be a disadvantage to patients who are incapacitated/invalid who require the specialised treatment/s which are now available in one Centre. We urge the Government to rescind the selling of this building and the breaking-up and loss of expertise in a centre that has every available facility for the disabled patient. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned who are staff of the ABC and the SBS respectfully showeth that: The proposed legislation to amalgamate the ABC and the SBS, together with certain existing provisions of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 (as amended), would have the effect of removing the present Staff Elected Director of the ABC from Office before the end of his elected term, and of barring him from standing for re-election. This offends basic democratic principle. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: That 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: We the undersigned citizens of Australia, residents of the City of Whyalla, in the State of South Australia, hereby petition the Prime Minister as Leader of the Australian Labor Party in Government and humbly showeth that: The voting public of the Grey Electorate did in March 1983 and again in December 1984, vote as a majority for the election of a Labor Government who claimed to stand for a Multicultural Australia. Your petitioners call on the Australian Labor Government to implement multicultural television in the City of Whyalla and other country areas, without any further delays. We declare that the implementation could become possible by: 1. Broadcasting Multicultural Television in the ABC, at morning times or; 2. SBS Transmitter to be connected to the Australian satellite-thus providing a Multicultural Television service all over our Nation. Both of these options have been proposed to the ABC Advisory Council (SA) at a recently held Whyalla Public Meeting. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain residents of South Australia respectfully showeth: That there is a continuing interest in heraldry within Australia by individuals, corporations and local government bodies and currently those desirous of a grant of arms must by law apply to a British institution. This is inappropriate for a sovereign nation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that parliament enact appropriate legislation to create an Australian armorial authority to make grants of arms. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Young. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Madam Speaker has received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The steady increase in public support for reform of Australia's industrial relations 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 N.A. Brown(Menzies)(3.16) —Today is indeed a very significant day for the Opposition and for those in the wider community who have long advocated reform of our industrial relations system. It is a significant day today because we read in the newspapers of the Business Council of Australia's industrial relations policy which was released yesterday. That policy statement released yesterday is without any doubt an unqualified endorsement by a major group of employers in this country, who employ between them over one million workers, of all that we on the Opposition side of the Parliament have been advocating in industrial relations for the last four years. It is without any shadow of doubt whatsoever a very substantial endorsement of the industrial relations policy that the coalition parties released in May of 1986. It is significant because, when we in the Opposition, and those in the wider community, started to chart a course some few years ago for a more flexible and deregulated industrial relations system and one that is more in tune with the real work-place and the market reality of our industry in this country, we were derided and pilloried by the Government and by its supporters in the trade union movement. We were derided and pilloried particularly by the current Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and by his Treasurer (Mr Keating). For instance, who can forget the Press conference that the Minister gave in May last year when our industrial relations policy was issued. The Minister went on the record and said that the complete policy, irrespective of what part of activity it dealt with in the industrial relations area, was no use to man nor beast and he rejected it in totality. Who can forget the many occasions in this House when the Treasurer has got on his high horse and said: `Well no one in the business community supports you on industrial relations anyway'. He has repeated it time and again. Mr Carlton —That is right and he was telling lies. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member for Mackellar was cautioned yesterday about interjecting that people are lying or telling lies. I ask him to withdraw again and warn him again that that sort of interjection is unacceptable. Mr Carlton —I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr N.A. Brown —But, since that tirade of abuse that came at us from the other side of the Parliament, of course a very significant thing has happened. What has happened is that the wheel has slowly turned. What has happened is that the debate has moved on. Not only has the debate moved on but it has moved on to a clear position where it is the Opposition parties, and those outside this Parliament who support us, who are leading the debate for a better industrial relations system in this country. It is the Government that has lagged terribly behind in this debate. We are in a position now-let us look at this-where the broad thrust of our industrial relations policy is supported in the first place by the Confederation of Australian Industry. It is clearly and actively supported by the National Farmers Federation on behalf of the rural community-and not only the employers in that community. It is clearly supported by the Australian Small Business Association and other small business associations who know from their personal experience just how much the present system is harming small business. Today, as this final endorsement, we have an unqualified endorsement from the Business Council of Australia representing, as I said before the Minister came into the House, employers who between them employ in this country over one million workers. We have now on the record a quite unequivocal endorsement of all that we have stood for and of all that we have argued for. What is it that the Business Council of Australia advocated yesterday when it produced its industrial relations statement? It is stated all too clearly in the title of the document that the Business Council launched yesterday, which is simply `Towards an Enterprise Based Industrial Relations System'. How accurately that sums up this far more intelligent and sensible approach to industrial relations and wage fixing in this country, which we have advocated now for so long and which is now so actively supported by a wide range of community opinion. The Business Council is saying in that simple, straightforward description in the title of its policy that we will have a better wage fixing system, a fairer wage fixing system, a wage fixing system which benefits workers and employers far more than the present system and which benefits the economic progress of this country far more than the present universal, compulsory, centralised wage fixing system, which is one of those institutions that have held Australia back. Not only is that point made so clearly in the title; it is made in the six basic points that the Business Council put forward in its policy statement. Firstly, it says: `Companies will negotiate directly with their employees or their representatives to achieve enterprise level agreements'. That is the principal proposition contained in the policy statement. The second proposition, which flows from that, is that those agreements between employees and employers will be binding and enforceable by law, a law which, according to the Business Council-and we agree with it 100 per cent-should apply to all, whether one is a trade union official, a representative of an employer organisation, an employer or an employee. That is a very fundamental principle, endorsing as it does so much in our policy that we should all be equal before the law. The third proposition is that there should be performance-related rewards, profit sharing and similar arrangements to encourage productivity increase in enterprise in this country. We say-and in fact the workers of this country say without any qualification at all-that if people are given a stake in the prosperity of the firm that employs them, if they are given a chance to advance their own prosperity at the same time that the prosperity of their employers is advanced, they will work harder and produce more, that the firm will generate more employment and that as a result of the incentive which is generated, the firm will expand and prosper, and with it the entire country. The Business Council, fourthly, says that if we can get this flexibility into the work arrangements we will be able to achieve at the work place level far more sensible working hours, spread of hours, work practices, job structures and classifications of work. We support the Council on that also. Fifthly-a thing which always sends this Minister into orbit-the Business Council says that we should have a dose of freedom in this country and have voluntary unionism. It supports us on that, which we have advocated now for so long. Sixthly, it says, as we do, that this Government's commitment to the Hancock report, although it seems to be crippled in its ability to get its legislation in, to strengthen the present centralised system and to oppose any advance towards flexibility is the wrong approach. That is the commitment of the Business Council of Australia and it is our commitment. Its opening proposition and these six basic points from the Business Council's statement make it perfectly plain that we have now from one of the largest business organisations in this country an unqualified support for those propositions that we have argued for in industrial relations now for so long. It is not just the Business Council of Australia; it is the public at large. If one looks at the gallup poll taken on this subject one will find that the majority of the people of this country-I emphasise that it is a majority of the work force of this country-are not in favour of the Australian Conciliation and Abitration Commission or industrial tribunals having the major role in wage fixing. The Business Council wants scope for enterprise-based agreements just as much as we do. The Minister, who supports the present system without any change, supports compulsory unionism without notification and supports leaving our present rigid industrial relations system in place, now has behind him a formidable array of people who frankly do not agree with him. How is this for a list set against him? First of all, the public. Secondly, the Business Council of Australia, as we know from today. Thirdly, the Australian Federation of Employers. Fourthly, the Australian Small Business Association and the other small business organisations. Fifthly, the National Farmers Federation and, I venture to say, the entire rural community by now. Sixthly, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which has published a report to which, in fact, a prominent member of the Arbitration Commission, Mr Deputy President Isaacs, contributed. Seventhly, Moody's Investor Services, which said some months ago that, unless we change our industrial relations systems and get some flexibility into it, this country is heading down a very rocky road in terms of how the rest of the world is going to look at us. Lastly, there is an army now of editorial opinion in probably every newspaper in Australia. It is not a bad achievement to have the public, virtually every employer organisation, virtually the entire rural community, the OECD, Moody's Investor Services-and, might I add, Mr Charlie Fitzgibbon-opposed to the Minister because of his refusal to introduce flexibility into this system. That is the army that the Minister now has arrayed against him. He has on his side the Australian Council of Trade Unions and those elements in the trade union movement who frankly want nothing more than to protect their own monopoly position and their own exclusive privilege. The simple point that we want to make today is that the debate has moved on from the time when we laid down this industrial relations policy which is now so widely accepted by the business community and by the public at large. The debate has moved away from the rigidity of the present system; it has moved away from the essentially compulsory nature of the present system; and it has moved away from the commitment to trade union power and compulsory unionism. It is a debate which has now moved towards flexibility where people recognise the advantage of having a more flexible wage fixing system. It has moved towards productivity-based agreements. It has moved, at long last, thank heavens, heavily in favour of voluntary trade unionism, and it has moved very definitely in favour of a reduction in extreme trade union power. As this debate has moved on, the Government and its paymasters in the union movement frankly are now lagging miserably behind in this whole debate. As this debate has moved on we have seen signposts which are quite significant decisions. We have seen the signpost in the Mudginberri case which enforced the effectiveness of section 45d of the Trade Practices Act. We have seen the second signpost in the Dollar Sweets case, in which we saw that at least the common law courts are not prepared to stand by in the face of union thuggery. We have seen, in Mr Hein's case last week, that at least one tribunal in Australia will stand up for the rights of people who do not want to be dragooned and bludgeoned into trade unions. What we say to the Minister on this occasion is this. We are now supported by the Business Council of Australia and virtually the entire Australian community. What does the Government say about the industrial relations policy that the BCA launched yesterday? Does the Government support it or reject it? If the Government rejects it, where does it reject it and why? Is the Government going to take some steps to get some common sense and flexibility into the system? Is it going to take some steps to get extreme trade unionism under control? If it will not do that, it will stand condemned, and deservedly so, by the entire business community and this country as a whole. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(3.31) —The speech that we have just heard by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown), is based on two absolutely wrong propositions: Firstly, that the policy of the Business Council of Australia is, as he said several times, an unqualified endorsement of what the Opposition has been advocating and, secondly, that the Opposition is leading the debate. We reject absolutely both of those propositions. It is ludicrous in the extreme and is self-delusion of enormous proportions for the Opposition to say that the BCA's policy or statement issued yesterday-it was not really a policy so much as a statement of objectives-endorses unqualifiedly the Opposition's policy. No one who reads that policy could believe that that was the case. In case anyone does happen to read it thoroughly, I must say that the Business Council made the point at the end that there were developments on both sides, in both Government and Opposition, which supported the objectives which it had, and that its policy was not politically based. Perhaps I should quote, for the record, what the document said in conclusion: The proposed changes are not politically based. In fact many of the principles are being embraced by the Government and Opposition alike. What the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has said is nonsense. It is typical of what we hear from him. We cannot trust anything that he says, because his whole record is one of misstatement of the situation. He has no credibility in this place. The reality is that the BCA did distribute its statement yesterday indicating its desire to move further towards an enterprise-based industrial relations system. The Deputy Leader then issued a Press statement saying that the Opposition's policy was a blueprint for implementation of the BCA's policy. That is ridiculous. The BCA made it absolutely clear that it did not regard the Opposition's policy as any blueprint. If it did, why did it not pick up the Opposition's policy and say: `We believe the Opposition's policy is what we need; we will just go ahead, adopt that as our policy and implement it'. Instead, the BCA said that it would set up a study commission to investigate how it could put its set of objectives into the practical reality of a policy which could be implemented. There is an enormous gap between stating objectives and getting to a policy which practically implements what one wants to achieve. The BCA said that it would set up a study commission, to be headed by a distinguished Australian, and that the study commission would report back in a year's time. It was not saying that it sees, in the Opposition's policy, the answer to all its prayers. On the contrary, it sees that as something which is there in the background of considerations and which is part of the study commission, presumably, along with many other aspects which would need to be considered. It is absolute nonsense in the extreme for a man who has no credibility in this House to say that the BCA's statement is an unqualified support of Liberal policy. There is no way in which that can credibly be argued. It is extremely absurd to say that the Opposition is leading the debate on industrial relations. What is happening is that the Opposition is being led by the nose in the industrial relations debate by the so-called New Right, or perhaps one should call it the New Reich these days. The New Right is dictating to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. It is playing him like some sort of a puppet to produce, in Liberal Party policy, the extreme policies of the New Right, and to put those into the Liberal Party's platform so they can be implemented, thus bringing about a change which the New Right could only have dreamed of a few years ago, until it got this pliable tool-the shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. This empty shell who portrays himself as the Opposition spokesman is no more than a front man for the extreme right in this country. Members of the Opposition know that that is the case. There was an extremely revealing article-- Mr N.A. Brown —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. The Minister should be given a valium; it might calm him down. It is very rare for me to ask for something to be withdrawn. I think that what the Minister has said is offensive to this House. To say that an honourable member is a pliant tool of someone or a group he has described as a Third Reich is offensive to this House. I ask you to require him to withdraw it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I did not hear the Minister say `the Third Reich'. I would think that that would be unparliamentary and should be withdrawn. Mr WILLIS —I did make that reference, but it was-- Mr McGauran —Apologise. Mr WILLIS —No, I do not apologise for calling it the New Reich. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! If the Minister made the comment that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was a compliant tool of the Third Reich, he should withdraw that. Mr WILLIS —I said `the New Reich'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If the Minister said `the New Reich', that is not unparliamentary, and he can say it whenever he likes. Mr N.A. Brown —Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order-- Mr WILLIS —Can't you take it? Mr N.A. Brown —I can take any of the rubbish that the Minister is likely to dish up. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr N.A. Brown —My point of order is simply this: It is offensive to this House and to its members for a Minister to say that a member is a pliant tool of people or organisations outside the House. Mr Deputy Speaker, you should ask him to withdraw it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr N.A. Brown —It is not a point of order? Is that so? I will have to raise it as a matter of privilege, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Do you want to do that now? Mr N.A. Brown —I simply ask you again, Mr Deputy Speaker, to ask the Minister to withdraw the statement. It is grossly improper. I am not concerned about the effect on me; I am concerned about the reflection on this House and its members. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —My recollection is that many comments are made in this House by honourable members suggesting that other members have some sort of an association or other with all sorts of organisations inside and outside the Parliament. In that vein, I do not consider what the Minister has said to be unparliamentary. I call the Minister. Mr WILLIS —Can I prove my point? In an article in the Business Review Weekly of 5 December last year headed `Liberals' secret plan to crack union power', there was a clear expose of the way in which the Liberal Party, and particularly the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, is being led by the nose by people from outside. Let me quote from a couple of items in the article-- Mr N.A. Brown —Mr Deputy Speaker on a point of order-- Mr WILLIS —You just can't take it, can you? Mr N.A. Brown —Ministers are supposed to be above making remarks such as that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will get on with his point of order. Mr N.A. Brown —My point of order is that the Minister, again, by reading an extract from a magazine, has said that I am simply controlled from outside this Parliament. It is a gross reflection on a member of parliament to allege that and I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to require him to withdraw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr Connolly —Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I draw your attention to standing order 76. I will read it because it is relevant to the whole issue: All imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly. What the Minister has done, undoubtedly, is to reflect on a member. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, in his remarks, made a number of remarks about the Minister-- Mr Ronald Edwards —About the paymasters. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I do not need any help from the honourable member for Stirling. The Minister is quoting from an article in a journal. To my mind, he is not imputing motive to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. That is what the standing order is about. I call the Minister. Mr WILLIS —The article says, in part-it appears on page 18: Peter Boyle, the president of the Australian Small Business Association, has never minced words. He explains the process of influencing the Federal Opposition's industrial relations policy in these terms: We say to industrial affairs spokesmen, Neil Brown, `How's that policy going? Have you toughened up the wimps in the party room yet? If we are going to support the policy we want to see it'. I go to Brown's office and he comes to mine. And I talk to Opposition Leader John Howard if I think Brown's not helping us. A word in the right place often does wonders. It continues: The New Right has a firm grip on the Liberals. Unbeknown to most Liberal MPs, members of the H.R. Nicolls Society are quietly drafting the policy- The article makes it clear who those people are. It spells them out: The friends of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition; Peter Costello, a founding member of the H.R. Nicholls Society; Peter Houlihan, the industrial Director of the National Farmers Federation; Ian Spry, a lawyer; David Tribeck, again a member of the H.R. Nicholls Society; Andrew Hay from the Australian Federation of Employers; and Gerard Henderson who was previously the head of the office of the Leader of the Opposition. This group of extreme rightists are the people who are calling the shots as a reading of this article makes clear and dictating the policy to the Opposition. I think it is quite clear that the Opposition, far from leading the policy debate in this country, is in fact being dragged along by this group of people who are extremely unrepresentative of the employers in this country and who, apart from the National Farmers Federation, are absolutely fringe employer organisations. The mainstream employer groups do not endorse the policies which are coming from the other side. Mr White —The Business Council of Australia. Mr WILLIS —Obviously the honourable member was not here. The Business Council of Australia has in no way endorsed the Opposition policy and nor, indeed, has the Confederation of Australian Industry. The Confederation of Australian Industry has made it clear in an article in its industrial review of November last year that the last thing it saw was the policies of the Opposition. It did not actually get round to talking about Opposition policies, but it is quite clear that that is what it was talking about. In an article headed `Industrial Fantasies' it went on to say that people who were talking about the sorts of things that the Opposition is talking about are talking about industrial fantasies. It states: But to indulge in escapist fantasies that all of these problems could somehow be solved by getting rid of industrial tribunals and using the courts of law as the battlefield for resolving industrial disputes takes the debate into a dangerously irrelevant domain. If the only solution that such critics can come up with to resolve a dispute is to sue the union, then they have no solution at all. How they can reconcile their professed desire to see more harmony in the workplace with an extended use of legalistic remedies is in defiance of logic. That is also very relevant to the Opposition's policy. It also states: Escapist fantasies are one way to deal with a world in which everything is not as one would like. It is psychologically comforting and can produce some relief from the burdens of the moment. But it is a positive danger to go around conjuring up imaginary industrial relations systems that have little resemblance to reality, then go about promoting these to employers as solutions to their problems. Those are very relevant words indeed to both the New Right and the Federal Opposition. Time does not allow me to make many more quotes. Let me simply say that the mainstream employer organisations have not endorsed the Opposition's policies. It must also be said that both the BCA and the CAI have recognised that under the present Government there has been a dramatic improvement in the level of industrial relations in this country and tremendous improvement in terms of time lost in industrial dispute. The time lost in industrial dispute is running at a rate now 60 per cent less than the average under the previous Government, an enormous reduction. The average wage outcome over the period we have been in office is about 40 per cent less than the annual rate of wage increases under the previous Government. How can it be said that industrial relations policy is a disaster under the present Government? How can it be said that the policy being pursued by us is not a dramatic improvement on what has been there before? There has been enormous reform of the industrial relations system and the results show it. Furthermore, there is in train a whole series of activities which will further improve the system. We do not in any way say that the system is ideal and that it does not deserve further improvement. Of course there is room for further improvement. The Hancock legislation which will come in shortly will considerably improve that system. That system has been developed in very extensive consultation with the mainstream employers and with the trade unions, not in some backroom with a few crazies from the New Right or new left but with the mainstream operators who have to live with the system. That is what is being done by us. We are improving a system in consultation with the people who really have to implement it and not some lunatics from the New Right or some lunatics from any other fringe. We have an industrial relations system in this country which has had as a central element a consideration of equity and fairness. The Opposition policy throws away concern for equity and fairness, and discards that by encouraging and indeed inciting employers to go out and develop a system of voluntary contracts which would enable them to have sweat shops operating all over the place by taking away from employees the award protection which they have had in this country since the beginning of this century which has been a hallmark of the arbitration system, and which has distinguished our industrial relations system from those of many other countries and made our system much fairer and more equitable. The honourable member for Lyons (Mr Burr) who was the head of the industrial relations committee on the Opposition side was sacked from that position because he protested against this and recognised the enormous inequity of what was involved in the Opposition's policy. It should be understood that what members of the Opposition are advocating is the greatest attack on living standards that this country has ever seen. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(3.47) — What a remarkable speech has been made by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis). The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown), put forward a proposition about the great support in the community for our industrial relations policy. The Business Council of Australia supported that policy yesterday. The Minister has not refuted one policy statement that the Deputy Leader put forward. Mr N.A. Brown —Not one. Mr McARTHUR —Not one. All the Minister has talked about is the system that everyone wants to be changed. He talked about reform. What reform has he instituted since he has been the Minister? He has talked about potential reform and nothing has come forward. The winds of change are about in Australia in relation to the industrial relations system. Since 1906 we have had the unions, the employers, the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in one system binding employers, sometimes binding employees, with legal arguments and there has been no relationship to economic reality. Yesterday the Business Council of Australia brought forward a policy that runs parallel with the coalition's policy and very much supports the thrust of our proposition that we put forward last May. I will quote from the editorial of the Australian newspaper. It is headed `A breath of fresh air for industry'. It states; If Australia is to increase its standard of living, it has to be more competitive. To be successful, our industrial enterprises have to break away from the stultifying industrial relations club atmosphere- That is the one the Minister wants to support- and have a refreshingly productive new relationship with their work forces. Historically this has been too hard and too difficult because of the entrenched positions of all parties. The winds of change are now moving with great strength, direction and velocity. Moody's International changed our credit rating. It had this to say about our industrial relations when it made this change: . . . that one of the reasons for taking away our traditional triple A credit rating was because industrial and labour market rigidities are further expected to hamper the country's ongoing efforts to shift economic resources into areas of high foreign exchange earning capacity. That is the international appreciation of our performance. We have got surprising support for change from an unsought quarter. An article is headed: `Wage fixing needs more flexibility, says Button'. Fancy that coming from that quarter. Senator Button stated: All I'm prepared to say is that the wages system has to be a dynamic system which has regard for the needs of the economy. That is really bringing about change. I wonder why the Minister did not talk to Senator Button in his deliberations? Again, in a survey conducted by Business Review Weekly, headed `Swing against wage policy', it stated: A majority of the leaders of Australian big business now favours abandonment of centralised wage-fixing according to the latest BRW/Hyatt business survey. The quarterly survey, directed to the chief executives of Australia's top 500 companies, showed that 53 per cent of respondents favoured direct negotiation between employers and employees, with a minimum wage providing a `safety net'. What a remarkable change in attitude from that quarter. We see evidence of the support of the National Farmers Federation which the Minister suggested was not a major employer body. It is only in control of about 250,000 employees in the rural industry! Mr MacKellar —How Many? Mr MCARTHUR —About 250,000-a quarter of a million employees. Mr N.A. Brown —It is not a mainstream employer? Mr MCARTHUR —The Minister suggests it is not a mainstream employer. Its contribution to the industrial relations debate has been quite a major one in bringing about change, in moving away from a centralised fixing structure, in having less control of the Arbitration Commission and in supporting our view that there ought to be individual contractual arrangements for those employees in firms employing fewer than 50 people. Again we see a change in attitude which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to. In September 1986 it was reported that 83 per cent of Australians reject compulsory unionism. Mr N.A. Brown —Of people at large. Mr MCARTHUR —Of people. When we look at the figures carefully we find that of those 83 per cent, 77 per cent are trade unionists. What a remarkable situation for the Minister to comprehend. He does not even understand what his own people think. In a wide-ranging survey reported in October 1986 we see that 55 per cent of Australians are in favour of direct employee-employer wage fixing arrangements. In that we see these winds of change. Charlie Fitzgibbon, a well-known Labor man who had been in the Labor Party for some 40 years, suggested flexibility in wage fixing arrangements to provide a more competitive structure with profits being taken into account so that we could become internationally more competitive, as stated in that famous report by the Economic Planning Advisory Council. Let us look at the policy objectives of the Business Council of Australia. In specific terms it supports almost identically the industrial relations policy put forward by the coalition. Enterprise level agreements is its No. 1 objective that is based on profitability, working conditions and wages at the work place. We just have to think of the Robe River dispute in Western Australia, wheat farmers in central New South Wales and textile workers in Tasmania-all have different working conditions, different terms of profitability and ought to be treated in a different manner. It suggests one negotiation for an enterprise-that is enterprise unions. We have been supporting that ever since we launched our policy. Our policy is that one group negotiate with management for wages and conditions. This is particularly so in the motor car industry, the shipbuilding industry and those industry based groups integrated under the one roof. It suggests binding agreements. Again, we have discussed this at great length with people in industry. We want to see equality under the law for both parties having entered into this particular agreement. I notice that the New South Wales has backed off in its legislation that potentially provides immunity to trade unionists. So it should because the Business Council does not believe in that. The Business Council believes in a national wages policy. We agree with that thrust. There ought to be a safety net based on an hourly rate to provide a flexible approach. The BCA believes in flexible agreements. I draw the attention of the House to an example of a national camera company in Melbourne which has negotiated with its employees to have a 12-hour day for five days a week. The management and the workers negotiated special conditions. They were very happy with this arrangement to ensure that the plant worked for 12 hours a day. They were happier; they made more money and were able to organise their personal lives in a better manner. The Council believes in performance-related rewards. The Mudginberri example demonstrated this concept perfectly. It means more output and more money for the workers; and everyone is better off. It believes in efficiency improvements. Shop floor discussions about the way in which the factory should work are not related to the Arbitration Commission. What has the Arbitration Commission got to do with arrangements between the boss and the workers? The Business Council of Australia suggests that freedom of choice of all Australian workers to join a union or not to join a union is an inherent right. The Minister has been suggesting that unionism is not compulsory. I will quote from the Building Industry Shop Stewards Handbook. If compulsory unionism is not so, just listen to what happens on the building sites. I will read from the handbook an instruction to shop stewards: As a first step, seek to convince the worker of the benefits of unionism and outline some of its achievements- I wonder about that- indicate that he would be welcomed into the union and outline his rights. Now listen to this: If he still refuses to join after you have made every possible effort to convince him otherwise, you should advise the employer that he is not allowed to start work as it is a union job. There we have a closed shop. The Minister says that we have no compulsory unionism in Australia. Where is the Minister? Mr Howard —You are not saying the Prime Minister is telling untruths, are you? Mr McARTHUR —The Prime Minister indicated that there was no compulsory unionism in Australia. I have read the instruction to the shop stewards. The Business Council believes in employee participation. It gives great emphasis to this. We see this taking place with the Mitsubishi company in trying to establish the way in which the plant should work, policies on the shop floor, profitability and production changes. The conclusions of the Business Council of Australia are in line with our policy. It says that it should be a co-operative arrangement between the employers and the employees. It is a radical plan, like ours, but it will evolve with co-operation by building in good will among unionists, management and Australians. The Business Council is determined to achieve these objectives. Finally, these are very revealing words: The economic capacity and the remuneration of the work force through productive capacity and the ability to pay. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(3.56) —I think that at the end of his speech the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur) was about to talk on the Opposition's wages policy, but as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, there is not one. He trailed off at the end of his speech. The difficulty that the community faces is that we have been waiting for a long time for a wages policy. In its place we have a blatant anti-unionist approach by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and a blatant anti- tribunal approach by the Opposition. The disturbing thing as far as the Opposition is concerned is that the Australian community recognises that. Fundamentally, the Opposition is about being anti-union and anti-tribunal. The difficulties which the Opposition has to face is that we have only to go back to a recent experience when it was in government, and the community remembers that very clearly. I will talk about that presently. The focus of today's debate is really about an effective industrial relations system. When we consider that we ought to be focusing upon some points which we think are central. The industrial relations system is about dispute settlements; it is also about wage fixation, about the generation of profitability and performance, about the question of participation in decision-making, about competitiveness-that is something that we on this side of the House place great emphasis upon-competitiveness at the plant level, at the industry level, at the national level and at the international level, and finally it is about the question of principles. I notice that whenever the Opposition comes into this place, shouting and screaming like their jackbooted fellow travellers of the New Right, we never hear it talk about principles, we only hear a repetition of its basic anti-union and anti-tribunal approach to industrial relations. We have as our sixth point of view in relation to industrial relations systems the concern with the principles of social justice, equity, fairness and good conduct. I say to my colleague the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) that he would also recognise that since the turn of the century there has been an emphasis in this country on fairness and good conduct. That is something we on this side recognise and it is something that the community has recognised. It is described in general terms as an Australian concern of a fair go. The problem the Opposition faces on this point-and this is one of the things about which it has a fetish-is the notion that at the enterprise level there can be contract negotiations between an employee and employer. Let us put, for example, before the Opposition the proposition of someone who has been unemployed and who is trying to get a wage level negotiated with a new employer. Let us imagine that one is unemployed for six months and one is 18 years of age and approaching an employer to try to settle what is considered to be a fair wage. Where is the possibility of fairness and equity in that arrangement? There is none. Nowhere has the Opposition addressed that, because basically it has this fetish about unionism and tribunals; it wants to wipe them away. The Business Council of Australia, in its statement released today, said that it was not concerned to try to address the problem of those employers who want to do away with unions. It is also not concerned with those unions which simply want unbridled power. It is concerned about the good conduct of industrial relations. When we focus upon that, as far as the Government is concerned, we are shown a record of good conduct in industrial relations. There is no better way to contrast that than to look at the average loss per annum of working days during the Fraser Government. Three million days per annum was the average. That is the record that we inherited from the Fraser Government. If one goes around to business firms, as I do in my electorate, and talk to people in the community, one knows that they recognise that that is a very sorry inheritance indeed. We cannot get away from the fact that the Opposition had an absolutely appalling record in industrial relations. When we compare it with the performance of the Hawke Government-1.4 million working days lost per annum, contrasted with 3 million days-in effect we have achieved a massive reduction in working days lost. In fact we have seen good conduct being achieved in the industrial relations scene. What did the Confederation of Australian Industry say about the Opposition's approach to industrial relations? It described the approach as like indulging in escapist fantasies-that to believe that all of these problems could somehow be solved by getting rid of industrial tribunals and using the courts of law as the battlefield for resolving industrial disputes takes the debate into a dangerously irrelevant domain. The Confederation of Australian Industry said that the Opposition's approach to industrial relations was an escapist fantasy. It is also true to re-emphasise, when we look at the way the Opposition would operate in relation to industrial relations, that the Opposition has been engaged in union bashing. Everyone knows that; the key people in the trade union movement understand that. They recognise that the Opposition's ability to get any proper conduct out of the trade union movement is zero because when the Opposition was in Government it could not do it; it cannot do it now that it is in opposition; and it will never do it in some future government because it has never addressed the problem which the Business Council addressed. The Business Council says that it is out to get good conduct at the plant and national levels. At the plant level it wants effective involvement in decision making from employees and management. That is quite compatible with the Government's approach to industrial relations. It is quite incompatible with the Opposition's approach because it spends all its time on this fetish of union bashing. The Opposition cannot have it both ways. We recognise that the Business Council is making an important contribution to the debate. It is important because it sets out some very specific goals. It is interesting that the Business Council has had to fill up the vacuum that has been created by the absence of wages and industrial relations policies from the Opposition. The honourable member for Charlton would be impressed by the word `incentivation' which came upon the industrial relations scene; this was going to be the industrial relations approach of the Opposition. It has been buried by the Premier of Queensland and the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) because the Opposition has been preoccupied with the honourable member for Kooyong and the Premier of Queensland. It is called survival. The word `incentivation' has been brushed to one side because the Opposition is having some difficulty. Why should the Opposition be so preoccupied with the New Right? The answer to that is very clear. The Opposition really has the view that what it ought to be doing is demolishing the industrial relations system which on the disputes settlement side has achieved a massive reduction in days lost and on the employment side has seen the creation of 734,000 new jobs since March 1983. On the disputes settlement side there has been a massive reduction in days lost from three million to 1.4 million per annum-a magnificent achievement. On the employment side there has been an even more impressive achievement-734,000 new jobs created. Opposition members interjecting- Mr RONALD EDWARDS —The Opposition has a preoccupation with shrieking and shouting, because all it does is mirror its fellow travellers in the New Right. The disturbing thing for the Opposition is that the community knows that fundamentally it has no principles and is incapable of getting around to a decent wages policy. For example, why is the honourable member for Lyons (Mr Burr) not speaking in this debate? He has said that he recognises that `as true Liberals we should welcome the fact that mechanisms'-he is talking about industrial tribunals-`have played a significant role in protecting the rights and dignity of the citizen'. The honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown) wants to do away with that. We on this side recognise that the industrial tribunals play a role, as do the Business Council and the Confederation of Australian Industry. The Opposition and its fellow travellers in the New Right want to do away with industrial tribunals. The honourable member for Lyons, to his credit, recognised that the historical inheritance of industrial tribunals was a result of the damage that was wrought by wholesale industrial disputation in the nineteenth century. I know that some of the Opposition's ideas are borrowed from the nineteenth century-we recognise that every time the Opposition goes public-but the difficulty it faces, if one looks back to the historical inheritance, is that the industrial tribunals are about giving fairness, equity and good conduct in industrial relations. The Opposition wants to do away with them, but the Business Council, the Confederation of Australian Industry and the Government do not. The Opposition has talked about reform. What it is really about is the demolition of the system. It talked about a number of its colleagues in the New Right who would bring about this brave new world. The disturbing thing that the Opposition has to face is that this Government, through the Hancock Committee of Inquiry into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems, has been about setting in place proper reform of the industrial relations system. We are having negotiations with employers and unions. We recognise that unions play a part in the industrial relations scene and we are happy to have negotiations with them. Unfortunately, the Opposition, blinded by prejudice, does not want to deal with unions and wants to do away with tribunals. It is reacting to those extreme right wing elements in the employer movement. We are quite happy to deal with the wide range of employers and unions. We recognise that we have a responsibility to have a good industrial relations system and a wages policy. The experience of this Government has been that it has worked. The experience of the Opposition when it was in government was that it was a failure. The Australian community recognises that the Opposition is a failure and has contributed nothing to the debate today. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The debate is now concluded. Dr WATSON(Forde) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts I present the 268th report of the Committee, the response to munitions production trust account report. Ordered that the report be printed. Dr WATSON —by leave-This report details the Government's response to the Committee's 244th report, which recommended the abolition of the munitions production trust account. In line with the Committee's recommendations, the Government has agreed to abolish the account and to improve the level of reporting of other trust accounts to provide more detailed information to the Parliament. The munitions production trust account was created in 1966 to finance munitions manufacture in government factories for departments of the Commonwealth and other governments and authorities. The account was a holding account financing the production of munitions. It enabled factories to obtain reimbursement for production undertaken in advance of payment from the Department of Defence or overseas customers. The Committee's inquiry recommended the closure of the account to eliminate double accounting, abolish unnecessary administrative costs and overcome poor management of funds. Additionally, the Committee found that there was an urgent need to improve the level and quality of financial reports and other trust accounts to Parliament. The Government's acceptance of the Committee's recommendations means that individual government munitions factories will become more accountable publicly for their operations and performance. I commend the report to honourable members. Declaration of Urgency Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Acting Leader of the House)(4.09) —I declare the Australia Card Bill 1986 [No. 2] an urgent Bill. Question put: That the Australia Card Bill 1986 [No. 2] be declared an urgent Bill. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 56 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 18 —— Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J. Beazley, K. C. Jacobi, R. Beddall, D. P. Jakobsen, C. A. Blanchard, C. A. Jenkins, H. A. Blewett, N. Jones, BarryBowen, Lionel Kelly, R. J. Brown, John Kent, L. Brown, Robert Keogh, L. J. Brumby, J. M. Kerin, J. C. Campbell, G. Klugman, R. E. Charles, D. E. Lamb, A. H. Charlesworth, R. I. Langmore, J. V. Chynoweth, R. L. Lee, M. Cleeland, P. R. Lindsay, E. J. Cohen, B. Maher, M. J. Cross, M. D. Martin, S. P. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mayer, H. Darling, E. E. Mildren, J. B. Dawkins, J. S. Milton, P. Dubois, S. G. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morris, PeterDuncan, P. Mountford, J. G. Edwards, Ronald O'Keefe, N. P. Fatin, W. F. O'Neil, L. R. T. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Price, L. R. S. Free, R. V. Punch, G. F. Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W. Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H. Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R. Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C. Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E. Holding, A. C. Uren, T. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Willis, R. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M. Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Katter, R. C. Beale, J. H. Lloyd, B. Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S. Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J. Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Burr, M. A. Miles, C. G. Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ewen Moore, J. C. Cameron, Ian Nehl, G. B. Carlton, J. J. Peacock, A. S. Cobb, M. R. Porter, J. R. Coleman, W. P. Reith, P. K. Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C. Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M. Edwards, Harry Shack, P. D. Everingham, P. A. E. Shipton, R. F. Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC. Fischer, Tim Slipper, P. N. Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M. Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J. Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W. Halverson, R. G. Watson, D. J. H. Hawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D. Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C. McHugh, J. Smith, W. Young, M. J. McVeigh, D. T. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Allotment of Time Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Acting Leader of the House)(4.17) —I move: That the time allotted in connection with the Bill be as follows: (a) For the remainder of the Committee stage, until 4.45 p.m. this day. (b) For the remaining stages, until 5 p.m. this day. I make the point that on this occasion the Australia Card Bill has been debated already for some seven hours with 25 speakers participating in the debate. On the previous occasion, the Bill was debated for some nine hours. When this Bill was previously before the House there was no Committee stage and no amendments were moved. On this occasion, no amendments have been moved and the Opposition has made it very clear that it opposes the Bill in toto. For that reason, there is no reason to have any Committee stage. It is a matter of record that in the debate last night the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) stated that the coalition remains firmly opposed to the ID card proposal and it will oppose the Bill. That is the context of the debate at present. We are very anxious that the Australian people have a chance to look at the Opposition's position on this matter. There is a mandate for this legislation. We say this is an opportunity-- Mr Porter —Sit down and give us a chance to debate it. We have important issues to raise. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I suggest that the honourable member remain quiet. He has had plenty of time to debate this matter. He was on his feet for a long while. Mr Porter —Why are you gagging it? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —We are not gagging it. Mr Porter —You are gagging it. There are important issues to raise in Committee. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for Barker will cease interjecting. Mr Porter —You are stopping us. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Barker. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —On the previous occasion, the Opposition did not move one amendment. Has it suddenly found a Committee amendment which it never found before? Where does it suddenly get this rash of intelligence which it never had in the first debate? It never moved one amendment. It has been debating this matter now for seven hours and it has not foreshadowed one amendment. What a hypocritical attitude this is. The Opposition is opposed to this legislation. Mr Hodgman —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I did move an amendment in the last debate and I have foreshadowed an amendment in this debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I will have to deal with the honourable member for Denison. He did not move an amendment on the last occasion and it is wrong for him to mislead the House now. The point at issue in this debate is the fact that a number of people have been able to get away with fraud and deception and take from the public some $400m, $500m or $800m by way of fraudulent action. That is what this Bill is aimed at. The Opposition here is prepared to allow that to go on. It says that it just wants to oppose the Bill but it has put no other proposition forward. The Government, as I said, has a mandate from the Australian people to introduce this legislation. It is aimed at crooks and fraudulent practices. Many of us, particularly those interested in my portfolio, spend a lot of time looking at the gaol sentences which have been given to people who have robbed this community of thousands of dollars. The cost of that ought to be added to the cost of fraud that has already taken place. All we are saying in this legislation is that people ought to be honest, ought to be able to identify what they want from a govenment in terms of a social security benefit, should not use an alias and, when they receive a benefit from this nation, should not engage in tax evasion or fraud. We make it very clear that all we are trying to do here is guarantee that the revenue will not be defrauded so that innocent taxpayers have to make up the leeway. It is a very simple issue. At least 70 per cent of the Australian people agree with us. For some extraordinary reason the Opposition is running scared of having this matter debated again in the Senate. Maybe there are some people in the Senate now prepared to agree with the Government's proposition. We want to test the situation. We are very anxious that the legislation get to the Senate without any further delay. The Opposition here has made it very clear that it wants no part of the Bill. It does not want any sense of amendment, so there is no real reason for a Committee stage. We make it very clear that in the Senate we expect to have opposition, but we are a little interested in the attitude of the Queensland Nationals and how they see the situation. Will they agree with one of the more sensible views in the community that the Senate, being a responsible House of review, ought to look at the intent of legislation from the point of view of its benefit to the nation? Despite the fact that the Opposition here is so fragmented, scared of everything and bereft of leadership, in the Senate Liberal and, indeed, National Party senators may well vote for this legislation. We regard this legislation as being the most effective single weapon to combat tax evasion and welfare fraud. It is for that reason that the Government reluctantly has to move this guillotine. When we add up how many people have participated in the two debates that have taken place on this legislation, we find that 58 speakers have taken part-and not one proposition has come from the Opposition to amend the legislation. It is for that reason that the Government is obliged to move the guillotine. It will mean that the Bill will pass all stages today and will be in the Senate tomorrow. We would expect the Senate to be able to finalise its debate next week. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Manager of Opposition Business)(4.23) —The gripping rhetoric of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) had all his colleagues enthralled! Not one of them stopped talking throughout the whole of his speech, when we were told that for some reason the Government is running scared of a debate. Everybody needs to know that the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), that brilliant rhetorician sitting opposite, the man who knows all about the problems of health, has not yet responded in this House to any of the questions that we have validly raised. My colleague the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) and others on this side of the House have asked questions, and not one of those has been answered by the Minister for Health. What is going to happen now? We have been told that we have until 4.45 p.m. to complete the Committee debate. We will then have until 5 p.m. to complete the debate on the rest of the Bill. I have never heard more balderdash in my life than that which came from the Deputy Prime Minister. All I can say is, thank goodness the Leader of the House (Mr Young) will not be away for long. The Deputy Prime Minister claims that for some reason there will be any amount of opportunity to debate this legislation in the Senate but no opportunity here at all. If he really wants the Senate to debate the legislation, I should tell him that both this House and the other place will be sitting next week. Today is Wednesday. There is no reason why we cannot continue our debate. On this side of the House we are particularly concerned because a range of people who are adversely affected by the provisions within this identity card legislation have not yet had their questions answered. There is no satisfactory answer to the cost of the introduction of this legislation. There is no satisfactory answer as to why 2,000 public servants will be needed to supervise it. There is no satisfactory answer as to why legislation is being guillotined through this House on 25 March when it will not come into effect for the average Australian until some time in the 1990s. It is five years before we will be called on to use our identity card. What is the urgency? Why does the Deputy Prime Minister have to hurry the legislation? Let us be honest. He does not know whether his Left is going to stick. What this is all about is why Senator George Georges left the Australian Labor Party. None of the wimps in the Left in this place are game to stand up in the way they did in Caucus. They all know the legislation is wrong. They know, in their little corner opposite, that when they go back to their branches and their factions they will be asked by the Left wing: `Why the devil didn't you lot have the gumption to stand up and express your concern about the introduction of this obligatory identity card?'. Members of the Left are very brave in their rhetoric when they are commenting across the chamber in Question Time but they are very short in their ability to respond when it counts. Where is the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand)? He is always in here. It is good to see him sitting on the front bench. We know he should be there but unfortunately he has a colleague here who does not agree about the quality of his talent. It is a great pity that members of the Left are not prepared to support the forceful advocacy that Senator Georges was prepared to express in public places. What is up with the left wing? This is really what the Deputy Prime Minister is about. The honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Scott) is another member of the Left. They are all sitting opposite. We know what the Deputy Prime Minister is doing. He is applying the guillotine because he is afraid that his Left will go to revolt. He knows that they know that this legislation is a fraud. He knows that the Left of his party recognises this legislation as having no effect whatsoever on tax evasion. He knows that identity is not the problem in tax evasion and social welfare fraud. This legislation will have no effect. The only reason this guillotine is being applied is that the Deputy Prime Minister is afraid that he does not have the numbers. We have not heard a great deal from the Deputy Prime Minister of late. We have heard from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), and we have all heard the Treasurer (Mr Keating), and I think the Attorney-General and Deputy Prime Minister has decided that he finally wants his voice to be heard. What a way to have it heard-to come into this House to gag debate on a measure that will not have effect for five years. The measure deserves to be defeated, this guillotine deserves to be defeated and we on this side of the House will not do anything to help the Government to hide its problems with its left wing from all the rest of the Australian people. We are going to oppose this Bill and I frankly hope that everybody in the left wing will support us when we do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! Before I call the Minister for Health I ask for some quiet in the House so that the Minister can be heard. There was great difficulty hearing the last two speakers. I call the Minister. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(4.28) —The rather frenetic and hysterical performance that we have just witnessed- Mr Ian Robinson —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to the fact that it is quite impossible to hear in this chamber because the sound system apparently is not amplifying the voice of the speaker, yourself, the Minister at the table or any one speaking from the Opposition side sufficiently for members of the House to hear. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I think the honourable member for Page and his colleagues on both sides of the House should be quiet. It is not the fault of the public address system; it is the fault of the noisy people in here. Dr BLEWETT —The frenetic and semi- hysterical performance that we have just seen is the last shabby stage of the resistance of the Opposition parties to the Australia Card Bill. We have seen a last minute effort to bring on a Committee debate without any amendments having been proposed by the other side and with those opposite on record as having said: `We are not interested in amendments to this Bill. Whatever you do to it, whatever form it has, we shall throw it out; we shall oppose it'. Honourable members opposite have never been interested in the details of or improving the Bill. This is simply a further desperate ploy to delay this Bill going to the Senate where members of the Opposition have their own political worries. The Leader of the National Party, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), got up and said that the Minister had not answered the questions that were asked in debate. Not a single, new point was made in the rather shallow production brought forward by the Opposition. It was completely repetitive. The same kinds of shallow points that had been made ad nauseam six months ago were simply hauled out and repeated. So there are no new arguments for the Minister to answer. One hopes that in the next 20 minutes or so Opposition members will get their chance to make their confessions about this Bill. What they have to explain to the Australian people is why, when the proposals were first announced, nearly all the leaders of the National Party, nearly all its front bench members, enthusiastically endorsed the Australia Card. There were many others. We have had a few confessions in this debate. Opposition members may use the last few minutes of debate for a little more confessional activity to explain to the Australian people why they can endorse something on principle enthusiastically and then, for opportunistic reasons, decide to oppose it. But Opposition members have more to do than that. The men who have led the Opposition in this debate, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) and honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), signed a select committee report endorsing an identification system based on tax file numbers. But once the honourable member for Barker and the honourable member for Richmond did their job, once they played with Parliament and the Select Committee, they forgot about it. After that eight weeks one never heard another word from the honourable member for Barker or the honourable member for Richmond. They both signed their names in support of an identification system. Once the Select Committee report had done its task of trying to frustrate the Government the honourable member for Barker and the honourable member for Richmond gave away the principles they espoused when they signed the report and forgot all about it. They are the people who need to explain to this House and to this nation both their attitude originally to the Australia Card and their enormous ability to forget, in a period of eight weeks, the principles they espoused when they signed their names to the Joint Select Committee report. The Leader of the National Party got up and said that the Government had to explain the costs. But who endorsed the revenue claims of the Government? It was those who signed the Joint Select Committee report. My honourable friend from Barker and my honourable friend from Richmond both put their names to a statement saying that the Government had underestimated the money it would get from the Australia Card in the taxation area. They both put their names to the statement that there was probably more in identity fraud in social security than had been put before the Select Committee. They endorsed and signed those statements. They forget it now. They get up here and never mention what they put their names to. But they put their names to a statement supporting the revenue claims of this Government and the basic cost-benefit analysis of the Australia Card. These are the people-not the Government-who have to start explaining to the Australian people. Mr PORTER(Barker)(4.34) —It is interesting that the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) cannot even use the five minutes of time allotted to him to respond to the legitimate issues of concern which have been raised by the Opposition in relation to the Australia Card Bill. All the yelling and the screaming in the world by the Minister for Health and by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and the guillotining of this debate will not cover up the fatal flaws in this legislation. The fact that the Government has gagged us and the fact that it will not respond to the legitimate issues of concern we have raised will not cover up the fact that this legislation will not work. Why, for example, has the Minister for Health not responded to the queries we have raised as to how this legislation will stop the creation of false identities? That is a simple question. If one is to have an identification card system, one would think that one would want it to work, that one would want it to prevent the creation of false identities. I spent quite some time yesterday explaining to this House why this legislation will not stop the creation of false identities and how people will be able to get false ID cards. What was the response? There was a deathly silence. There was no response-a fatal flaw. Further, why will the Government not respond in relation to the costing of the card? Why will it not give the information it has regarding the cost to the private sector of this card? Why is it meeting my freedom of information request, lodged last November, on 21 April when this legislation will supposedly have got through both Houses of Parliament-or at least will have been debated, as it will not get through the Senate? Why is the Government not responding to these legitimate questions? The reason we wanted to go into Committee on this Bill today was that a number of concerns have been raised in relation to specific clauses of the Bill. Legitimate concerns have been raised in relation to clause 32 and clause 40. If they are not amended normal financial transactions will be unable to be undertaken in our community. For example, one will not be able to use a credit card, that is, a Bankcard or a Visa card, without first producing one's ID card. Yet the Government tells us that one will not have to carry the card at all times, that the card is not a internal passport. How are people going to do business in the community and use their credit cards without producing their identity cards? It is quite clear that unless clause 32 and clause 40 (2) are amended they will prevent the use of credit cards. These are legitimate questions to which the Minister should have been able to respond. Why does he not want to respond? He does not want to respond because he cannot answer these legitimate questions. School children will no longer be able to have bank accounts at schools because the relevant agencies are not on direct computer linkage. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The time allotted by standing order 91 for debate on this matter has expired. Question put: That the motion (Mr Lionel Bowen's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 59 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 14 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R. Beazley, K. C. Jakobsen, C. A. Beddall, D. P. Jenkins, H. A. Blanchard, C. A. Jones, BarryBlewett, N. Kelly, R. J. Bowen, Lionel Kent, L. Brown, John Keogh, L. J. Brown, Robert Kerin, J. C. Brumby, J. M. Klugman, R. E. Campbell, G. Lamb, A. H. Charles, D. E. Langmore, J. V. Charlesworth, R. I. Lee, M. Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J. Cleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J. Cohen, B. Martin, S. P. Cross, M. D. Mayer, H. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B. Darling, E. E. Milton, P. Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G. Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P. Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T. Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F. Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D. Gayler, J. Scott, J. L. Gear, G. Simmons, D. W. Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H. Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R. Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C. Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E. Holding, A. C. Uren, T. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Willis, R. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W. Hurford, C. J. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M. Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Katter, R. C. Beale, J. H. Lloyd, B. Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S. Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J. Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Burr, M. A. Miles, C. G. Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ewen Moore, J. C. Cameron, Ian Nehl, G. B. Carlton, J. J. Peacock, A. S. Cobb, M. R. Porter, J. R. Coleman, W. P. Reith, P. K. Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanConquest, B. J. Rocher, A. C. Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M. Dobie, J. D. M. Shack, P. D. Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J. Drummond, P. H. Shipton, R. F. Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC. Fife, W. C. Slipper, P. N. Fischer, Tim Spender, J. M. Fisher, Peter Sullivan, K. J. Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W. Hall, Steele Watson, D. J. H. Halverson, R. G. Webster, A. P. Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C. Hodges, J. C. McHugh, J. Smith, W. Young, M. J. McVeigh, D. T. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed. The Bill. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The time allotted for the remainder of the Committee stage of the Bill has expired. The question is: `That clauses 1 to 12 be agreed to'. Mr Hodgman-I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman. I raise a substantive point of order. An amendment has been circulated in may name relating to the title of the Bill. It is an important point of order because you will see that there are two parts contained therein. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! There is no point of order because the time for the debate has expired. Mr Hodgman-But you still have the further question, that the title be the title of the Bill. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Will you please sit down? Mr Hodgman-Mr Blanchard, please will you hear me? I have had advice on this. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Please sit down. The time allotted for the debate has expired. The question now is: That the remainder of the Bill be agreed to and that the Bill be reported without amendment. A division having been called and the bells being rung- Mr Hodgman-I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman. An amendment has been circulated in my name in the following terms: (1) Clause 1, page 1, omit ``Australia Card Act 1986'', substitute ``Moscow Card Act 1987''. (2) Title, page 1, omit ``to be known as the Australia Card'', substitute ``to be known as the Moscow Card''. The point of order is that there are two questions. One is in relation to clause 1 and I concede that the time has expired for that question. But there is a specific question which you must put under the Standing Orders that the title be the title of the Bill. That matter has not yet been put. It must be put and at that point my amendment should be called. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Blanchard) —Order! I have listened to the comments of the honourable member for Denison. The time for debate in the Committee stage has expired, and there is no point of order. Mr Hodgman-I raise a further point of order. The next question to be put is that the title be the title of the Bill. That question has not yet been put and must be put. I ask you to take advice. The advice will be that that is a totally separate question and must be put separately. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —The honourable member is aware that when I put the question that the remainder of the Bill be agreed to, that included the title of the Bill. Mr Hodgman-Mr Deputy Chairman, with respect, on that basis you have wrongly ruled against the point of order because I was entitled to speak to that question. You have denied me that fundamental right. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. Question put. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr C. A. Blanchard) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 57 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 17 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Jakobsen, C. A.Beddall, D. P. Jenkins, H. A.Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlewett, N. Kelly, R. J.Bowen, Lionel Kent, L.Brown, John Keogh, L. J.Brown, Robert Kerin, J. C.Brumby, J. M. Klugman, R. E.Campbell, G. Lamb, A. H.Charles, D. E. Langmore, J. V.Charlesworth, R. I. Lee, M.Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J.Cleeland, P. R. McLeay, LeoCohen, B. Maher, M. J.Cross, M. D. Martin, S. P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mayer, H.Darling, E. E. Mildren, J. B.Dawkins, J. S. Milton, P.Dubois, S. G. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morris, PeterDuncan, P. Mountford, J. G.Edwards, Ronald O'Keefe, N. P.Fatin, W. F. O'Neil, L. R. T.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Price, L. R. S.Free, R. V. Punch, G. F.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Holden, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W. Adermann, A. E. Hodges, J. C.Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Hunt, R. J. D.Beale, J. H. Katter, R. C.Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S.Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J.Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Burr, M. A. Miles, C. G.Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ewen Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ian Nehl, G. B.Carlton, J. J. Peacock, A. S.Cobb, M. R. Porter, J. R.Coleman, W. P. Reith, P. K.Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanConquest, B. J. Rocher, A. C.Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Dobie, J. D. M. Shack, P. D.Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J.Drummond, P. H. Shipton, R. F.Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC.Fife, W. C. Slipper, P. N.Fischer, Tim Spender, J. M.Fisher, Peter Sullivan, K. J.Goodluck, B. J. Watson, D. J. H.Hall, Steele Webster, A. P.Halverson, R. G. White, P. N. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) McHugh, J. Smith, W.Young, M. J. McVeigh, D. T. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —I seek leave to move that the Bill be read a third time. Mr Sinclair —Leave is not granted. Motion (by Dr Blewett) proposed: That so much of Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the remaining stages being passed without delay. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Manager of Opposition Business)(4.56) —I do not believe that it is appropriate for the House to be treated in this manner. It is an absolute contempt of the pro- cesses and procedures of parliament for this House to be gagged on a matter as sensitive as this. The identity card proposal will affect every Australian. Although it will not be introduced for five years, it will cost the taxpayers dearly and it will create 2,000 more public servants at a time when the Government is out in the elec- torate talking about its May mini-Budget and about the difficulty it will have reducing its expenditure. There is no reason to suspend Standing Orders at this stage in order to have a third reading. The Parliament is sitting tomorrow and next week and there is every opportunity for a proper debate on this matter. No answers have been given by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) as to the concerns of the banks. What has happened to the suggestion by the Minister that there were going to be amendments to the identity card proposal to take into account the legitimate concerns of thousands of Australians? They have all gone by the board. To suspend Standing Orders in order to accelerate the final processing of this Australia Card Bill 1986 [No. 2] is only really to conceal the Government's total inadequacy in the processing of this infamous piece of legislation. There is no basis by which there should be any reference to a suspension of Standing Orders for this stage of the processing of the Bill. It is a very important piece of legislation and for all that the Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford) raises his hands in horror and says `Look, I do not really worry about the identity card' a few people in this place happen to worry about their constituents. I am sorry that he has no worries about ordinary Australians. The arrogance of these Ministers and the way they come into this place and strut their power before us is reflected again in this arbitrary suspension of Standing Orders so that we can go through a process which is absolute nonsense. There is no way by which we on this side of the House see any reason to allow this process. We oppose the measure moved by the Minister. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(4.59) —I support the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair). This has been an absolute shambles by a government which is forcing through legislation-not the Australia Card, but the Moscow card. The Government has cut and guillotined the Committee stages, preventing a legitimate amendment to be moved in my name and seconded by the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) to change the title of the Australia Card Act 1986 to what it really should be-not the Australia Card Act 1986 but the Moscow Card Act 1987. This is disgraceful legislation which will impinge on basic and fundamental-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! It being 5 p.m., the time for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. The immediate question is: That the report be adopted. Mr Sinclair —Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: The question before the Chair is being debated before the Chair. You must put the question before the Chair, not the subsequent question which is not before the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question is: That the motion be agreed to. Mr Scholes —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: The putting of a motion which would, if it were carried, abrogate the guillotine, is not in order when the time for debate of all stages of the Bill has expired. The only question which can be put is the question that the Bill be now read a third time. A motion which would have the effect of defeating a motion already carried by the House that the Bill is urgent is out of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —My advice is that the motion that the House is debating at present is the motion moved by the Minister for Health which was the contingent notice on the Notice Paper. That is the motion that I put. That is the motion on which we are about to divide. Mr Scholes —On a further point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: The motion which is being put before the House is a motion which, if it were carried, would abrogate the urgency motion before the House and, therefore, it is out of order. The effect of carrying the motion would be to adjourn the debate to the next day of sitting. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I will put the question. Question put: That the motion (Dr Blewett's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 58 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 16 —— Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J. Beazley, K. C. Jacobi, R. Beddall, D. P. Jakobsen, C. A. Bilney, G. L. Jenkins, H. A. Blanchard, C. A. Jones, BarryBlewett, N. Kelly, R. J. Bowen, Lionel Kent, L. Brown, John Keogh, L. J. Brown, Robert Kerin, J. C. Brumby, J. M. Klugman, R. E. Campbell, G. Lamb, A. H. Charles, D. E. Langmore, J. V. Charlesworth, R. I. Lee, M. Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J. Cleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J. Cohen, B. Martin, S. P. Cross, M. D. Mayer, H. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B. Darling, E. E. Milton, P. Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G. Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P. Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T. Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F. Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D. Gayler, J. Scott, J. L. Gear, G. Simmons, D. W. Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H. Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R. Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C. Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E. Holding, A. C. Uren, T. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Willis, R. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W. Adermann, A. E. Hodges, J. C. Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Hunt, R. J. D. Beale, J. H. Katter, R. C. Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B. Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S. Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J. Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G. Cameron, Ewen Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ian Moore, J. C. Carlton, J. J. Nehl, G. B. Cobb, M. R. Peacock, A. S. Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R. Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K. Conquest, B. J. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C. Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M. Downer, A. J. C. Shack, P. D. Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J. Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F. Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC. Fischer, Tim Slipper, P. N. Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M. Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J. Hall, Steele Watson, D. J. H. Halverson, R. G. Webster, A. P. Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C. McHugh, J. Smith, W. Young, M. J. McVeigh, D. T. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Third Reading Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question before the House now is: That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr Hodgman —Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —It being past 5 p.m., the time for the debate has expired. Is the honourable member raising a point of order? Mr Hodgman —Yes. Mr Deputy Speaker, I refer to standing order 226. I respectfully submit that, notwithstanding the remaining stages provision, the question of the title of the Bill must nevertheless still be put and must be put as a separate question. The Deputy Chairman, Mr Blanchard, overruled me. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Question put: That the Bill be now read a third time. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 58 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 17 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R. Beazley, K. C. Jakobsen, C. A. Beddall, D. P. Jenkins, H. A. Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J. Blewett, N. Kent, L. Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J. Brown, John Kerin, J. C. Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E. Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V. Charles, D. E. Lee, M. Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J. Chynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J. Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P. Cohen, B. Mayer, H. Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B. Cunningham, B. F. (Teller) Milton, P. Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDawkins, J. S. Morris, PeterDubois, S. G. Mountford, J. G. Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P. Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T. Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S. Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J. Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D. Gayler, J. Scott, J. L. Gear, G. Simmons, D. W. Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H. Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R. Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C. Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E. Holding, A. C. Uren, T. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Willis, R. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W. Hurford, C. J. Adermann, A. E. Hodges, J. C. Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Hunt, R. J. D. Beale, J. H. Katter, R. C. Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B. Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S. Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J. Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G. Cameron, Ewen Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ian Moore, J. C. Carlton, J. J. Nehl, G. B. Cobb, M. R. Peacock, A. S. Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R. Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K. Conquest, B. J. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C. Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M. Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D. Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J. Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F. Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC. Fischer, Tim Slipper, P. N. Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M. Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J. Hall, Steele Watson, D. J. H. Halverson, R. G. Webster, A. P. Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C. McHugh, J. Smith, W. Young, M. J. McVeigh, D. T. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for proposed expenditure announced. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Community Services and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(5.13) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I present Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1986-87 which, together with Appropriation Bill (No. 4) and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2), which I shall introduce shortly, comprises the additional estimates for 1986-87. In these Bills, Parliament is asked to appropriate moneys to meet essential and unavoidable expenditures additional to the appropriations made for 1986-87 under Appropriation Acts (Nos 1 and 2) and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Act. These additional appropriations are required to meet commitments that have been approved by the Government since the Budget as well as requirements of an ongoing nature. The principal factors underlying the requirements include certain unavoidable cost and price increases since the Budget was prepared. Although the Budget figuring contained allowances for prospective wage and salary increases, those amounts were not then appropriated, and funds are now required to meet the costs of awards and determinations made since that time, including some $35m for the effect of the first tier wage increase which was part of the package announced by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on 10 March 1987. No provision is made in these Bills in anticipation of the negotiation of second tier increases. Any such increase will be met under the separate appropriation provisions in section 5 of the Appropriation Act (No. 1) and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Act 1986-87. Of the additional appropriations in the three additional estimates Bills totalling $419.3m, $290.5m is sought in Appropriation Bill No. 3, $127.6m in Appropriation Bill No. 4 and $1.2m in the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill No. 2. These amounts are offset in part by savings in the appropriations made by Appropriation Acts (Nos 1 and 2) and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Act 1986-87 reflecting the Government's continued determination to achieve savings in expenditure for ongoing programs wherever possible. These savings, amounting to $384.0m, are detailed under the relevant appropriation headings in the document, `Statement of Savings Expected in Annual Appropriations', which has been distributed to honourable members. After allowing for prospective savings, the appropriations now sought represent a net increase of $35.3m in expenditure financed from annual appropriations. As a proportion of total estimated outlays-encompassing both annual and standing appropriations-this increase amounts to 0.05 per cent. I now outline some of the main areas in respect of which the Government has found it necessary to seek additional provisions in the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) to meet expenditure for the ordinary annual services of the Government. The amount of $8.8m is included under the Department of Communications primarily for a management initiated redundancy scheme in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to be fully offset by a reduction in its ongoing appropriations in 1987-88, and a reallocation by the ABC between its appropriations. In the 1986-87 Budget the Government announced the amalgamation of the ABC and the Special Broadcasting Corporation, with corresponding savings of $1m against the appropriations for each organisation. The delay in the Senate in passing the enabling legislation has postponed the merger until at least the end of this financial year. The additional estimates now provide for a reinstatement of that $2m. For the Department of Defence $18m is sought to cover price increases and additional approved commitments for buildings and works projects. Under the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce $29.5m is included for a new fertiliser subsidy scheme, as set out in the Fertiliser Subsidy Act 1986. The new scheme replaces the previous nitrogenous and phosphate fertiliser subsidies and is completely offset by reduced expenditure under standing appropriations. Under the Department of Veterans' Affairs $33.8m is included primarily for higher nursing home and public and private hospital charges for veterans, together with an increased demand for these services. A fairly large component of the increase-around $10.6m-is for a transfer between appropriations within the Department and, of course, is fully offset. Also included under the Department of Veterans' Affairs is $8.6m as it was not recognised that the special appropriations under the Veterans' Entitlement Act did not cover payments for the commutation of dependants' pensions. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Tim Fischer) adjourned. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for proposed expenditure announced. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Community Services and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(5.25) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I present Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1986-87 in which appropriations totalling $127.6m- additional to those made by Appropriation Act (No. 2) 1986-87-are sought for capital works and services, payments to or for the States and the Northern Territory, advances and loans and for other services. The proposed appropriations are needed to meet essential and unavoidable expenditures for which provision was not made in that Act. The additional appropriations are sought to meet certain cost and price increases which have occurred since the Budget and other requirements which the Government has considered it appropriate to meet this financial year. Areas where significant increases are sought over amounts provided in Appropriation Bill No. 2 1986-87 are as follows: $16m is provided for Commonwealth assistance under natural disaster relief arrangements mostly attributable to continued large expenditure by Queensland on eligible relief measures following cyclone Winifred in February 1986 and to estimated expenditure in respect of the floods in the Sydney region in August 1986. The Commonwealth is, therefore, continuing to assist the States to meet their large and unpredictable expenditures on eligible relief measures following the occurrence of natural disasters. The sum of $8m is for payment to a trust fund to provide budgetary assistance for Tuvalu, Australia being a principle donor along with the United Kingdom and New Zealand. A treaty is currently being negotiated with a view to having the trust fund in place this financial year. In addition, $7m has been allocated for Solomon Islands post-cyclone reconstruction and partial restoration of South Pacific aid commitments. Realisation of the British Phosphate Commission assets has enabled additional aid to be made available. The sum of $13m is included for payments to chemists as a settlement offer to pay out advance paid, unprocessed claims under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. In addition, $8.5m is included for the savings bank deposit interest subsidy. The amount covers an increase in lending by some savings banks this financial year compared with their lending activities in the June quarter last year which were below the rate expected by the Government. This necessitated a repayment earlier this financial year of some of last year's subsidy which fully offsets the additional estimate. For the Northern Territory Electricity Commission $7.6m is included to meet increased operational costs as a result of upward movements in oil prices since the Budget estimates; and there is $7m for the defence service homes loan program consequent upon the delay in transferring these activities to the private sector. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Tim Fischer) adjourned. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for proposed expenditure announced. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Community Services and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(5.30) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. In this Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1986-87 appropriations totalling $1.2m additional to those made in the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Act 1986-87 are sought for the recurrent and capital purposes of the parliamentary departments. The principal reason for the increase sought is the re-appropriation of certain amounts necessitated by the transfer of responsibility for the security of Parliament House from the Joint House Department to the Department of the Senate and the Department of the House of Representatives. That is, each chamber department will be responsible for its own security as from 1 January 1987. The transfer was approved by the Presiding Officers. Details of the proposed additional expenditures are set out in the Schedule to the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Tim Fischer) adjourned. Mr BLUNT(Richmond) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr BLUNT —I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —It is customary to come to the Chair-- Mr BLUNT —Mr Deputy Speaker, I apologise. I raised it with your predecessor in the Chair and he indicated that the break between the Appropriation Bills and the notices would be an appropriate time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —He did not tell me. You may proceed. Mr BLUNT —Today at Question Time the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) raised statements attributed to me and reported on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. At that time I had not heard the ABC report, nor had I had the opportunity to see a transcript. I have subsequently seen a transcript and for that reason I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —You may proceed. Mr BLUNT —The ABC suggested in its national news bulletin this morning that the Opposition had condemned the Government's proposals for maintenance reform and child support. That is not accurate. I would like to state, for the benefit of the Parliament, what I did say which was: When we consider this document in total we see that it is a proposal to move as soon as legislation is available to establish a maintenance collection agency, which is a reform which the Opposition recognises is necessary. We do have some reservations about the proposals- I went on to say that the Opposition's policy supported the proposals of the government in general terms and I stated the Opposition's policy, which is: We will amend the Family Law Act to restore the primary obligation of parents to maintain their children, while confirming that support will continue to be provided for families in need. A fair, effective means of determining and enforcing maintenance payments by non-custodial parents for their children will be established and will include provision for collection for payments at income source where appropriate. I thank the House. Bill presented by Mr Howe, and read a first time. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(5.33) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill contains measures to streamline the Social Security Act and its administration. These include: Renumbering the provisions of the Act so that it reads sequentially; including current reciprocal agreements on social security with the United Kingdom and with New Zealand in Schedules to the Act; ensuring that the basis for prosecution of offences under the Act and the level of penalities are comparable to other Commonwealth offences in legislation; requiring that all administrative decisions are to be in writing unless the decisions are recorded on a computer; extending the secrecy provision to bind officials who have access to confidential information but who do not have duties or functions under the Act; and extending the review and appeal provisions to all decisions made under the provisions of the Act. Improving the style and format of the legislation The Social Security Act is amended regularly to put Budget decisions into effect. As a result numbering of sections goes awry. Provisions are difficult to cite. As a step towards improving the legislation, this Bill provides for the renumbering of the principal Act. Part, division, section and paragraph numbers will now follow sequentially. For those accustomed to the previous numbering system, a conversion chart is provided in the explanatory memorandum accompanying the Bill to illustrate the changes. Changes have also been made to some sections to achieve greater clarity of expression. In addition, Australia has recently concluded an amendment to the reciprocal agreement on social security with the United Kingdom and has entered into a new reciprocal agreement on social security with New Zealand. Rather than being left in Schedules to Regulations, these agreements will be placed in Schedules to the Act for greater ease of access. The Bill contains minor amendments made necessary by the changes to education allowances. Offences under the Act As honourable members will be aware, the Government has taken initiatives to ensure that social security expenditure is limited to those who are eligible under the Act. Measures have also been taken to reduce the level of overpayments. This includes initiatives to limit fraud and to detect and prosecute those who abuse the system. Section 138 of the principal Act creates a number of offences where pensions, benefits or allowances are sought by those who are ineligible. This section does not punish innocent mistakes. It lists the basis on which a fraud charge may be brought. As knowledge or recklessness is a necessary component of this type of criminal offence, these words are to be added to the section to reflect the interpretation of the section by the High Court of Australia in 1980 in Cameron v. Holt. These changes do not affect current practices relating to prosecutions. The Bill also establishes the basis on which a corporation may be made culpable of an offence under the Act. This takes up provisions in other Commonwealth legislation. The limits on the time for bringing a prosecution will be removed on the Act. The Director of Public Prosecutions, who is primarily responsible for the conduct of social security prosecutions under Commonwealth law, should decide on a case by case basis whether the offence is too stale to prosecute successfully. This section in the principal Act, in any event, can be circumvented by resort to the Crimes Act 1914. This provision, therefore, is a rationalisation of existing practice. While determined to limit fraud, the Government is concerned to protect the rights and privacy of people who receive social security payments. The Department necessarily collects considerable personal information about the financial and domestic circumstances of claimants in order to assess continuing eligibility. The privacy of these individuals should not be abused. Section 17 of the principal Act places an obligation on officers not to divulge personal information obtained in the course of their duties. This section will be extended in line with the secrecy provisions in other Commonwealth legislation such as the Income Tax Assessment Act. Reference to `officers' will include former officers as well as others performing work for the Commonwealth who as a result acquire information concerning a person. An offence under section 17 is treated as a grave matter. The current penalties in the Act are a $5,000 fine or two years imprisonment where the offence proceeds on indictment. In the case of summary proceedings, the penalty is $1,000 or imprisonment for six months. The Bill would permit both a fine and a period of imprisonment to be imposed. This reflects the seriousness with which such breaches of personal privacy are regarded by this Government. Penalties are to be increased for other offences under the Act. For failure to comply with the requirements to report circumstances or events which affect entitlement to a social security payment, the penalty will be increased from a $500 fine to a $1,000 fine or six months imprisonment, or both, and a $5,000 fine in the case of corporations. For failure to comply with a requirement to provide information about entitlement, the fine will be increased from $1,000 and six months imprisonment to $2,000 or 12 months imprisonment, or both, and $10,000 in the case of corporations. Where financial institutions do not comply with a requirement under the direct deposit provisions, the fine has been increased from $1,000 to $10,000. Serious breaches of these offences may now be dealt with by suitable sanctions. Miscellaneous Amendments Finally, the Bill contains amendments to remove anomalies, close gaps, correct minor drafting errors and bring the legislation into line with sound administrative practice. For example, the definition of a `decision' under the Act which is significant from an administrative law point of view as the basis for review or appeal will be amended to confer the same meaning as in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. It is good administrative practice that decisions of officers affecting entitlement be in writing. This Bill makes it a uniform requirement that all such decisions be in writing. The Department of Social Security is moving to on-line benefits processing-using the latest computer technology to record information and make decisions. This will substantially improve delivery of benefits to those needing assistance. To keep pace with these changes, decisions of officers which are required to be in writing will be deemed to be in writing if originally entered into a computer or recorded with the use of a computer. This processing also enables a printed copy of the decision to be made available to applicants. By means of these measures which rationalise and simplify the principal Act this Bill also prepares the ground for substantive reforms to the system of income security when the Government takes decisions on the social security system following the Social Security Review. I commend the Bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Blunt) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Holding, and read a first time. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(5.42) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill and the related Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Bill which I shall be introducing shortly arise from the failure of the Victorian Parliament to pass legislation put before it by the State Government, and a subsequent request by the Victorian Government for Commonwealth assistance. I propose in this speech to describe both Bills and the reasons for our action in putting them before the Parliament. The Bills provide for the vesting of land in the State of Victoria at Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest, in the relevant Aboriginal communities, and a revised regime for the protection of Aboriginal culture within that State. The introduction of the Bills into this House is the direct consequence of a request from the Victorian Government. The general intentions contained in these two Bills have been the subject of negotiation between the Victorian Government and the Victorian Aboriginal community for some three years. After much discussion and consultation, three Bills were tabled in the Victorian Parliament during 1985 and 1986. They were the Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah) Bill, the Aboriginal Land (Framlingham Forest) Bill and the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Bill. The Victorian Aboriginal Land (Framlingham Forest) Bill intended to grant inalienable freehold title to an area of approximately 11 square kilometres of State Forest immediately adjacent to an area at Framlingham which had previously been granted to the Kirrae-Whurrong people in 1970. The Victorian Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah) Bill intended to grant inalienable freehold title to one-half of a square kilometre of land, on which the historic Lake Condah Mission Station is situated, to the Kerrup-Jmara people. This area is a site of considerable social, architectural and historic interest particularly for the Kerrup-Jmara for whom the area was a permanent home. It was also a traditional meeting place and a hunting area before white settlement. Both Bills also provided for the management of the land, including co-operation with local authorities for bushfire protection, for vermin and noxious plant control, for the protection of significant sites, for the control of mining or exploration activities and for the preservation of traditional law. The proposed Victorian Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Bill provided for the involvement of the local Aboriginal community in the protection of their cultural heritage-in particular, the protection of sites of significance, the protection of objects of religious, cultural or historical significance and for the return of such objects to Aboriginal control. The Victorian Opposition's reaction to these Bills was nothing short of extraordinary. The Opposition put forward Upper House amendments that intended to convert the title to the Framlingham and Condah land to alienable freehold and indicated its intention to remove basic provisions relating to mining which the Aboriginal community considered fundamental to its control of its traditional land. The Opposition wanted the Cultural Bill withdrawn in toto. The Opposition claimed it was not objecting to the grants of the Framlingham and Lake Condah areas to their traditional owners. It did not dispute that the Kirrae-Whurrong and Kerrup-Jmara people are the traditional owners of these areas. It did not dispute the size of the areas being granted-11 square kilometres and half a square kilometre-it simply demanded that the areas in question be held under freehold title which could be sold or mortgaged. That position would indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of the place of land in Aboriginal society. The Opposition totally ignored the stand on Aboriginal land rights issues taken by the Bolte Government, which was not a Government generally considered to be socially progressive. However, the Bolte Government saw fit to grant what amounted to inalienable freehold title to the Lake Tyers and Framlingham communities in 1970. At that time the Victorian Parliament enacted the Aboriginal Lands Act which transferred title to the two Aboriginal communities at Framlingham and Lake Tyers. These communities were living on the remnants of the Aboriginal reserves declared in the nineteenth century but which had been gradually reduced by way of revocation to enable the land to be put to other uses. Yet the Victorian Opposition, 16 years later, now repudiates the actions of its conservative predecessors and will not compromise on its stand against inalienable title, regardless of what the Aboriginal traditional owners or the broader community thinks. Several prominent members of the Aboriginal communities in question have stressed the need for inalienable title to preserve the special relationship that Aboriginal people have with their land. The acceptance of this relationship is shared by Aboriginal communities throughout Australia and it is both recognised and supported by most State governments, past coalition Federal governments and the current Hawke Government. The relevant Victorian Aboriginal communities never claimed this land for the purpose of disposing of it. They do not accept that this generation of Aboriginal leaders have the right to dispose of the heritage of future generations. That is their view. That position is totally accepted by the Victorian Government and this Government. It is regrettable that the Aboriginal recipients views were not seriously discussed or considered by the Victorian Opposition. It might be noted that during the whistle stop tour of Western Victoria by the Leader of the Victorian Opposition, the Honourable Mr Kennett, he failed to ask the people directly concerned what they wanted, but spent a lot of time saying what he thought would be best for them. Mr Tim Fischer —Is this a second reading speech? Mr Hawker —Stop playing politics. Mr HOLDING —Surely it is ironic that there are prominent Liberal State parliamentarians who voted for inalienable title for the land at Lake Tyers and Framlingham, yet cannot countenance it now. Is the Victorian Opposition saying what was right in 1970-- Mr Tim Fischer —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I hesitate to raise a point of order during a second reading speech, but the Minister in his second reading speech is now going down the path of attacking other members of parliament-not members of this Parliament and members therefore not able to respond in this Parliament. As such, it is most unusual and I would suggest, sir, to you on this occasion that the Minister is now outside the realm of leave to introduce a Bill in the format of his second reading speech. I ask that you draw his attention to this. Mr Holding —On the point of order: I agree that the procedures which are involved in this are unique and it is therefore important that the House is made fully aware of the motives of the Government in introducing this legislation. In my view it would be quite wrong-indeed I think I would be culpable for a serious omission-if I did not inform the House of the reasons why the Government has adopted the course of introducing this legislation. One cannot separate the introduction of legislation from the motives and the decisions which produced it. Mr Hawker —You are playing politics. Mr Holding —All I can say to the honourable member is that he will have his opportunity to make comment. He already has made public comment in respect of this matter. He will have his opportunity during the second reading debate to make comments and disagree with any position that I have put. Certainly, it is most important that I make clear to the House the reasons why the Government has embarked upon a course which I would frankly concede involves some new approaches in terms of the exercise of the constitutional responsibility of the Commonwealth in this area. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! The Minister has moved that this Bill be now read a second time. In speaking to the motion the Minister has explained inter alia the purpose and general principles and effect of the Bill. I think the Minister's explanation is sufficient for the Chair to allow him to proceed. Mr Tim Fischer —It is unique. Mr HOLDING —I do not think I have said at any stage that this is not a new approach. I remind the House that I was asking: Is the Victorian Opposition, which has campaigned publicly on this issue, saying that what was right in 1970 is now wrong, and if so, why? The answer is, of course, that the conservative forces in Australia today consistently oppose the granting of Aboriginal land rights, and they now seek to ensure the grant of a form of title that can and, no doubt they hope, will be removed from Aboriginal ownership by way of sale or through default. In the case of the heritage legislation there was no possibility of compromise. The Opposition simply would not entertain the legislation. Given these circumstances, the Victorian Government, quite properly, sought Commonwealth assistance to enable these limited measures to become law. Before taking the matter to Cabinet, I publicly indicated that I wished to discuss the matter with the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Kennett paid me the courtesy of discussing the matter only after he had held a Press conference to state the Opposition's refusal to compromise. Given this attitude on the part of the Victorian Opposition parties, there was nothing to be gained by the Cain Government taking the Bills back to the Victorian Parliament. The Commonwealth's right to legislate in the Aboriginal affairs area is undisputed. The Commonwealth has a clear constitutional power to legislate on behalf of Aboriginal Australians as conferred on it by the 1967 referendum and the subsequent amendment of our Constitution. Moreover, the High Court of Australia has, in the Tasmanian dam case, confirmed beyond doubt the Commonwealth's authority to legislate in this area. The Commonwealth therefore proposes to legislate to give effect to the spirit of the Victorian Bills. These actions are consistent with the Hawke Government's stated policy of addressing the question of land rights and heritage protection on a State by State basis to ensure that the legitimate aspirations of the Aboriginal citizens of each State are fulfilled. In proceeding with the request of the Victorian Government to enact this legislation, the Commonwealth Government is satisfied that the principles and policies agreed between the Victorian Government and the relevant Aboriginal communities have been faithfully embodied in the Bills now before the House. It should be said however, that the Commonwealth was not privy to the consultations which led to the agreements between the Aboriginal communities and the Victorian Government. Therefore, this legislation should not be construed to imply that the Commonwealth necessarily endorses in every particular the agreements arrived at and should not be regarded as a precedent for Commonwealth legislative action elsewhere in Australia. It is sufficient for the Commonwealth, having been satisfied that the principles endorsed by the Victorian Government and the Aboriginal communities are embodied in the proposed legislation, and having regard to the political situation in the Victorian Parliament, to use the due process of the Commonwealth Parliament to give legislative effect to those agreements. Obviously, certain provisions contained in the Victorian Bills and certain administrative processes proposed by them could not be enacted by any Commonwealth Parliament. For example, the Commonwealth would not seek to compel State Ministers or officials to carry out tasks or to bind State review tribunals to review decisions. However, with the agreement of the Victorian Government, the administration of the legislation will, as far as is possible, be delegated to a Minister of the Victorian Government. Together with such obvious changes any other alterations have been agreed with the Victorian Government. The general provisions of the Bills now being considered by this House are discussed below. Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest) Bill The land Bill before the House provides for the acquisition of the land from the State of Victoria by its own force and the vesting of that land in the Kerrup-Jmara and Kirrae-Whurrong communities. The acquisition will not include the minerals, which will remain vested in the State of Victoria. The vesting will provide for the extinguishment of easements and privileges including the closure of the roads identified on the plans scheduled to the Bill. The communities will be granted full power of management and control of the land subject to the laws of the Commonwealth and Victoria. The Minister will have to approve the giving of a lease or licence in excess of three years. The power of control and management will include the power to transfer land to another Aboriginal group within Victoria. The Kerrup-Jmara and Kirrae-Whurrong communities will both be incorporated under the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976 and will provide for a community council and a committee of elders for each group. The communities will have general local government type by-law making powers. Such by-laws will be gazetted and be subject to approval by the Minister and disallowance by the Commonwealth Parliament. The committee of elders of the communities will have specific powers relating to membership of the community and a determinative function with respect to traditional matters within the community. The communities will be obliged to compile a register of sacred or significant sites on community land. The register would be kept so as to prevent disclosure of its contents without the permission of the committee of elders or for certain purposes under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Amendment Bill 1987. There will be provision for the register to be made available to the Minister when the Minister is required to make a decision relating to the granting of permission for mining operations. Upon a winding-up of either community the land will revert to the Crown in right of the Commonwealth. The Minister would then have power to approve any transfer of that land to any other incorporated Aboriginal group within Victoria. The community will have the power to transfer its interest in the land to another Aboriginal group within Victoria. That transfer would not be able to proceed if one or more of the committee of elders object. There would be no requirement for ministerial approval to such a transfer. Community land will be declared exempt from Victorian land tax. The Bill provides that full care and control of flora and fauna by the community will be subject to the endangered species provisions of the Wildlife Act of Victoria and the proclaimed plants provisions of the Wildflowers and Native Plants Protection Act of Victoria. With regard to exploration and mining on the land concerned, a person may not carry out a mining operation without the permission of the community excepting those operations which are undertaken in compliance with pre-existing mining interests. Mining operations will be defined to cover operations for the recovery of all minerals, petroleum and stone as defined in the relevant Victorian statutes. Permission to carry out mining operations can be obtained only if a person has applied for a mining tenement in relation to community land. Any grant of a mining tenement by the Victorian Minister of Mines will be rendered of no effect until permission has been obtained from the community to carry out the mining operation. The community may give its permission subject to terms and conditions. If those conditions are agreed to by the applicant they may provide for a payment to the community. If the community refuses its permission, or gives permission with conditions that the applicant rejects, or does not provide a response within 120 days, the applicant may notify the Minister, who will then call for a meeting of the parties to attempt conciliation. If conciliation is unsuccessful, the applicant may request that the Minister appoint an arbitrator who would be required to review the decision of the Community both as to approval and as to terms and conditions for the giving of such approval. The arbitrator is required to consider a number of issues such as the effect of mining on the preservation of and protection of the lifestyle, culture and traditions of the traditional owners of the land, before making a final determination. If compensation cannot be agreed, the arbitrator is required to make an appropriate determination. The legislation provides that compensation payments are not to exceed those payable for disturbance under the Mines Act, Petroleum Act or Extractive Industries Act of Victoria at the exploration stage. However, they may exceed such payments at the mining stage. In the event that the arbitrator confirms a community decision not to approve a mining operation, any grant by the Victorian Minister for Mines of a mining tenement will be of no legal effect. Mining operations to be carried out in accordance with a renewal, extension, or variation of a pre-existing interest will require the permission of the community. Where an application is made for a mining tenement on community land and the Minister is satisfied that the application relates to an area which is, in whole or part, a sacred or significant site, and that site is recorded in the register the community is required to keep of such sites, the Minister, if he is satisfied that it is appropriate, must provide for the protection and preservation of that site. Such protection would be in the form of a declaration in accordance with the provisions of the Victorian Aboriginal and Cultural Heritage Bill as enacted by the Commonwealth as an amendment to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984. The legislation will make it an offence to offer a gift or consideration so as to obtain community permission to carry out mining operations. If permission is granted by the community to a person to carry out mining operations, that permission will include permission to enter and be on community land for the purposes of the mining operation. Importantly, the Bill provides for an allocation from the Commonwealth Consolidated Revenue Fund of an amount, determined by regulation, for the purpose of payment of a mining royalty equivalent. Such amounts will be paid into a trust fund. One half of that amount will go to the relevant community and the other to a separate fund for the advancement of the Aboriginal people of Victoria. The trusts will be administered by the State of Victoria under delegation from the Minister. The House should note that the Commonwealth Minister responsible for this Act will be empowered to delegate his authority to appropriate Ministers of the Victorian Government. These delegated powers will in themselves be capable of further delegation by those Ministers. I present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Tim Fischer) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Holding, and read a first time. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(6.02) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. It is proposed to amend the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 to create a new Part to provide for the provisions which were contained in the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Bill of Victoria. The amendment Bill will provide that any person may apply for an emergency declaration which may be granted by the Minister, an inspector or a magistrate, providing that an Aboriginal place or object is under threat of injury or interference. The emergency declaration is designed to cover the situation where for example the bulldozer is coming down the road or the significant object is advertised for auction. Such declarations would remain in force for 30 days. There is a power given to the person making the declaration to vary or revoke it. There will be a duty to notify the local Aboriginal community concerned and any such persons who are likely to be affected by such a declaration. A local Aboriginal community may decide that an Aboriginal place or object in its community is under threat of injury or interference. Provision will be made for such a community to apply to the Minister for a temporary declaration. The Minister will be required to give notice of such application to those likely to be affected and give such persons an opportunity to be heard. If, after consulting with appropriate State Ministers, the Minister is satisfied in all the circumstances that a declaration ought to be made, he must make that declaration setting out the terms of the declaration and the manner of preservation of the Aboriginal place or object. The Minister will have power to vary or revoke such a declaration. There will be provision for a person affected by a temporary declaration to apply to the Minister for the Minister to appoint an arbitrator to review the Minister's decision. Similarly, if the Minister refused to make such declaration or varies that declaration the local Aboriginal community may apply to the arbitrator for review. Temporary declarations remain in force for 60 days or such longer period not exceeding 120 days as the Minister, on the advice of the local Aboriginal community, determines. If a local Aboriginal community decides that an Aboriginal place or object is of such significance the community may request the Minister to make a declaration of preservation. The Minister must give notice of such an application and give any person who might be affected the opportunity to be heard. If the Minister, after hearing all objections and consulting with appropriate State Ministers, is satisfied that in all the circumstances it is appropriate the Minister must make the declaration. The Minister may vary or revoke such declarations. He must also give notice of any making, variation or revocation of a declaration and there are similar rights to apply to the Minister for the appointment of an arbitrator to review the decision. A local Aboriginal community may cause notices to be placed on or near Aboriginal places or objects that are the subject of a declaration. Damaging or removing such a sign would be an offence. The legislation will make it an offence to contravene the terms of a declaration. Separate penalties will be provided for individuals and corporations. A defence is provided for a person who did not know or could not reasonably have known of a declaration of the place or object. Provision will be made to enable a local Aboriginal community to enter into an Aboriginal cultural heritage agreement with a person who owns or possesses any Aboriginal cultural property. Such agreements would provide for preservation, maintenance, sale, et cetera, in accordance with the needs and wishes of the Aboriginal and general communities. The local Aboriginal community may lodge such an agreement with the Victorian Registrar of Titles. The Bill will empower the Minister to acquire compulsorily any Aboriginal cultural property if he is satisfied that it is of such significance that it is irreplaceable and no other arrangements can be made for its preservation. Such acquisition would carry with it a right to compensation from the Commonwealth. Persons whose property is effectively acquired when a declaration of preservation ends their rights to deal with it as owners are also entitled to compensation. The Minister also has a discretion to compensate any person affected by, or likely to be affected by, a long term declaration of preservation. After consultation with the local Aboriginal community, the Minister may appoint as inspectors persons with knowledge and expertise in the identification and preservation of Aboriginal cultural property. If a magistrate is satisfied by evidence given on oath or affirmation that magistrate may issue a warrant authorising any member of the police force and an inspector to enter premises, to search those premises, and to take possession of any Aboriginal objects under threat. Any object seized must be returned to the owner within 60 days unless compulsorily acquired or otherwise becomes the property of the local Aboriginal community. A local Aboriginal community may, in writing, appoint honorary keepers or wardens whose functions will be to keep or record and maintain Aboriginal cultural property of that community. It will be an offence to wilfully deface, damage, or otherwise interfere with Aboriginal objects or places. It will be a defence to such a charge that the local Aboriginal community consented in writing to the act done by the person. The Minister will cause to be kept a register of all declarations of preservation. The information upon that register would be protected from access except as prescribed. The Minister responsible for this Act will be empowered to delegate his authority, including delegation to appropriate Ministers of the Victorian Government. These delegated powers will in themselves be capable of further delegation by those Ministers. The Governor-General would have appropriate regulation-making powers. Commonwealth legislation cannot directly amend the Archaelogical and Aboriginal Relics Preservation Act 1972 of Victoria as the Victorian Government had proposed. The existing Victorian statute will continue to apply to Aboriginal relics except to the extent that it is inconsistent with overriding Commonwealth legislation. Declarations for protection under the State statute which were made prior to the commencement of this Bill will continue to apply. These Bills represent a unique and important step on the part of this Parliament to recognise the legitimate and traditional interests of the Aboriginal people of Victoria. It is an opportunity for this Parliament to exercise its constitutional power to enact legislation for the benefit of the Aboriginal people in Victoria. Those powers are being exercised at the specific request of the elected Government of the State of Victoria. Such a request, in the face of an intransient, irrational and unjustifiable stand taken by the Opposition parties in the Victorian Parliament, necessitates the Commonwealth Parliament taking a stand in support of the Aboriginal people who are the subject of these Bills. There is no question that the Hawke Labor Government is prepared to take that stand. I commend the Bill to honourable members and present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Debate resumed from 23 March, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Before the debate is resumed, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this Bill, the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Bill, the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Bill, the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (Interest on Underpayments) Bill and the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(6.12) —Prior to the debate being interrupted at the adjournment of the House on 23 March, I was stressing the particular difficulties that the city of Sale within my electorate has encountered as a result of the oil price drops. I repeat my previous statement to the House that the city of Sale, more than any other throughout Australia, has incurred particular difficulties as the price of petroleum has declined. It was for that reason that on 19 September last year I joined with a delegation from the city of Sale in a meeting with the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans. At that meeting a very sophisticated and detailed submission was presented by the delegation to the Minister. It sought to outline for his information and for that of the Government the problems that Sale has suffered, as well as to put forward a number of solutions. At the risk of stating the obvious, the Government is not about to frame its economic policy merely on the consideration of one or another city in any part of this country. Nonetheless, the expectation of the delegation was not raised to such an unrealistic level. Instead the delegation sought to stress upon the Minister the human loss suffered by the city of Sale. The purpose of the submission was, firstly, to alert the Government to the loss of more than 750 jobs in Sale industry; secondly, to impress upon the Government the impact of job losses in the oil industry on the morale of Sale, not to mention, of course, the hinterland; thirdly, to petition the Government to restructure oil and gas excise as well as taxation so that the Bass Strait producers could compete effectively on both domestic and export markets. In fact, that is the crux of the debate before the House. It is my argument and that of my colleagues on this side of the House that the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Bill, the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Bill, the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (Interest on Underpayments) Bill and the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill will discourage exploration as well as production. In other words, these four Bills will dampen incentive. To continue with the purpose of the Sale City Council's submission, fourthly, it was to seek to retain the substantial oilfield expertise already assembled in Sale. In other words, the city of Sale, as well as the oil industry, did not want to see Sale divested of all those special skills and experiences that had been built up over a long period of time. Fifthly, the city of Sale wishes to facilitate the development of the Kipper Wild Cat well through Government recognition of the potential for Bass Strait to supply the natural gas requirements of Adelaide for the year 1991 as well as the natural gas requirements of Sydney in the year 2000. The city of Sale, as well as my constituents and I wish to stress the potential of Bass Strait's natural gas supply. Sixthly, the purpose of the submission was to resolve the urgent need for initiatives to promote gas and oil exploration-again, I stress, to prevent Australian self-suffiency in oil supplies diminishing by the year 2000. Seventhly, the purpose is to encourage the Government to develop a long term strategy framework for the oil industry so as to provide incentives for domestic exploration and production of oil and gas. I know that in any dealings a government, whatever its political makeup, may have with the oil industry, there will be a great deal of bargaining, negotiation and even-not to put too fine a point on it-brinkmanship. Obviously, the oil industry has a vested interest, as well as a legitimate responsibility to shareholders. But, even allowing for the normal-and I would imagine vigorous-negotiations between government and that industry, it is my firm conviction that the balance has been tilted in favour of government to the detriment of the oil industry and in consequence to the detriment of Australia. My colleagues, not least of whom the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher), detailed, as the Hansard shows, the reasons why a healthy oil industry is so important to the economy of this country. To seize upon just one aspect of the argument put forward by the honourable member for Mallee and his colleagues for the Opposition, I take the matter of the current account deficit. We are faced with a severe crisis in our imports far outweighing our exports. Any government decision that restricts the potential of an export earner will disadvantage the economy and, of course, specifically the industry involved. What has this Government really got to show for its petrol policies to date? It is worth while just recounting the Commonwealth Government's strategy in its raising of revenue from the petroleum industry. We understand from estimates that in this financial year 1986-87 over $7 billion will be raised. This is approximately 11 per cent of all estimated total taxation revenue, which incidentally is estimated to be some $65 billion. That revenue is raised by way of two measures-the crude oil and liquefied petroleum gas levy and the petroleum product excise. This Government has made a policy decision to raise the $7 billion from the petroleum sector and it will adjust the rates of these two taxation measures to maintain that level of income. The crude oil and LPG levy, is revenue raised from producers based on the price they receive. If that falls, the shortfall of the $7 billion will be made up by increasing excise. Over the past year the price of oil has fallen dramatically and, therefore, the crude oil and LPG levy has decreased, but the excise has simultaneously increased. The Budget figures reflect this in that they show that the revenue to be raised from the crude oil and LPG levy has fallen by 67.3 per cent while the adjustment to excise has seen revenue rise from that source by a massive and almost unbelievable 95.9 per cent. In simple terms, this means that whereas motorists were paying 6.1 cents per litre excise in March 1983 they are paying 18.7 cents a litre excise in March 1987. In the 1986-87 Budget the Government decided to increase the excise by three cents a litre. It, therefore, will obtain some $625m in this Budget year and an incredible $715m in a full year. That is the situation in a nutshell. It means that in March 1983 Sydney motorists were paying almost 44 cents a litre and in December 1986-these are the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics figures we have-they were paying 55 cents. In Melbourne in March 1983 motorists were paying 42 cents and in December 1986 they were paying 55 cents. Mr Peter Fisher —You should get the prices Minister on to this. Mr McGauran —As my colleague and friend the honourable member for Mallee said, this is an issue that the Minister Assisting the Treasurer on Prices ought to address. Of course, if we ask any questions on issues such as this, he takes them on notice and refers them to his colleague, the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), in the Senate. Motorists are being bled dry with obvious and dramatic economic effects. We also find in exploration that the Government's taxation policies are discouraging further development. I stress that the four Bills before the House dealing with the imposition of the resource rent tax will further dampen exploration and production. One wonders how often those of us on this side of the House have to state the obvious consequences of such government policy before the Government will take notice. The RRT is a profit-based tax and no matter how the Government seeks to dress that up or divert attention from it, that is the inescapable conclusion. Of course, there has to be a tax on a resource such as petroleum. We understand that, but there are a number of philosophical problems, not to mention economic problems, arising out of these four Bills. This is the wrong time to impose such draconian taxation measures. In the city of Sale 750 jobs at least have been lost. In the industry overall we are advised that 6,500 jobs have been lost. The exploration figures tell a story in themselves. The total exploration wells in 1983 were 49. In 1987 there are estimated to be between 15 and 25-a very dramatic fall. Seismic kilometres achieved in 1983 were 15,168. In 1987 it is estimated to be between 5,500 and 8,500. Expenditure in 1983 was $519m and in 1987 a paltry $132m. Furthermore, we are advised that exploration drilling at present is the lowest since 1980-I draw upon Australian Petroleum Exploration Association statistics for the fourth quarter 1986. The Government is seeking to impose heavy taxation based on profit, not on net profit, at a time when the industry is in a very severe downturn. We must also look to the future because in February 1987 the Federal Government released an outlook which forecast that production-not exploration, but production-will be 20 per cent lower in 1989-90 than it was in 1983-84. The outlook estimates that Bass Strait production in 1992-93 will be only slightly more than half last year's production of 437,000 barrels a day. This rate assumes that the development of several discovered but as yet undeveloped fields will proceed together with projects to enhance production rates within existing fields. The Government's estimate of 1984 suggested that Australia could be 95 per cent self sufficient in crude oil in 1990. We now find that estimates point to Australia being only 65 per cent self sufficient in that year. What does the Government seek to do about the very serious, even depressing, estimates for the future? The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) in a speech yesterday to the APEA annual conference in Surfers Paradise said that while Bass Strait producers had earned high returns, the Government take also was relatively high in comparison with other countries. What an extraordinary admission for the Minister responsible to make. I will read his exact words: While it would be premature for me to at this stage indicate its possible contents-- he is referring here to future government taxation packages- I therefore do see the prospect of developing a package which will recognise the economic circumstances faced by the Government, and at the same time, meet some of the genuine concerns expressed by the industry. It is mere rhetoric because at a later Press conference he would not expand on this ambiguous and nonsensical statement. He said at his Press conference: I think I will have to leave it to you to plough your way through the chicken entrails of the speech rather than to give you any more specifics. Uncertainty has crept into the industry. He also told the conference: However, when all taxes are taken into account, the total Australian tax take is in an intermediate position. At that conference the Minister admitted that there are relatively high taxes placed upon the petroleum exploration and production industry. Moreover, he did not clearly spell out what the industry can expect in the future, so how can he plan for the industry at a time when reserves are running down? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Community Services and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(6.28) —in reply-In closing the second reading debate I thank all honourable members who have taken part. It has been a long second reading debate with many honourable members making contributions, particularly last Monday. I would like to comment on two issues that have been raised in this debate. One issue is the effect on the industry of low world oil prices. It has been acknowledged during the debate that the petroleum resources rent tax replaces the excise system. In replacing that system, the petroleum resource rent tax regime ensures that producers will be taxed only when they make profits in excess of their compounded expenditure rather than when they start producing. The resource rent taxing point is, therefore, far removed from the point at which an excise is imposed and takes account of all expenditures incurred by a participant in a project. Undeducted expenditure on a petroleum resource rent tax project is compounded forward annually at a rate of almost 29 per cent. The taxing regime, therefore, ensures that it is only in those cases where a petroleum project receives income well in excess of actual expenditures that the tax will be imposed. Consequently, by its very nature, the tax regime takes account of fluctuating world oil prices. Opposition speakers have also argued that the petroleum resources rent tax will be a disincentive to exploration. Exploration expenditure will, however, be deductible and compoundable when incurred in a permit area in which a production licence is subsequently obtained. When developing the RRT proposal the Government offered the industry a number of alternative packages. After considering those options, the industry rejected wider deductibility of exploration expenditure in favour of the high rate of compounding and relatively low tax rate, which is the essence of the proposal before the House today. These rates reflect the risk of the deductions in respect of exploration expenditure not being recouped in full for petroleum resource rent tax purposes. In summarising the Government's position, I can do no better than go back to my second reading speech when I introduced the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Bill to the House: The Government believes that a resources rent tax related to achieved profits is a more efficient and equitable secondary taxation regime than the excise and royalty system that it is to replace. I emphasise that the proposed tax replaces the existing system-it is not in addition to it. That cannot be said often enough. It has to be said so often due to the misrepresentation about it. I continued: In contrast to production based secondary tax regimes, the petroleum resource rent tax will be payable only in respect of projects earning a high rate of return on outlays. I make no apology for repeating that point. I continued: Particularly in light of the current volatility of world oil prices, the resource rent tax system thus offers considerable benefits to the petroleum industry. It strikes a reasonable balance between the objectives of satisfying the right of the community as a whole to share in the benefits of profitable off-shore petroleum projects, and of providing the participants with adequate returns for the risks they accept in undertaking off-shore exploration and development activities. I commend the Bill to the House. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. Mr Deputy Speaker-(Mr P. H. Drummond) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 53 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Beddall, D. P. Jenkins, H. A. Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J. Blewett, N. Kent, L. Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J. Brown, John Kerin, J. C. Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E. Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V. Charles, D. E. Lee, M. Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J. Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. K. Maher, M. J. Cohen, B. Martin, S. P. Cross, M. D. Mayer, H. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B. Darling, E. E. Milton, P. Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G. Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P. Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T. Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F. Free, R. V. Saunderson, J. Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W. Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H. Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R. Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C. Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E. Hollis, C. Uren, T. Howe, B. L. West, S. J. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R. Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W. Jacobi, R. Adermann, A. E. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Aldred, K. J. Hodges, J. C. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Hodgman, W. M. Beale, J. H. Hunt, R. J. D. Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B. Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S. Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J. Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G. Cameron, Ewen Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ian Nehl, G. B. Carlton, J. J. Porter, J. R. Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K. Coleman, W. P. Robinson, IanConnolly, D. M. Rocher, A. V. Conquest, B. J. Ruddock, P.M. Cowan, D. B. Shack, P. D. Dobie, J. D. M. Sharp, J.Downer, A. J. G. Shipton, R. F. Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC. Fife, W. C. Slipper, P. N. Fischer, Tim Sullivan, K. J. Fisher, Peter Watson, D. J. H. Goodluck, B. J. Webster, A. P. Hall, Steele White, P. N. D. Halverson, R. G. Wilson, I. B. C. Hawker, D. P. M. McHugh, J. Smith, W. Young, M. J. McVeigh, D. T. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Community Services and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(6.41) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 2, page 2, after the definition of ``employee amenities'' insert the following definition: `` `excluded commodity' means a marketable petroleum commodity that- (a) has been sold; (b) after being produced, has been further pro- cessed or treated; (c) has been moved away from the place of its production other than to a storage site adjacent to that place; or (d) has been moved away from a storage site adjacent to the place of its production;''. (2) Clause 2, page 5, after the definition of ``registered holder'' insert the following definition: `` `re-inject', in relation to a marketable petroleum commodity produced from petroleum recovered from the eligible exploration or recovery area in relation to a petroleum project, means return the commodity to a natural reservoir in- (a) where the return takes place before any production licence in relation to the project comes into force-any area from which the recovery of petroleum would, at the time of the return, constitute recovery of petroleum from the eligible exploration or recovery area in relation to the project; and (b) in any other case-the production licence area or any of the production licence areas in relation to the project;''. (3) Clause 2, page 5, after the definition of ``trustee'' insert the following definition: `` `unincorporated association' does not include a joint venture;''. (4) Clause 8, page 8, line 23, insert ``liable to be'' after ``is''. (5) Clause 8, page 8, line 25, omit ``paid or'', insert ``liable to be''. (6) Clause 9, page 8, lines 26 to 31, omit the clause, insert the following clause: Amounts credited, reinvested, &c., to be taken to be receivable ``9. An amount shall be taken to have been receivable by a person although it is not actually to be paid over to the person but is to be reinvested, accumulated, capitalised, carried to any reserve, sinking fund or insurance fund however designated, or otherwise dealt with on behalf of the person or as the person directs.''. (7) Clause 19, page 13, after subparagraph (4) (b) (ii) insert the following subparagraph: ``(iia) operations and facilities involved in the moving or storage of any such marketable petroleum commodity before it becomes an excluded commodity;''. (8) Clause 20, page 14, after subclause (3) insert the following subclause: ``(3a) The Minister shall not accept or comply with any application or request (other than from an officer in the performance of his or her duties) for the issue of a certificate under sub-section (1) in respect of petroleum projects unless the application or request is from a person who is, or from persons who together are, entitled to receive at least half of the receipts from the sale of marketable petroleum commodities produced in relation to each of the projects.''. (9) Clause 20, page 15, line 14, insert ``or persons'' after ``person''. (10) Clause 24, page 16 (lines 22 to 42) and page 17 (lines 1 to 10), omit the clause, insert the following clause: Assessable petroleum receipts ``24. For the purposes of this Act, a reference to assessable petroleum receipts derived by a person in relation to a petroleum project is a reference to- (a) where any petroleum, or a constituent of petroleum, recovered from the production licence area or areas in relation to the project is or was sold, whether processed or unprocessed, before any marketable petroleum commodity is or was produced from it-the consideration receivable, less any expenses payable, by the person in relation to the sale; (b) where any marketable petroleum commodity produced from petroleum recovered from the area or areas to which paragraph (a) applies becomes or became an excluded commodity by virtue of being sold-the consideration receivable, less any expenses payable, by the person in relation to the sale; and (c) where any marketable petroleum commodity produced from petroleum recovered from the area or areas to which paragraph (a) applies becomes or became an excluded commodity otherwise than by virtue of being- (i) sold; or (ii) treated or processed, or moved, for re-injection or destruction or for use in carrying on or providing operations, facilities or other things of a kind referred to in section 37, 38 or 39 in relation to the petroleum project, so much of the market value of the commodity immediately before it becomes or became an excluded commodity, or, where there is insufficient evidence of that market value, of such amount as, in the opinion of the Commissioner, is fair and reasonable, as is taken by section 26 to be derived by the person.''. (1) Clause 25, page 17, lines 11 to 42, omit the clause, insert the following clause: Assessable exploration recovery receipts ``25. For the purposes of this Act, a reference to assessable exploration recovery receipts derived by a person in relation to a petroleum project is a reference to- (a) where any petroleum, or a constituent of petroleum, recovered from the eligible exploration or recovery area (other than any production licence area) in relation to the project is or was sold, whether processed or unprocessed, before any marketable petroleum commodity is or was produced from it-the consideration receivable, less any expenses payable, by the person in relation to the sale; (b) where any marketable petroleum commodity produced from petroleum recovered from the area to which paragraph (a) applies becomes or became an excluded commodity by virtue of being sold-the consideration receivable, less any expenses payable, by the person in relation to the sale; and (c) where any marketable petroleum commodity produced from petroleum recovered from the area to which paragraph (a) applies becomes or became an excluded commodity otherwise than by virtue of being- (i) sold; or (ii) treated or processed, or moved, for re-injection or destruction or for use in carrying on or providing operations, facilities or other things of a kind referred to in section 37, 38 or 39 in relation to the petroleum project, so much of the market value of the commodity immediately before it becomes or became an excluded commodity, or, where there is insufficient evidence of that market value, of such amount as, in the opinion of the Commissioner, is fair and reasonable, as is taken by section 26 to be derived by the person.''. (12) Clause 26, page 17 (lines 44 to 46) and page 18 (lines 1 to 4), omit all the words from and including ``Where'' to and including ``to the petroleum, constituent or'', insert the following: ``Where paragraph 24 (c) or 25 (c) applies in relation to any marketable petroleum commodity, the market value or other amount referred to in that paragraph in relation to the''. (13) Clause 27, page 18, line 14, omit ``received'', insert ``receivable''. (14) Clause 27, page 18, line 23, omit ``received'', insert ``receivable''. (15) Clause 27, page 18, line 27, omit ``received'', insert ``receivable''. (16) Clause 27, page 18, line 32, omit ``received'', insert ``receivable''. (17) Clause 27, page 19, line 10, omit ``received'', insert ``receivable''. (18) Clause 28, page 19, line 16, omit ``received'', insert ``receivable''. (19) Clause 28, page 19, after subparagraph (a) (i) insert the following subparagraph: ``(ia) the loss or destruction, or the loss of any profit caused by the loss or destruction, of any marketable petroleum commodity produced from petroleum recovered from the area referred to in subparagraph (i), being a loss or destruction that occurred before the commodity became an excluded commodity; or''. (20) Clause 28, page 19, line 29, omit ``received'', insert ``receivable''. (21) Clause 29, page 19, line 40, omit ``received'', insert ``receivable''. (22) Clause 37, page 25, line 36, insert ``liable to be'' before ``made''. (23) Clause 37, page 26, after subparagraph (1) (b) (iii) insert the following subparagraph: ``(iiia) operations and facilities involved in the moving or storage of any such marketable petroleum commodity before it becomes an excluded commodity;''. (24) Clause 37, page 26, line 13, omit ``the payment of''. (25) Clause 37, page 26, line 14, insert ``Liable to be paid by the person'' before ``in relation to''. (26) Clause 37, page 26, line 19, omit ``the payment during that period of any'', insert ``any liability incurred during that period to pay an''. (27) Clause 38, page 26, line 30, insert ``Liable to be'' before ``made''. (28) Clause 38, page 26, line 36, omit ``the payment of''. (29) Clause 38, page 26, line 37, insert ``Liable to be paid by the person'' before ``in relation to''. (30) Clause 39, page 26, line 43, insert ``Liable to be'' before ``made''. (31) After clause 39, page 27, insert the following new clause: Bad debts ``39a. (1) Where- (a) a debt is a bad debt and is written off as such by a person during a financial year; and (b) the debt has been brought to account by the person as a receipt of a kind referred to in section 24, 25, 27, 28 or 29 derived by the person in any financial year in relation to a petroleum project, then, at the time at which the debt is written off and in relation to- (c) the petroleum project; or (d) if, at that time, there is a combined project in relation to which the petroleum project is a pre-combination project-the combined project, the person shall be taken for the purposes of this Act to have incurred an amount of- (e) where at or before the time at which the debt is written off the person has not incurred any general project expenditure or closing-down expenditure in relation to the petroleum project or the combined project (including any pre-combination project in relation to the project)-exploration expenditure; (f) where at or before the time at which the debt is written off the person has incurred general project expenditure, but has not incurred any closing-down expenditure, in relation to the petroleum project or the combined project (including any pre-combination project in relation to the project)-general project expenditure; or (g) where at or before the time at which the debt is written off the person has incurred closing-down expenditure in relation to the petroleum project or the combined project-closing-down expenditure, equal to the amount of the debt. ``(2) If a debtor, after incurring a debt that has been brought to account as mentioned in paragraph (1) (b), becomes bankrupt or executes a deed of assignment or arrangement for the benefit of creditors- (a) where, in the opinion of the Commissioner, no amount will be paid on account of the debt-the debt; or (b) where, in the opinion of the Commissioner, an amount less than the amount of the debt will be paid on account of the debt-so much of the debt as exceeds the amount that, in the opinion of the Commissioner, will be so paid, shall be deemed to be a bad debt. ``(3) Where a person receives an amount in respect of a debt to which sub-section (1) applies, that amount shall for the purposes of this Act be taken to be a receipt of the kind referred to in paragraph (1) (b) derived by the person in relation to- (a) the petroleum project referred to in that paragraph; or (b) if, at the time at which the amount is received, there is a combined project in relation to which the petroleum project referred to in that paragraph is a pre-combination project-the combined project.''. (32) Clause 40, page 27, line 5, omit ``makes or made'', insert ``incurs or incurred a liability to make''. (33) Clause 40, page 27, line 11, omit ``the payment shall be taken to have been made insert ``the liability shall be taken to have been incurred''. (34) Clause 47, page 30, at the end of the clause add the following word and paragraph: ``; and (f) in any application of section 39a after the transfer time, the purchaser shall be taken to have brought to account as a receipt of a kind referred to in section 24, 25, 27, 28 or 29 in relation to the project (including any pre-combination project in relation to the project) any debt so brought to account by the vendor.''. (35) Clause 56, page 34, line 28, omit ``26,''. (36) Clause 56, page 35, line 3, omit ``26,''. Following introduction of this Bill during the 1986 Budget sittings, representations have been made by the petroleum industry seeking various amendments of the Bill. After consideration of those representations, the Government has agreed to certain amendments that will clarify the intended operation of the Bill and ease the administrative burden on the industry. One of the amendments agreed to will change the timing of payments that determine a person's liability to the tax: Income will be taken into account when it is receivable-rather than when received, as in the Bill-and expenditure will be taken into account when the liability to pay it arises, rather than when paid. The adoption of this basis accords with that applying to petroleum project participants for income tax purposes. Allowing participants to use the same information for income tax and petroleum resource rent tax purposes will facilitate compliance with the requirements of the resource rent tax law. A further significant amendment to which the Government has agreed is the shift in the point at which the value of a marketable petroleum commodity becomes assessable. This amendment will allow such a commodity to be stored prior to sale in an on-site storage facility without its value being brought to account as an assessable receipt at that point. An assessable receipt will in these circumstances arise only when the commodity is sold or moved from on-site storage, other than for re-injection, destruction or use on the project. Expenditure associated with an on-site storage facility will, by further amendment, qualify for deduction, as will expenses such as freight, insurance and demurrage in relation to the sale of a marketable petroleum commodity. The Bill currently allows any person to apply to the Minister for Resources and Energy to have two projects combined for petroleum resource rent tax purposes. It is proposed to amend the Bill to ensure that such an application can be made only by parties with entitlement to 50 per cent or more of the proceeds from the sale of marketable petroleum commodities produced from petroleum recovered from each of the relevant projects. Another proposed amendment will make it clear that the individual venturers in a joint venture, and not the joint venture itself, will be required to account for their petroleum resource rent tax receipts and expenditures. The Bill in its present form deals with projects that might straddle both a petroleum resource rent tax area and an area under Commonwealth or State jurisdiction and subject to excise and/or royalties. It does this by apportioning a quantity of petroleum from a project to be subject to petroleum resource rent tax. This issue raises a number of complex questions, some requiring resolution in Commonwealth-State discussions. Nevertheless, it is the Government's intention that, for reasons of both administration and industry certainty, the petroleum resource rent tax should apply to the total project where it extends beyond the resource rent tax area. The Government intends to initiate discussions with the States on the question of treatment of projects which straddle resource rent tax areas and State excise royalty areas. Once these questions have been resolved, any necessary further amendments will be introduced. A supplementary explanatory memorandum containing detailed explanations of technical aspects of the amendments is being circulated to honourable members. I commend the amendments to the Committee. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(6.46) —It is significant that these major amendments to the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Bill-and I say `major' because there are 36 amendments in all and because the Minister for Community Services and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford) has indicated that they are major-should have been submitted. This speaks volumes about the Government's rush to pass this legislation, not having had the consultations it should have had with the industry in the first place to try to come to some accommodation. Even now, I understand, these amendments have not been fully considered by the industry. The industry has not had a chance to examine them or comment, yet here we are in the Committee stage considering what I say are major amendments. We have already indicated our complete opposition to the four Bills-and obviously that goes for any amendments to them-but I think it appropriate that we make some comment on them. During debate on this Bill I interjected on one Government member and asked about some of the costs which should be related to it but which were not then included in it-knowing that they were included in the amendments. The honourable member in question had no idea whatsoever of the implications of what I was talking about, particularly the aspect of bad debts. I can understand the Government trying to make more certain the aspect of revenue-when it is to be received and when it is to be taxed. In that regard the Government has now found that the Bill is deficient in determining this as it would like and has now included bad debts as an allowable deduction. If the Government comes to the point of praising the forward deductions, as has been indicated in the Bills, why does it still walk away from the deduction that major exploration and development companies incur on dry wells? I was advised-I think I have got the words right-that in areas of low prospectivity it is likely that nine out of ten wells, when drilled, will be dry and that only one in five or six of those wells have any chance of viability. So the chances of getting a viable well are about one in 50 or one in 60, yet this legislation will deny prospecting companies this major deduction. Even as recently as yesterday the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) was saying that the Government had given this matter further consideration, that in the long term it was a difficult area, and that it came down on the side of not allowing the deduction; whereas what we have been talking about in regard to this Bill is that deductions should be allowed. It is not good enough for the Government to say that it has changed from a production method to a profit method when the profit will be exaggerated and high in comparison to the actual returns to the company because of this low prospectivity. What is being done within these amendments highlights the points we were trying to make right along the line: With no incentive to get out and drill the wells, we are going to see development drop off; and that will be a result of this Bill. The Minister for Resources and Energy was hinting at a higher resource rent tax even when he addressed the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association conference on the Gold Coast. He said, amongst other things, that the Government recognised that the industry was seeking major revision of existing secondary taxation structures and that it now faced an escalation of unpalatable resource rent initiatives as a focus of the new Federal policy. I know that, under the resource 2000 program, APEA submitted two particular reviews-I think in four parts-on the whole taxation question. Obviously it found no joy in the original legislation or in what is happening now. Senator Evans has also indicated that there could be an expansion of the targeting policy as incorporated in the resource rent tax legislation. This has come at a time when the legislation has not even been put to bed and passed. According to the Minister, what the Government has done clearly indicates that there has been very little co-operation or consultation with the industry. It has blindly gone ahead on the basis that it expects to drag more tax out of the industry than it has before. After listening to the speech by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs just now, I hope that the Government will initiate discussions with the States on the question of the treatment of projects which straddle resource rent tax areas and State excise royalty areas. I wish the Government the very best of luck as the Premiers go towards the conference at which the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has threatened to bring down the ceilings on borrowings and make major cuts in grants that go from the Commonwealth to the States. So in that climate I think it is wishful thinking to put that within the speech that was just made. We made the comment earlier that this legislation-36 amendments have been added to some 63 pages-will make it difficult for the companies to determine where their liability will lie as far as tax is concerned. I emphasise that before the amendments were moved, the Government did not even know. It had to introduce these amendments in order to put the frills in certain areas. There will be a major area of uncertainty brought about by these amendments. I was very interested in a comment that was made by two chartered accountants from Sydney who suggested to members of the Opposition that perhaps we should not be looking at reversing some of the other aspects of taxation that the Government has brought in, such as the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax, on the basis that these taxes have found acceptance within the community. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, who is at the table, and the two chartered accountants in Sydney must have their proverbial heads in the sand. They must not move outside in the richer area. I make no reflection on the Minister's previous role as a chartered accountant, but I know that there is a rich harvest in these taxation Bills that have been introduced as tax reform measures for some particular professional services. I cannot help feel that perhaps the accountants made those comments without realising-although they talked about certainty within the Bill-the destabilising nature that these taxes will have on the people who have to pay them. The fringe benefits tax is destabilising. This industry will be paying it along with others. The capital gains tax will be destabilising. The resource rent tax is another destabilising factor. I suggest that people who make those comments, particularly those who have been rewarded by the legislation in the form of services and fees rendered and collected from it, should have a better understanding of what will happen in the field when this legislation comes about. I know that the fringe benefits tax has caused some unemployment within the industry. It is another cost and it will in the long term, far from bringing certainty, be destabilising. To those who feel that tax reform means that the industry has to persevere with fringe benefits tax, capital gains tax, superannuation tax, entertainment tax, and now this resource rent tax I say that if they think that the Opposition will accept this in government they have another think coming. As has been indicated in the past, there is every intention that the fringe benefits tax, and the capital gains tax particularly, will be repealed. We do not agree with this legislation. We cannot agree with the amendments that have been introduced in haste and in great number. They have been introduced without consultation, and the Opposition opposes these measures along with the others. We suggest that the Minister in charge of this resource rent tax get in touch with the industry, talk to it and see what might be better provided in the form of usable amendments. Again, I refer to the point on deductibility for dry wells. The Minister at the table might be able to give me some explanation of why this matter should not have been dealt with in the form of an amendment during this Committee state. Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Drummond) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(6.57) —The honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) sought to make the point during his contribution at the Committee stage of the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Bill that these amendments had not been discussed with the industry. I respond by making a much more valid point. These amendments are the product of consultations with the industry. They are in response to what the industry sought of the Government. The Opposition is seeking in this debate, as I assess it, to represent the industry itself in contradistinction to representing the interests of the Australian community. It is blatantly wanting to represent the narrow interests of the industry itself. If the Opposition wants sensibly to represent the industry it will not oppose these amendments because they are amendments that are designed to help the industry; they are-I repeat-the product of consultation with the industry. It is illogical, therefore, to oppose these amendments. I suggest that the Opposition thinks again about its opposition to these amendments. It may have a view on the Bill as a whole, but it should not in any way oppose these amendments. There is equity in what is being achieved by the Government in this legislation. There is equity in it just as there is equity in the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax which were dragged into the debate by the honourable member for Dawson. In this case the honourable member seems to have again overlooked the fact that the RRT, the resource rent tax, is in substitution for other taxes. Rather than destabilise the economic interests that are involved in this particular area, it will encourage them. I commend the amendments to the House. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(6.58) —In response to some of the comments the Minister has made, we have made it perfectly obvious in the course of this debate that our objection to the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Bill represents not so much the industry's views but Australia's view of oil production and oil self-sufficiency in the future. I think that the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) made that point at the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association Conference. The conference was covered by the Australian Financial Review. It stated: But there was criticism of the arguments being used by the partners in support of their claim, with the Government appearing highly sceptical of suggestions that without reductions, capital investment in field development and oil recovery enhancement would not take place. ``I find it difficult to understand- I believe that `I' is Senator Evans- why the attractiveness of certain investments seems to have declined since last year even though oil prices-and net returns-have now risen substantially and the prospects for the future are generally considered to be brighter,'' he observed. If Senator Evans does not understand what this and the other Bills are doing as far as disincentives are concerned to the prospectivity and the aspect of self-sufficiency in the future, goodness help Australia's resources in the future. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Hurford)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 28 November, on motion by Mr Hurford: 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 Hurford) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 28 November, on motion by Mr Hurford: 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 Hurford) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 28 November, on motion by Mr Hurford: 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 Hurford) read a third time. Debate resumed from 19 March, on motion by Mr Willis: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(7.03) —As the name of the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill 1987 implies, it embodies the Government's intention to apply the principles of equal employment opportunity to authorities of the Commonwealth. It is the third leg of a trilogy of Bills. In 1984 equal opportunity programs were applied to the Commonwealth Public Service by the Public Service Reform Act 1984. In 1986 the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act 1986 was expressed as being a Bill to promote equal opportunity for women in employment in the private sector and in higher education institutions. Until that stage we had two Bills, both of which became law; the first applying equal employment opportunity programs to the Commonwealth Public Service proper and the second in 1986 applying them to both the private sector and higher education institutions. Thirdly, we have before the House the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill 1987, which attempts to cover the field and to apply to Commonwealth authorities equal opportunity in employment for women and also for persons in certain designated groups. The definition `authorities' to which the Bill applies covers a wide range of organisations and is so extensive in its definition as to mean in effect virtually any Commonwealth authorities, other than those covered by the other two Acts that I have referred to and other than several primary industry authorities. It is the Government's intention, apparently, to amend the laws governing those primary industry authorities. We have been told in the second reading speech of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) that it is the intention of the Government to apply this Bill to bodies such as Telecom Australia, Australia Post and Qantas Airways Ltd. Last year, when the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill 1986 was before the Parliament, the Opposition proposed, and indeed moved, amendments to the effect that the equal employment opportunity principles enshrined in the legislation should apply not only to the Commonwealth Public Service, the private sector and higher education institutions but also to Commonwealth authorities. No doubt, the Government's case is that this is what it proposes to do by the present Bill. However, a close examination of the Bill shows that the Government is proposing to apply to Commonwealth authorities a different regime than the regime that applied to the private sector and higher education institutions last year. The Opposition's position, therefore, is that it will oppose the Bill in its present form. There are several reasons why the Opposition is opposing the Bill now before the Parliament and it is important that those reasons should clearly be understood. I say that because our position is that, had the Government applied the same law to Commonwealth authorities as last year it applied to the private sector and higher education institutions, we would have supported this legislation. We repeat, however, that the Government has not done this and, while it continues to fail to do so, we will oppose its legislation. I turn in more detail to the reasons why the Opposition opposes the Bill in its present form. The reasons are as follows: First, on 9 January 1987, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commercee (Senator Button) announced on behalf of the Government that there would be what he called `a strengthening of the Government commitment to the reduction of unnecessary business regulation'. On that occasion, Senator Button said: Any new Government proposal affecting business must be cleared with the Business Regulation Review Unit and, if necessary the department making the proposal is required to supply a Regulation Impact Statement. Senator Button also said: The Government is committed to a review of business regulation with a view to winding back those regulations not offering a net benefit to the community. It is beyond any doubt at all that some of the authorities intended to be covered by the present Bill engage in business. Indeed, the Government often goes to extraordinary lengths to establish that they are business authorities, or corporations, whose obligation is to provide a business-like service to the community. It is also beyond doubt that the Bill presently before the House will impose business regulation on the authorities concerned. The imposition of stringent equal employment opportunity requirements carrying as it does with it the obligation to have staff administer the proposed scheme and the detailed attention by the authority to implementing the equal employment opportunity program brings this Bill squarely within the ambit of what was intended to be covered by Senator Button's statement on behalf of the Government on 9 January 1987. We presume that the Government's announcement, on that date, did not consist merely of empty words, but that the Government intended to put its scheme into practice. It is a desirable scheme and should be put into practice. What is equally clear, however, is that there is no sign, either in the Bill, in the explanatory statement, or in the second reading speech, that the Government has made the slightest attempt to subject this Bill to the rigours of the examination outlined in Senator Button's statement. We believe that it should do so and that this Bill should not proceed until the Government does so and applies the mechanism which was set out in Senator Button's statement of 9 January. It must be emphasised that, subject to the Government also agreeing to a number of significant amendments that I will foreshadow and refer to shortly, we will support this Bill if the Government undertakes not to proceed with it until it is subjected to the business review process and satisfies the requirements of that process. If it passes muster then, subject to the Government also agreeing to the significant amendments that we will propose-I will outline them shortly and why we regard them as significant-we will support this Bill. But we will not support it and indeed we will oppose it until that procedure is followed. Had the Government done this in the first place and had it presented us with a proper Bill, we would have voted for this proposed legislation. Accordingly, when the Minister replies at the end of this debate we will expect him to announce that the Government accepts this proposal and the amendments that we foreshadow to implement it. If that assurance is not forthcoming from the Minister, we will vote against this Bill. To make quite clear the position that we take I will propose a second reading amendment which will be to the effect that the Bill not be proceeded with until it has been subjected to an examination under the machinery set out in Senator Button's statement of 9 January 1987. The second reason why the Opposition will oppose the Bill in its present form is that it does not apply the same provisions on equal employment opportunity to employees in Commonwealth authorities as the 1986 Act applied to the private sector and to higher education institutions. In particular, the present Bill has taken a very definite step towards compulsory, quantitative requirements. In fact it has taken a very definite step towards quotas. It is true that the 1986 Act provided for the so-called affirmative programs set up under that Act to set objectives and to make forward estimates. It is also true that the forward estimate was defined by reference to quantity. However, and this is particularly important, it was a `quantitative measure or aim' which was required, an objective to which the program should work. It was not a quota and it was certainly not a compulsory quota. In contrast, the Bill that is presently before the House requires the Commonwealth authority to provide for action `to set'-they are the words that are used-`the quantitative and other indicators against which the effectiveness of the program is to be assessed'. This makes it quite clear that the Government, in the present Bill, has gone further than the 1986 Act and has taken a very definite step towards the imposition of compulsory quotas. All of these matters are matters for judgment but, taking the present Bill as a whole and making a rational assessment of the thrust of it and what it is clearly seeking to achieve, it is beyond doubt that the substance of the proposal is that the equal employment opportunity programs provided for in the Bill have taken a very definite step towards specific and quantitative programs which are in effect the equivalent of quotas. The Opposition is utterly opposed to the imposition of compulsory quotas which, in substance, are effectively proposed by this Bill-quotas which impose employment conditions which have been neither arbitrated upon nor agreed upon. I therefore foreshadow that we will move an amendment to remove from the Bill the requirement on the authorities to set quantitative indicators in the program. Once again, we will expect the Minister in his reply to indicate that the Government will accept such an amendment and, if he does not do so, we will vote against this Bill. Thirdly, it is clear from the definition of `employee' that the intention of the Government is to apply this Bill not only to employees but also to independent contractors. This is quite unacceptable to the Opposition as it is no function of the Government to impose employment conditions on independent contractors or those for whom they provide their services. We therefore foreshadow that we will move an amendment to remove those under a contract for services from the definition of `employee'. Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! It being 7.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Scholes-I require that the question be put forthwith. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies) —As I was saying, we would expect the Minister to indicate in his reply at the conclusion of this debate that the Government will accept this amendment. Fourthly, the intention of the Government is clearly to apply this Bill to what are referred to as `designated groups'. To extend the operation of the legislation to those designated groups would give the Bill not only an excessively wide operation but also a vague and uncertain operation. `Designated groups' are defined as to have the same meaning as the Public Service Act 1922 and that Act enabled new and quite uncertain designated groups to be determined by regulation. That is a thoroughly undesirable way of legislating and we therefore foreshadow an amendment to change the definition of `designated groups' so that, although the bulk of the definition will come from the definition of `designated group' in the Public Service Act 1922, we would remove from that definition part (d), being: . . . any other class of person declared by the regulations be a designated group for the purposes of this definition; We would expect the Minister to indicate in his reply that the Government accepts this foreshadowed amendment. If it does not we will vote against the Bill. We also foreshadow other amendments relating to the reporting requirements of authorities to make them as near as practicable to the reporting requirements imposed by the 1986 Act on the private sector and on higher education institutions. Quite heavy-handed reporting requirements were imposed on the private sector and higher education institutions under the 1986 Act and there is no similarity between those reporting requirements imposed by that Act and the reporting requirements imposed on authorities by the present Bill. In conclusion, I wish to make it plain that if the amendments I have referred to are made to make the Bill the equivalent of the 1986 Act, and if the Government indicates that it will not proceed with the Bill until it is subjected to the processes of the business regulation process announced on 9 January 1987, we will vote for such an amended Bill which has passed and satisfied the processes of the business regulations examinations. Indeed, we would have voted without any quibble for a Bill which was the equivalent of the 1986 Act and which was a genuine equal opportunity Bill based on merit and one that had been tested against the Government's own business regulation procedures and which had passed them. We must make it plain that we support genuine equal opportunity in employment and the removal of discriminations, as we supported them in 1986. We have supported them in the past; we continue to support them; and we will support them in the future. But this Bill in its present form goes far beyond that. I move: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `this House is of the opinion that the Bill not be proceeded with until it has been examined by the Business Regulation Review Unit in accordance with the procedures announced by the Government on 9 January 1987 for the review of government proposals affecting business regulation and until the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations prepares a Regulation Impact Statement on the proposals contained in the Bill'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Spender —The amendment is seconded. Debate (on motion by Mr Lindsay) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Scholes) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr BURR(Lyons)(7.20) —This afternoon at Question Time I raised with the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) an article that was published in the February edition of the Journalist magazine, the Australian Journalist Association's own magazine. That article made very serious allegations about negotiations between the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and Mr Rupert Murdoch concerning the editorial content in the Murdoch Press in return for favours that would be given by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer using their influence with the Government. I was hoping in raising that matter with the Minister for Communications that he would give me an assurance that the matters raised in that article were quite spurious and in fact did not occur and that the Government had not entered into any type of arrangement with Mr Murdoch. Unfortunately, the Minister treated with contempt the matter that I had raised. He gave me no assurance and he gave the House no assurance. The matter raised in this article, I believe, is one of the most serious issues to have been posed before this Parliament. It is not a matter that can be taken lightly by the Government or by any member of this Parliament. I quote from the article: It has now emerged that the appearance of the November 13 editorial in Murdoch's Australian followed several meetings with Federal Treasurer Keating and Prime Minister Hawke. In October, Keating discussed the new media ownership rules with Murdoch while visiting the United States. In early November, Murdoch appeared in Australia for News Corp's annual general meeting and entertained the Treasurer and Prime Minister at his Sydney headquarters at 2 Holt Street, Surrey Hills. The Prime Minister told Murdoch that he would carry his Labor Party colleagues in the Herald and Weekly Times takeover and the controversy concerning foreign ownership of Australian television licences provided there was some `written proof' that News Corp could be presented as `the friend of Labor'. That is the accusation contained in the article. It is a most serious accusation. It has been publicly circulated. I would have thought it was in the Government's own interests that it dismiss this allegation and prove that it is not correct. I hope that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer will be able to give evidence to this House and to the people of Australia that there has been no secret deal between the Government and Mr Rupert Murdoch concerning both the editorial content of his publications and a secret deal involving the way in which this Government will put through its media legislation. That is the guts of what is contained in this article, and the Minister for Communications has done nothing to refute that allegation. The matter goes further. Government members believe that they have won Mr Murdoch and have the support of his Press, but I quote further: But while Hawke and Keating manage to convince Cabinet and the Caucus that Murdoch's HWT- that is, the Herald and Weekly Times- takeover was in Labor's interests, Murdoch was playing both ends against the middle. Following the takeover bid on December 3 and press reports playing up Murdoch's cosy relationship with Hawke and Labor, the Murdoch camp quietly moved to reassure the Liberals. Ken Cowley, the Managing Director of News Ltd, telephoned John Howard. He told the Liberal Leader he was calling at the express command of his boss. The purpose, he said, was to tell Howard that the Murdoch papers were not really swinging behind the Labor cause. Murdoch had been very upset, he said, at suggestions that he was accommodating the line of his papers to suit Labor and he wanted to reassure Howard at once. These are most serious allegations against the Government. I believe that if they are correct a reassurance must be given to this House. If they are incorrect, I believe that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have cause to sue for defamation. If they are not prepared to take that action, I can only come to the conclusion that the accusations in this article are correct. If they are correct, this Government must be condemned. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(7.25) —On 6 March 1987, at Lavarack Barracks, Townsville, I had the honour on behalf of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) to officially open an exhibition known as Lesiurerama 87. Leisurerama 87 was organised by a volunteer committee which included Army, community and business leaders for the sole purpose of promoting the recreational activities available in North Queensland generally and the Townsville-Thuringowa region specifically. Leisurerama 87 was held at the attractive theatre-pool complex at Lavarack Barracks. All displays, both static and active, were surrounded by a carnival-style atmosphere comprising music and dance. A full program of demonstrations over the three days of the exhibition provided entertainment and sustained enthusiasm. Emphasis was placed on hands-on displays to encourage public participation. Leisurerama is a unique concept which is particularly suited to Townsville. Townsville military commanders and civilian community leaders are constantly seeking ways to integrate the large Townsville defence population into the community. The good image of service personnel in Townsville has never been higher and the spirit of co-operation that exists between the military and civilian communities is unmatched anywhere else in Australia. Although the need for Leisurerama was first identified by the military, the concept was immediately embraced by the people of the cities of Townsville and Thuringowa, for it provided a previously unavailable opportunity to introduce service personnel and their families into the social fabric of the community, principally through membership of sporting and cultural clubs and travel associations. In the past, many service personnel and their families have served their two-year postings in Townsville either unaware of the range of community interests and activities available to them or perhaps too shy to make the initial contact. The organising committee of Leisurerama 87 has been encouraged by the response of the local organisations which, by their attendance at Leisurerama 87, demonstrated their willingness to welcome service personnel and their families into their community. This attitude strikes right at the heart of the problems addressed by Mrs Sue Hamilton in her 1986 report to the Minister for Defence. The people of Thuringowa and Townsville are proud that they were able to do something unique and positive to promote military personnel and their dependants in the Townsville-Thuringowa area. Leisurerama 87 was a great success. Approximately 40,000 people attended during the three days of the exhibition. Reaction from both exhibiters and the public was very enthusiastic and positive. It was an opportunity for all travel and leisure associated clubs, companies and organisations in the Townsville region to promote themselves to the public. Having regard to the large annual influx of new service personnel to Townsville, as well as many residents looking for activities to fill their leisure time, Leisurerama 87 was a welcome form to show what is available in the way of recreation and travel. It was also an opportunity for clubs to gain new members. Leisurerama 87 proved to be a most effective tool for gaining greater involvement by defence families in sporting and cultural associations, and hence accelerating their assimilation into the Townsville-Thuringowa community. In addition, Leisurerama 87 gained a great deal of excellent publicity for the Army in north Queensland. The Minister for Defence endorsed Leisurerama 87 as an excellent initiative and gave it his full support, recognising that every effort and opportunity should be taken to assist defence personnel and their families to integrate well into their new environment in Townsville. Approximately 10,000 defence force personnel and their dependants live in the cities Townsville and Thuringowa. Their presence and the supporting services they require mean that almost $100m is injected into the local economy annually. Leisurerama 87 was tangible proof that the Townsville community valued the presence of its large defence population and it was time to enhance the benefit of their presence for both civilian and defence members of the community. On behalf of the Hawke Government I commend the initiative of the Commander, District Support Group, Lavarack Barracks, Colonel Peter Desmond, and Major M. Evans, not only for organising Leisurerama 87 but also for its outstanding success. Their competence, skill and dedication were truly outstanding. I congratulate everyone associated with Leisurerama 87. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(7.30) —Tonight, along with two of my colleagues, the honourable member for Riverina-Darling (Mr Hicks) and the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran), I would like to take umbrage at some of the points made by Government members about the real state of the rural crisis. Over the last couple of days the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) has come into this place and made certain statements which I find offensive. Talking about the problems in the rural industry he said of Opposition members: It is time that they were honest, before they create a situation where wool growers, who have money rolling into their pockets, gobble up some of their neighbours in the wheat industry and buy their farms for practically nothing . . . That demonstrates typical politics of envy and is surely an indication of someone who does not understand what is really going on, despite the fact that the honourable member claims to have travelled around so much of Australia. Yesterday in the debate on the matter of public importance the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland) made a most extraordinary statement when talking about the interest rate crisis. He said: The crisis which has been caused by the world trading situation, by the price for wheat, is driving interest rates. Earlier he had said: . . . a large number of farmers would still be in massive difficulty simply because of the prices they are getting for their commodity, namely, wheat. It would not matter if they had no interest rate charge at all. I find both of those comments offensive. They show a total lack of understanding of the real situation and of the rural crisis as it affects various individuals. In order to demonstrate how the crisis is affecting individual farmers, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a table which shows two case studies of farms in the Mallee. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Two Mallee Farms 80/81 81/82 82/83 83/84 84/85 85/86 $ $ $ $ $ $ Liabilities... 117,500 77,000 168,000 183,000 180,000 146,000 Assets... 540,000 600,000 580,000 660,000 350,000 277,000 Valuation-land... 400,000 457,000 400,000 457,000 183,000 137,000 Equity... 88% 93% 83% 84% 66% 65% Liabilities... 124,000 123,000 238,000 208,000 258,000 251,000 Assets... 152,000 159,000 148,000 148,000 219,000 182,000 Valuation-land... 968,000 1,100,000 1,100,000 1,250,000 750,000 375,000 Equity... 89% 90% 81% 85% 73% 55% Mr HAWKER —I thank the Minister. These two case studies of farmers in the Mallee area of Victoria show what has happened to their farms from 1980-81 until 1985-86. The table demonstrates clearly the devastating impact interest rates have had on farmers over the last few years. Interest rates, more than any other single factor, have put these farmers in a situation from which it is virtually impossible for them to recover. The first example shows that the net assets of the farmer for the period of five years covered by the table have dropped from $940,000 to $414,000. In other words, the value of his net assets has almost halved. The equity in his farm has dropped from 88 per cent to 65 per cent. Yet his overdraft has increased by only 25 per cent. The effect is felt not just on one farm but on all farms. In this case the value of the farmer's land dropped to one-third. That can be directly attributed to the fact that there are no people around who are still buying land in this area simply because of high interest rates. In the next example the net assets have dropped to less than half and the land value has dropped one-third. These figures do not take into account the effects of inflation. They show what a serious situation these farmers are in and indicate the seriousness of the situation in the Mallee. When the honourable member for McEwen says that interest rates are not a factor in the rural crisis he is really having himself on. If it were not for such high interest rates these people would be able to survive. They would be able to trade their way out over time. However, interest rates, more than any other single factor, are killing these people and putting them in an impossible situation. They are finding that over five years their net assets have more than halved. I suggest to honourable members that they would be less flippant when they talk about the problems facing people in the country if they saw examples of real cases, of the people who are really suffering. My colleagues, the honourable member for Gippsland and the honourable member for Riverina-Darling, will continue this debate. They will point out how serious the situation is and how interest rates, more than any other single factor, are killing people in many areas of the bush. They will point out how the Government should be facing up to the fact that its high interest rate policies are causing the problems. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(7.35) —In 1986 I raised in this chamber what has become known as the jojoba scandal. It was described by me as the greatest agricultural ripoff that this country had ever experienced. I hoped at that time that the exposure of the jojoba plantation scam that cost something like 3,000 people between $15m and $20m-- Mr McGauran —Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: You may or may not be aware that the matter to which the-- Mr WRIGHT —I am not going to talk about it, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr McGauran —To which the honourable member is referring is the subject of a judicial inquiry. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —So far the honourable member has not made any comment on any matter. Mr WRIGHT —Of course I have not. I hope, Mr Deputy Speaker, that this would warn other investors against questionable schemes. Mr Spender —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. Mr WRIGHT —Last Saturday, Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr Spender —Mr Deputy Speaker, you understand the rules relating to comments on matters which are before the courts. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Capricornia mentioned that he came into the House-- Mr Spender —The honourable member has referred to a scam. He is referring to something which is the subject of a judicial inquiry and out of which it is possible-I do not know-that proceedings may be brought. But the honourable member as a matter of decency should not do that and you, Mr Deputy Speaker, should make sure that he does not. Mr WRIGHT —Mr Deputy Speaker, the same honourable member tried to stop me from speaking when I spoke on this matter before. The honourable member for North Sydney will be shown to be totally wrong. I am raising the fact that 50 farmers met in Rockhampton last Saturday. These farmers who came from areas as far apart as Bowen and Bundaberg had one thing in common, and that was their involvement in aloe vera farming. They have invested between $40,000 and $200,000 in this scheme. They were promised that all of the aloe vera gel that would be produced from the plants that they grew had been pre-sold. They were promised that they would get returns of $400,000 a year. Most of them realised that such a return would be extraordinary and they hoped that they would get one-tenth of that return. They mortgaged their farms and their homes. They sold land and houses; one fellow even sold a bus. They contracted to grow aloe vera. In fact, they bought the rights to plants on an acre basis. They then set up hydroponic systems to grow the plant. They hoped that the aloe vera scheme that they were entering into would solve the problems that they faced because of the slump in the sugar industry. The whole scheme is the subject of an inquiry by the Trade Practices Commission. However, there needs to be a further inquiry into some of the other aspects because there is a major scam and scandal here that needs to be uncovered. Many of the farmers will go to the wall unless they get their money back. I suppose that some people on the other side of the chamber say that that is just a case of risk and reward. These people went into the scheme expecting to make great returns. I can understand that. However, many of the farmers went into the scheme on the advice of people whom they considered to be professional bankers. Many farmers went into the scheme because, as they told officers of the Trade Practices Commission and the honourable member for Hinkler (Mr Conquest), who attended that meeting, they were urged by a Commonwealth Development Bank officer to do so. Indeed, a Commonwealth Development Bank officer even touted them for their business. They were approached by Development Bank officers. Those officers went to their farms to encourage them to go into this scheme because they were told that the Commonwealth Development Bank had carried out some inquiry. Other farmers went into the business because the National Australia Bank recommended it. Over the last four years some $4m has been invested and the farmers stand to lose everything. Hundreds of farmers and their families are at risk. In fact, they are totally broke. It amazes me that when farmers all over the nation are unable to get money from the Commonwealth Development Bank one can go to a certain officer and suddenly get an automatic OK. I ask the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to have his officers join with the Trade Practices Commission to find out why this has happened. I ask them to find out what inquiry was held by the Commonwealth Development Bank. Who was touting for clients? Is the Commonwealth Development Bank now responsible for the bad advice or the actions of its officers or officer? Why did the Commonwealth Development Bank in Queensland in particular go about trying to encourage people into the scheme? I now have documents, which I will table later, which show that the directors took unsecured loans from the company of almost $1m. There are allegations that the company directors were paid in land, buses and houses; the property went into the directors' own names; allegations which show that a director bought a house in cash for $150,000 at Bagara near Bundaberg; allegations that the employees in Bundaberg were paid in cash; allegations that-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(7.40) —I wish to join with the expressions of concern by the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) who detailed for the information of the House some of the immense difficulties causing an extraordinary amount of human suffering for rural producers in his electorate. Mr Wright —They'll do anything to protect the rorts. Mr McGAURAN —Time and again members on this side raise a whole number of concerns on behalf of the people we represent only to find that the Government automatically, in a knee-jerk reaction, refutes the validity of those arguments. Yet rarely before in our history has the viability of the farm sector been so threatened by the combined effects of a decline in world commodity prices and the corrupt export subsidisation programs of several trading nations. Against this background, it is essential that the Government adopt policies that provide a framework for international competitiveness. It is simply not enough for the Government to argue continually that $6 billion has been cut off the income of this country, mostly due to corrupt trading practices, and that therefore the Government is powerless to do much about it. Instead, the Opposition has developed policies that aim to reduce input costs and to create an economic environment that will expand as well as diversify our primary industry exports, thereby reversing our declining balance of payments. It is gross abdication of responsibility on the Government's part to say that it can do nothing about the fall in primary produce income. To achieve international competitiveness, it is essential that the Government reduces dramatically its level of input costs. The acceleration in recent years of input costs, as well as the corresponding drop in competitiveness, can only result in a further decline in Australia's standard of living. It is a truism and also a trite observation to make-but I make it for the benefit of Government members-that the prosperity of Australians generally depends on the profitability of our primary industries. Why then does this Government not seek to reduce those major input costs, not least those of fuel and interest rates? It is not just farmers, and of course business people within regional centres, who have suffered from the dramatic increase in interest rates during this Government's administration, but all Australians. Let us look at the types of finance. The interest rate in November 1984 on savings bank home loans was 11 1/2 per cent. The rate at February 1987 was 15 1/2 per cent. The Bankcard rate was 18 per cent in November 1984 and is now 22 per cent. The prime rate for big business was 13 1/2 per cent in November 1984 and is now 18 1/2 per cent. The overdraft rate for small businesses and farmers was 14 1/2 per cent in November 1984 and is now 20 1/2 per cent. Those interest rates are bleeding farmers dry. Every day in our electorate offices we are seeing the human cost. It is no overstatement, no exaggeration, to say that people's lives are being destroyed. Tragically, the shadow Minister for Primary Industry, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), has stated and provided evidence of a number of suicides directly related to the downturn in the economic fortunes of farmers. But, more than that, there is dislocation of families. There are marriage breakups and there is a general malaise in country areas. For heavens sake, we implore the Government not to stand idly by while the whole fabric of a basic and fundamental sector of the Australian economy and way of life falls down around our ears. All of us are charged with enormous responsibilities in this place to represent the people who elect us. Those of us who have the privilege of representing rural areas seek to impress upon the Government the enormous problems and difficulties that our people are experiencing. It is within the province and ability of Government to address in a very major way most of those difficulties. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(7.45) —In October last year at a conference of the Northern Australian Development Council in Kununurra, the Federal member for Kalgoorlie, Graeme Campbell, suggested that, rather than considering statehood for the Northern Territory, it should be divided up between the adjoining States, with Alice Springs going to South Australia and the rest being split up between Western Australia and Queensland. I want to endorse the essential purpose of that proposal, except to recommend that the whole of the Northern Territory become part of South Australia and that the new State be named Central Australia. It is absurd that the Northern Territory, which could never become economically viable in the foreseeable future, should be considered for statehood. It is an accident of history that it exists at all. It was formerly part of South Australia and should revert to it. After the honourable member for Kalgoorlie finished his address to the conference, the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory leapt angrily to his feet to protest. And why should he not do so? As Chief Minister his Government has granted him an annual salary, with an allowance, of almost $100,000. The population of the Northern Territory is about 140,000. The Chief Minister's salary works out at about 70 cents per head of population per year. If we were to apply the same formula to the salary of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), he would receive over $11m a year. There are 25 electorates in the Northern Territory with an average enrolment of 3,000 electors, compared with electorates of 31,000 in New South Wales, 30,000 in Victoria, 18,000 in Queensland, 19,000 in South Australia and 15,000 in Western Australia. It takes 20 members of parliament in the Northern Territory to represent the same number of people that I represent in Charlton. There were fewer electors per member of parliament in the Northern Territory than there were electors per aldermen in the Fitzroy and Flinders wards of the Sydney City Council. On 1 June 1986 the basic salary of the Chief Minister exceeded that of the Premiers of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. The base salary of the Deputy Chief Minister exceed that of the Deputy Premiers of South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania. The base salary of the Speaker in the Northern Territory exceeded that of the Speakers in Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania. The Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory sat for 20 days in 1980, 22 days in 1981, 25 days in 1982, 18 days in both 1983 and 1984, and 24 days last year. In general revenue grants alone, the aggregate from the Commonwealth Government to the Northern Territory in 1985-86 was $568m for its population of about 140,000. The lowest aggregate grant was to Tasmania, which received $494m for its population of about 440,000. On a per capita basis, every person in the Northern Territory received from the Commonwealth in general revenue grants $3,872 in 1985-86. The lowest per capita grant went to Victoria. There each person received an average of $633 in 1985-86. On 8 March this year the National Times on Sunday estimated that all grants considered, as far as the Northern Territory was concerned, meant that the rest of Australia was subsidising the Northern Territory to the extent of about $85,000 a year per head. The State which received the highest per capita grant was Tasmania, with $1,111 per head. Compare that with the Northern Territory, where the per capita general revenue grant was over $3,800. I urge that serious consideration be given to this proposal. The benefit would lie in the removal of unnecessary and expensive duplication of administration, which amounts to a whole State structure for the equivalent of about one Federal electorate. The beneficiaries would be the people of the Northern Territory, the taxpayers of Australia and plain common sense. Mr HICKS(Riverina-Darling)(7.44) —I am sure that all members of the coalition are well aware of the crisis facing rural Australia today. It affects not only those on the farms, but of course also the small businesses and towns and all of those commercial organisations that are trying to make a living and trying to employ people. It also affects the schools. The people on the land are having to leave their districts to find work. Of course, they have to take their children with them and that affects the schools. I am sure that all honourable members on this side of the House understand the rural crisis, but I am not so sure that the Government does. As a matter of fact, I am positive that the Government does not realise what the rural crisis is about. The honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) interjected on the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) and said that we would do anything to protect the rorts. I invite the honourable member for Capricornia to come to my electorate and speak to the rice growers, wheat growers, vegetable growers, citrus growers or the vineyard operators. He can talk to Mario who has a bad back because he has worked so hard that he has worked himself into the ground. He has tried to expand his operation, but he cannot keep up with Government taxes or Government interest rates. He can talk to Jack, the rice farmer, who is in the same situation and who is finding it difficult to clothe his children. I am sure that it was just a looseness of the tongue on the part of the honourable member for Capricornia. I am sure that he did not really mean what he said because, even though the Government has done more to wreck the farming or rural industries than flood, fire or drought in the last couple of years, even he realises that there is a problem in rural Australia. But the Government still refuses to change its policy direction. We have these extremely high interest rates that are not going to be reduced. We have a decline in export earnings because we find that we cannot compete. Honourable members opposite can talk all they like about the European Economic Community and the Americans, but one of the main problems here is interest rates. The interest rates are kept high by this present Federal Government. The rural crisis is not affecting just rural areas now; it is starting to affect the whole of the Australian economy. I think that it is up to the Government to look into ways and means of trying to assist those people on the land to keep them there. As one goes around my electorate the story is a basic one. It is certainly interest rates that are mainly affecting these people. We are not looking at people who are not good farmers; most of these people are young, well-educated and technically advanced and know what they are doing, but they find that they simply cannot compete with Government induced interest rates. Interest rates are now averaging about 20.25 per cent up to about 23 per cent. On hire purchases and leases they are 24 per cent to 27 per cent. How could anyone possibly exist with those interest rates? It is a wonder that those people have existed as long as they have. Today I raised in Question Time with the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) the problem of a person who has continually had his telephone cut off. I am not complaining about Telecom Australia because the local people in Telecom have been very good. On many of the submissions I have made to them they have tried to help where they can, but I think something has to be done in the higher echelons to change policy. I just read a little piece from a letter which has been sent to me. It states: . . . Telecom allows two weeks from date of invoice to pay your account or they disconnect your phone. For the last two years, each quarter I have not been able to raise the money in the allotted time to pay the account, hence our phone gets cut off and they then charge a reconnection fee of $40. After having our phone account not paid on time 4 times in a row they asked for a security payment of $500 before they would reconnect the phone. I know that this applies to all people, but these people are faced with a particularly difficult time because of Government-induced high interest rates and, if it imposes these impositions on people, surely it must have some sympathy for them and so change the policy so that no one in the bush or in isolated areas, particularly where children and women are involved, should be left without a telephone. As this person went on to say, the main problem is this: I relate back to my financial situation to enlighten you as to why we have trouble paying the account. Last year I received a gross income before tax of sixteen thousand dollars. I have repayments of eight thousand dollars for farm machinery plus Medi Bank, personal accident insurance, power and water, leaving us with less than seven thousand to buy food and cloth the children. I don't buy clothes for myself and my vehicle is almost beyond repair. All suppliers in the local town extend credit to us as well as the County Council Electricity Supply and the Water Resources Commission. This is not an isolated case. This is what many people in rural Australia are facing. The Government has to do something very shortly, otherwise it will lose that very good stock of young, very dedicated and well educated farmers who mean so much to this Australian economy. The honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher) the other day had a lot to say about what governments can do. I recommend to every honourable member that they read his speech on that matter. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(7.54) —I have raised this matter in the House before and I do so again tonight. Languishing in gaol in Western Australia are a Mr Hemple and Mr Etheredge because the state of Israel has sought their extradition. They have been in gaol now for eight months. One can be a drug runner or a well known criminal in this country and one can get out on bail without much apparent difficulty. It is absolutely outrageous that the Attorney- General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has not sought to allow these people out on bail. I have raised this matter with him on several occasions. This problem arises because the state of Israel sought the extradition of these people, I think, on very dubious grounds. My view is that at the very best they had a civil case to answer. That too was very doubtful. However, with the utmost eagerness we rushed in to do the bidding of the state of Israel. Their main asset, a large yacht, was taken from them and sent back to Israel. That too was done in a way which leaves very grave doubts in my mind and certainly does not make me feel particularly proud to be an Australian. Having said that, I come to the case of Mr Barry White, who was in the reverse situation. He was operating a regular charter business in the Mediterranean and was carrying passengers from Cyprus to the port of Sidon. He was apprehended on the high seas by an Israeli patrol boat. His passengers were made to strip and jump into the water and swim to the Israeli boat. He was then taken under armed guard to the port of Haifa, where he was imprisoned. He was subsequently released after some considerable time-I think he was in gaol for three weeks-and the Israelis said: `There is no charge against you. You are free to go'. But they kept his asset, a boat worth $400,000 or more. When I raised this with the Australian Government I was told that this is a civil case and he must take civil litigation in the Israeli courts. This seems to me quite clearly to be a double standard. I have looked into this case under the Freedom of Information Act. It is quite apparent that the Israelis simply made a mistake. Because they are not prepared to admit they made a mistake they are greatly prejudicing the welfare of Mr White. To return to the Hemple situation, I believe that if the situation were investigated we would find that we do not have a valid extradition treaty with Israel because Israeli law says that if a person is Jewish and goes to Israel that person can seek Israeli citizenship. The only requirement appears to be that the person must be prepared to reside in Israel. So people seeking to stop extradition surely would claim that they wanted citizenship. I was appalled tonight at the way the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) was cut short by the Opposition when he was attempting to expose the Aloe Vera scandal. I now yield in his favour. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(7.58) —I seek leave of the House to table documents that I referred to in my contribution in the earlier part of the adjournment debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Is leave granted? Mr Spender —I have not seen the documents. I do not want to cut him short. I thought he was referring-- Mr WRIGHT —He always does, Mr Deputy Speaker. He tries everything to stop whatever I say when I try to clean up some of the scandals and scams. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Leave is not granted. Mr WRIGHT —The documents outline the case against Frendship Aloe Vera Pty Ltd. They also substantiates allegations made by farmers that directors of Friendship Aloe Vera, Peter Wildschut and his wife, took unsecured loans from the aloe vera company of over $900,000. It is important that these documents be available so honourable members can peruse them. Mr Humphreys —Is the honourable member for North Sydney protecting them? Mr WRIGHT —That is what happens all the time. It disturbs me that it continues to happen. If these documents can be made available to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and others I am sure they will assist in any investigation. It is important that we be able to do something about the continuing rorts. I believe that these documents, as with the other cases I have raised in this place, clearly establish the need for a high powered task force of State corporate affairs officers linked with the Commonwealth Trade Practices Commission so that we can do something and really declare a nationwide war on white collar criminals who are preying on unsuspecting Australians. We have seen with other cases that tens of millions of dollars have been ripped off. This is another case where somewhere between $3.72m and $4.5m has been taken. People invested in good faith. They acted on advice, they say, from the Commonwealth Development Bank officers, a certain bank officer from the National Australia Bank in Bundaberg and put their homes and farms at risk. Now they stand to lose all this. This has to stop. It will take a non-partisan approach. The honourable member for Hinkler (Mr Conquest) and I went to Bundaberg to talk to farmers to try as parliamentarians to solve this matter. I would like to think that such a task force might come about. In the meantime I need the Treasurer to examine these allegations and work with the Attorney-General and people in the Trade Practices Commission to put an end to what is going on. It is costing Australians tens of millions of dollars. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is leave granted to table the documents? Mr Spender —Leave is not granted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Leave is not granted. It being 8 p.m. the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 8 p.m. The following notice was given: Mr Lionel Bowen to move- That, unless otherwise ordered, the House shall meet for the despatch of business on the following days and at the times specified: Monday, 30 March, at 2 p.m. Tuesday, 31 March, at 2 p.m. Wednesday, 1 April, at 10 a.m. Thursday, 2 April, at 10 a.m. The following paper was deemed to have been presented on 25 March 1987: Census and Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Statement of disclosure of information-1987-No. 3-List of names and addresses of agricultural establishments for Bureau of Agricultural Economics. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 4914) Mr Jacobi asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 18 November 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to allegations made on the ``Four Corners'' program screened on 1 September 1986 and in ``The Advertiser'' on 28 August 1986 claiming that Westpac, instead of referring the matter to the police, has made a repayment deal with a former branch manager who misappropriated more than $2.5m from the bank. (2) Is he able to say what shortcomings in the bank's accounting and loan approval procedures allowed such an offence to occur. (3) Is he able to say whether the alleged loss will be accounted for (a) on the bank's balance sheet or (b) in the financial statement accompanying the bank's next annual report. (4) Are banks required to report cases of fraud to the Reserve Bank of Australia; if not, why not, and will he consider, in consultation with the Treasurer, recommending legislative changes to require banks to report suspected cases of fraud. (5) If banks are required to report cases of fraud to the Reserve Bank of Australia, did Westpac fail to report the above incident to the police; if so, is he able to say whether Westpac failed to do so for fear of bad publicity. (6) Is he able to say whether (a) Westpac has given the manager referred to in part (1) 10 years to repay between $300,000 and $400,000 and (b) the manager will be able to claim part or all of the repayments as a tax deduction; if so, will he (c) consider recommending amendments to the tax laws to rectify the situation and (d) have this matter referred to the Treasurer for urgent consideration. (7) Is it a fact that the cover-up of embezzlement within the banking industry simply shifts the cost of such offences to the bank's shareholders or customers. (8) Will he consider making reforms to auditing requirements in order to protect shareholders and the general public from potential embezzlers in future. (9) Will action be taken against Westpac in connection with its involvement in the relevant transactions; if so, what action will be taken. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) No. (3) No. (4) Banks are not required to report cases of fraud to the Reserve Bank of Australia. However, as part of its prudential supervision, the Reserve Bank encourages banks to have in place effective management systems to control exposures and limit risks and to review and adapt those systems to changing circumstances. Such controls have regard to the prevention of fraud as well as other risks associated with a bank's business. (5) N/A. (6) The Reserve Bank invited Westpac to contribute factual material for inclusion in answers to the honourable member's questions but, after obtaining legal advice, Westpac advised that the matter is sub judice and it would be inappropriate to comment. The Reserve Bank understands that a trial relating to a conspiracy matter is currently under way in the Victorian Supreme Court and that a previous trial had been aborted after 30 or 40 days evidence as a result of the media publicity referred to in part (1) of the honourable member's question. The Reserve Bank also understands that Westpac subsequently took action against ``Four Corners'' and ``The Advertiser'' and those proceedings are also currently under way in the Victorian Supreme Court. (7) The cover-up of any embezzlement within any corporation would involve shifting the costs of such offences to the shareholders in, or customers of, that corporation. (8) Fraud offences are primarily State offences and auditing requirements for companies are primarily contained in the companies legislation under the co-operative companies and securities scheme. Should it be established that the law in either of these respects was deficient in this case then it would undoubtedly be appropriate to review the relevant legislation with a view to reform. (9) No. (Question No. 4927) Mr Hodges asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 20 November 1986: (1) Has progress been made towards implementing the revised Home Ownership Assistance Scheme for future members of the Australian Defence Forces as referred to by the Treasurer in his statement made on 14 May 1985; if so, (a) to what extent have plans been developed and (b) when will the Government announce and implement the revised scheme. (2) What sum has been spent on engaging consultants, including Doll Martin Associates and Partnership Pacific, to review the role, functions and performance of the Defence Service Homes Corporation since March 1983. (3) Will the Minister provide the House with the results of the Partnership Pacific survey. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The Minister for Defence has advised that: (a) The revised Home Ownership Assistance Scheme for members of the Australian Defence Force entering service after 14 May 1985 has been discussed between the Departments concerned with its development and a number of options have been identified. These options are now to be considered in detail. (b) The Government will not be in a position to announce details of the scheme until the matter has been fully considered. It is expected that details will be resolved and the necessary steps taken for implementation this year. (2) The Defence Service Homes Corporation paid Doll Martin Associates Pty Ltd $211,947 for consultancy services between February 1984 and September 1985. The Consultant advised the Corporation on the process of corporate planning, prepared a complete data model of the Corporation's information requirements, identified suitable ADP equipment for various operational options under consideration at the time and conducted a survey of ADP sites to formulate measures to extend the operating life of existing equipment. Partnership Pacific Limited was not engaged by the Defence Service Homes Corporation: it was commissioned by the Government in June 1985 to survey private sector interest in, and to identify issues associated with, the intention to seek the involvement of financial institutions in the funding and management of the Defence Service Homes Scheme. The payments to Partnership Pacific Limited amounted to $61,454. (3) The Minister for Finance has provided the following advice: The Government is not in a position to release the July 1985 Partnership Pacific Limited report referred to for the following reasons: (i) disclosure of the document would involve the disclosure of deliberations of the Cabinet which have not been officially published, (ii) disclosure of the document would unreasonably affect organisations in respect of their lawful business, commercial or financial affairs, (iii) disclosure of the document could reasonably be expected to prejudice the future supply of information to the Commonwealth, and (iv) disclosure of the document would constitute a breach of confidence between the Commonwealth, the consultants and the persons and organisations consulted in the preparation of the report. (Question No. 5003) Mr Hodges asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 17 February 1987: (1) What word processing or computer equipment has been introduced into the Minister's Department and statutory authorities responsible to the Minister since 1982. (2) Why was the equipment purchased and were any specific targets set in terms of time or cost savings and improved efficiencies. (3) What has been the cost of purchasing the equipment. (4) Has the introduction of the equipment necessitated the purchase of new office equipment; if so, what have been the costs of the additional purchases. (5) Has the introduction of the equipment led to changes in work practices; if so, what has been the nature of the changes. (6) What has been the incidence of repetition strain injury (RSI) in the Minister's Department since 1982. (7) How many lost working days have been caused by RSI related illnesses since 1982. (8) How many persons have been forced to retire from the Minister's Department or statutory authorities responsible to the Minister as a result of RSI and what have been the compensation costs of this early retirement. (9) Has introduction of the equipment (a) saved money and (b) improved efficiency in the Minister's Department or the statutory authorities responsible to the Minister. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Since 1982 the Department and statutory authorities under the control of the Attorney-General have introduced a range of word processing and other computer based equipment to assist in the achievement of their objectives. Summarised, the equipment introduced consists of: a Fujitsu M200 mainframe in the Central Office of the Department; Wang VS minicomputer systems for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions; Hewlett Packard 3000 series systems in the Family Court, Commonwealth Reporting Service, Film Censorship Board and Official Receivers' Offices; Burroughs minicomputer and microcomputer systems in the Offices of the Australian Government Solicitor; Wang word processing systems for the Department's Central Office and several authorities; digital word processing systems in the Federal Court and AAT; and a range of IBM computers for Legal Aid functions (2) The equipment was purchased as a means of providing more effective services. The equipment is used for such purposes as: Legal information systems which provide an important tool for legal research and are extensively used by Government agencies and the private legal profession. Operational systems to improve efficiency and effectiveness in administrative and operational functions in particular areas such as court administration, censorship, litigation support, case management and word processing facilities. Management information systems as an aid to departmental management in areas such as: registry ministerial correspondence monitoring of freedom of information requests statistical systems relating to portfolio activities human resource monitoring. It is the Department's policy to undertake a cost/effectiveness analysis as part of the evaluation of proposals to introduce computer based equipment. The evaluation includes an assessment of the benefits of the proposed system including cost savings and improved service standards. (3) Expenditure on word processing and computer equipment from 1 July 1982 to 31 January 1987 totalled $15,371,000. (4) New office equipment that has been purchased as a direct result of the introduction of word processing and other computer equipment consists primarily of ergonomic furniture. The cost of this equipment purchased since 1982 is not readily available and could not be established without a substantial commitment of resources. (5) There have been changes to work practices, for example compulsory rest breaks and eyesight testing have been introduced for operators of screen based equipment. A number of improved work practices have become feasible using the new equipment, for example, a reduced quantity of original keying. (6) 420 cases of repetition strain injury have been reported. (7) 29,696 days. (8) Since 1982 13 persons have been retired due to RSI related medical conditions. Compensation costs of $92,242 have been incurred by the Department. (9) (a) The Department's experience is that the introduction of word processing and computer equipment has generally improved productivity and effected savings compared to the costs that would have been involved in the provision of equivalent services using manual methods. (b) The introduction of the equipment has improved efficiency within the Attorney-General's portfolio. Non-quantifiable savings and benefits may be summarised as follows: improved customer service; more accurate and timely information; elimination of duplication and reduction of onerous and repetitive activities; generation of more informative, accurate and timely statistics; the ability to cater for peak loads. (Question No. 5036) Mr Tim Fischer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 17 February 1987: (1) Did the Minister's Department provide a team of officers to be at the various airports and centres visited by His Holiness during the 1986 Papal Tour; if so, (a) were there 12 officers in the team, (b) what were the duties of each officer, (c) from which location was each officer, (c) from which location was each officer drawn and (d) what was the estimated cost of this aspect of departmental support for the tour. (2) With the exception of Alice Springs, was a team of this size fully justified, given staffing resources of the Minister's Department available at all airports visited by His Holiness. (3) Who was the senior officer of the Minister's Department who approved details of this particular departmental activity. Mr Young —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a) (b) and (c) During the Papal Tour of Australia in 1986, close personal protection for His Holiness was provided by two teams of 12 officers each, drawn from the eight Australian police forces (three from each force) and organised on a national basis; and (d) the funds for air and ground transport and allowances for the 24 officers were provided by the Commonwealth through the Standing Advisory Committee on Commonwealth/State Co-operation for Protection Against Violence at an estimated cost of $51,000. (2) Yes, given protective security assessments, the importance of the visitor, and the magnitude and duration of the tour. (3) The concept of the combined close personal protection groups was agreed to by all State and Territory Police Commissioners and was endorsed by the Australian Government. (Question No. 5046) Mr Jacobi asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 17 February 1987: (1) Further to his answer to my question No. 3254 (Hansard, 30 April 1986, page 2823), have regulations in regard to the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction been completed; if so, on what date will the Convention enter into force for Australia. (2) Further to his answer to part (3) of my question No. 3, (Hansard, 19 April 1985, page 1544), what progress has been made by other countries towards ratifying the Convention. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. The regulations are the Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations (No. 85 of 1986). The necessary document for ratification by Australia was lodged at the Hague on October 1986. The Convention entered into force for Australia on 1 January 1987. It might be of interest to the honourable member that 2 cases of children abducted to Australia have already been reported under the Convention. One was from France and the other from the United Kingdom. In one case the child has already be located and returned. There has not yet been any use of the Convention in respect of children abducted from Australia. (2) Apart from Australia, France, Canada, Switzerland, Portugal, United Kingdom and Luxembourg have ratified the Convention and it is in operation in respect of them. Hungary has also ratified the Convention but the necessary procedural steps for the operation of the Convention between Hungary and Australia have not been completed. It will be three months after the completion of those steps that the Convention will apply between Hungary and Australia.