Monday, 11 May 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m. and read prayers. Madam SPEAKER —It is with deep regret that I inform the House of the death on Friday, 8 May 1987, of His Excellency Sir James Plimsoll, AC, CBE, the Governor of Tasmania. As a mark of respect to the memory of Sir James, I invite honourable members to rise in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places- Madam SPEAKER —I thank the House. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Prime Minister to reports over the weekend that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has revised down its growth forecast for the industrial countries this year to only 2.5 per cent. Is he also aware that the International Monetary Fund recently revised down its forecast for growth in the industrial countries in 1987 to only 2.3 per cent, the second downward revision in the past six months? Does this recent deterioration in world growth prospects mean that Australian export growth will be weaker, and hence the current account deficit higher, than would otherwise be the case? Does it also mean that, for any given interest rate-exchange rate mix, greater cuts in government expenditure will now be required in 1987-88 than were previously contemplated by the Government? Finally, have these more pessimistic scenarios of the IMF and the OECD been accounted for in determining the size and nature of expenditure cuts to be announced by the Treasurer on Wednesday night? Mr HAWKE —It is not surprising that the Leader of the Opposition who, earlier this year, or maybe at the end of last year, gloated at the fact that the times would suit him when he saw Australia's adverse economic circumstances, imposed from outside, is now seeking comfort in some reported downgrading of the expectations of the level of world economic activity. Of course, the case is now, as it is always, that this Government makes its decisions in formulating its budgetary and other elements of macroeconomic policy, both in terms of the domestic environment and of what is happening internationally. It is true, generally speaking, that if there is a lower level of activity in the world generally, that will provide a lower level of demand for exports than will be the case if there is a higher level of activity. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that the Government, in formulating the judgments that will be reflected in the May statement and then in the Budget later this year, as it has consistently done since it has been in office, will make those decisions, both on the expenditure outlay side and on the revenue side, which are necessary to do what we have done; that is, in the first place to rescue this country from the economic devastation to which the honourable gentleman's policies reduced it, and, secondly, successfully to meet the external circumstances that have been imposed on us since the end of 1985. Mr CHYNOWETH —Will the Prime Minister inform the House of the Government's response to the vote taken by the joint sitting of the Tasmanian Parliament last Friday? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for Dunkley for his question. I would point out the simple and unarguable fact that the actions of the Tasmanian Government represent a failure on its part to ensure that Tasmanians are adequately represented in the Senate. To that extent, it is a serious dereliction of its constitutional responsibilities. Delaying a resolution of this matter until July simply means that as a result of the action of the Tasmanian Government, the people of Tasmania will be denied their full representation in the Parliament of the Commonwealth. The proper action that should be taken by the Tasmanian Government is to accept the nominee of the Tasmanian branch of the Australian Labor Party, which, of course, is precisely the course that has been followed on every occasion-I remind the honourable member that there are 13 of them-since the Australian people voted overwhelmingly in 1977 to effect this change in the Constitution. It is significant, I would suggest, that that constitutional amendment in 1977 was made necessary because of the hypocrisy of the conservative parties in this country. What we witnessed was the great hypocrisy of the conservative parties, which are always the advocates of law, order and convention-the Liberals in New South Wales and the National Party, under Bjelke-Petersen, in Queensland-which have flouted the constitutional convention that had operated since 1901 by not appointing to the Senate replacements from the Labor Party in those instances. That constitutional vandalism in New South Wales by the Liberals and in Queensland by the National Party culminated in the ultimate constitutional vandalism by the combined conservative parties in this place in November 1975. Because the people were tired of that constitutional vandalism by the conservatives, they voted overwhelmingly in 1977 to change the Constitution. On the 13 occasions since then, the course which was envisaged explicitly by the people of Australia has been followed. This renewal of constitutional vandalism by the Tasmanian Premier for purely parochial reasons has been strongly condemned not only by this Government but also, I am pleased to say, by the Leader of the National Party. Where we have had strong condemnation by everyone else, what have we had from the Leader of the Opposition? As one would expect, he has made some feeble utterances, not having the guts to come out and condemn his Liberal colleague in Tasmania. The sad fact is that the Leader of the Opposition, as we know, is not only lacking in policies and principles but also increasingly, as in this case, he has been revealed as having a total lack of authority in his own party. Mr BLUNT —My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. Is it a fact that in November 1985 the Government withdrew income earnings concessions for pensioners and that in February 1986 pensioners were promised a new, fair and simpler system? Is it a fact that since then the Hawke Government has deferred the poverty traps reduction measures affecting pensioners, has extended income averaging concessions to sports people and performers, has given some tax relief to wage and salary earners, and has deferred consumer price index adjustments for pensioners? In view of the obvious low priority the Hawke Government attaches to the needs of pensioners, when can they expect the new, fair and simpler income earnings scheme promised by the Minister? Mr HOWE —It reflects on the ignorance of the honourable member for Richmond that he should suggest in any way that this Government has failed to protect the interests of pensioners, despite the extraordinarily difficult economic circumstances this country has faced while we have been in office. Opposition members often forget their mismanagement of the economy. They often forget the enormous cost of unemployment which they bequeathed to this Government and the massive growth that occurred in the number of welfare beneficiaries, not during our time in government but during their time in government, which added very significantly to the cost of social security. In terms of this Government's stewardship we have nothing to apologise for. We have been prepared to take some quite hard decisions. We have been prepared to take decisions that restrict eligibility for pensions and benefits for people with considerable assets. That sticks in the throat of the honourable member who asked the question because he knows that the coalition parties have not been prepared to face those tough decisions. One of the most significant achievements of this Government is that it has recognised the special needs of pensioner and beneficiary families with children. We have been prepared, in the difficult circumstances we have faced, not only to look at where we can save money but also to redirect resources particularly to very low income families. The House does not need to be reminded, but I will remind it, of the very significant increases that have occurred in not only the mothers/guardians allowance but also the additional payments by 70 per cent for children of pensioners and beneficiaries and the introduction and raising by 70 per cent of the family income supplement. In terms of the coming May statement, to which no doubt the honourable member refers, let me say again that the theme in every step of this Government's management of the economy is to ensure that there is some fairness and that the interests of people on very low incomes are protected. Without giving anything away about the May statement, people looking at the record of this Government will have every confidence that the statement, which must be a very hard statement to achieve the result that is necessary in terms of the economy, will have fairness written into it. The honourable member referred to incentives and the need to build into the social security system measures which provide incentives for people to get back into the work force, particularly people of work force age, as early as possible. That is a theme which the Government is very well aware of. Notwithstanding the current difficult economic circumstances, in which we must place the greatest emphasis on the greatest need, we are also mindful of the need to provide incentives which will help people to move off pensions and benefits and back into the paid work force as quickly as possible. Mr LEE —Is the Minister for Aviation aware of media reports that the fourth round of talks on the Australia-United States air agreement has been unsuccessful in preventing American carriers from dumping surplus capacity on the Pacific route? Are these reports correct? If so, what action does the Government intend to take to ensure that Australia's national interests are protected from the predatory tactics of United Airline Inc. and Continental Airlines? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question and commend him for the very keen interest he takes in the important area of aviation policy. There have been a number of reports as to the outcome of the negotiations with the United States last week. I say at the outset that these discussions have been going on for a long period. There have been four rounds of talks. Really, we have a David and Goliath situation-the David being Australia's international air service operator and the Goliath being the two global giants of the United States of America. The two Uuited States airlines are the two largest airlines in the world, with the exception of Aeroflot. Australia has been seeking to develop a fair, sensible set of arrangements that will overcome the heavy bias and partiality that exists in the 40-year-old agreement in the favour of the United States. We have not sought any decrease in capacity, as has been wrongly reported, and we have not sought to prevent services being provided to Australia. We are simply saying: `This agreement was drawn up in the aftermath of World War II. We think it is high time that we looked at the provisions of that agreement and the adjustments that have been made since then to ensure some fairness for Australia's own industry and to ensure that we are providing adequate services for people who want to visit Australia and travel to the United States'. Australia is not alone in this problem with the United States. Other South Pacific nations have had a similar problem with the United States airlines. They are watching very closely what happens in Australia's negotiations with the United States. We are seeking to have some type of safety valve arrangement inserted into the agreement for future capacity in those services. I make that point very clear to the honourable member. Despite what may have been said or implied in some of the US reports or statements or the local reports, there has been no alteration in the level of capacity or attempts to change the level of capacity being provided. Continental Airlines Inc. some weeks ago sought to replace its DC10 aircraft with 747 aircraft-aircraft for aircraft. That would have meant a 60 per cent increase in one hit in the number of seats it provides across the Pacific. We already have more than 10 empty jumbos flying across the Pacific each week and somebody has to pay. Continental Airlines uses only about a third of its capacity to bring people direct from the United States to Australia. That is the background to its situation. In the talks last week that followed months of intransigency and stubbornness by the United States, we gave notice of termination of the 1980 memorandum of understanding. The effect of that is to say that if we want to add new capacity on to the Australian-United States route, we need to sit down together and talk about it. That is all that has been done. I would like to bring to the attention of the Parliament the reaction from the United States which I find, in a way, offensive to all Australians. But we should bear in mind that the kind of debate we are having with the United States, the kind of negotiations in trying to achieve some fair and sensible arrangements in air services, is the same kind of debate that is going on in our agricultural export market. As the United States operates in a manner that obviously has little regard for our primary produce exports, similarly it does so in this area. The United States in its statement on Saturday-apart from the inaccuracies which I will not take the time of the House to detail as I can do so individually-concludes with this paragraph: In the United States view, the Australian government has created a crisis in United States-Australian aviation relations. I have explained that that is nonsense. It continues: Given Australia's limitation on airline service levels, the United States must now consider the need for appropriate action in response. That is clearly intimidatory. It is clearly a threat of retaliatory action. I say again to the House: The provision within the existing agreement and arrangements wrote in the process that we exercised in the discussions last week. That process was written into the agreement because clearly at the time it was anticipated that a situation might arise some time in the future where there could be disagreement and there would be some appropriate course to follow. All that Australia's negotiators have done, and the Australian Government resolved last week, is decide that we will exercise the rights provided to us in the terms of that 1980 memorandum of understanding. We are quite happy to talk. We look forward to further discussions with the United States, but I underline the fundamental requirement-what we want on behalf of Australia is some fair, sensible set of arrangements with some safety valve provision in it to stop Australia's own services being swamped by airline services being dumped in this region of the world. We want the opportunity to develop those services to the betterment of the Australian tourist industry and for all Australians. Mr PORTER —I refer the Prime Minister to the figures released yesterday by the Real Estate Institute of Australia showing that average home loan repayments in Australia have increased by a staggering $281 a month under the Hawke Government, from $350 per month in the March quarter of 1983 to $631 per month in the December quarter 1986. Given that the Prime Minister's 1984 Australian Labor Party policy speech contained the pledge to bring home ownership within the reach of ordinary Australians, I ask: What excuse does the Prime Minister offer Australian families for this massive increase in the cost of home ownership? Mr HAWKE —At the outset I remind the honourable gentleman again of the correspondence that I read to the House last week from the Housing Industry Association, which said, quite simply, that the Association and its 16,000 members owed a debt of gratitude to this Government-and that was very correct. I suggest that the Housing Industry Association could speak with more authority in this area than could the honourable member who asked the question which indicated his jaundiced views. However, directing myself to the question that the honourable member asked, I must say that in interpreting the statistics that were released on Sunday, to which he referred, it is important to note that the increase in the so-called affordability index over the course of 1986 has been substantially overstated, and let me explain to the honourable member, if he will listen, why that is so. It has been substantially overstated because the banks stopped rationing loans after our April 1986 package, which means that borrowers no longer have to top up their traditional mortgage from other sources. For example, the Australian Bankers Association says that proper accounting for so-called cocktail loans would more than halve the published growth of the average loan size, on which, I remind the honourable member, the affordability index is based. Moreover, new home borrowers on medium incomes have now received the benefit of a tax cut worth $10.30 a week. As I have explained on a number of occasions in this House, the fact is that interest rates have had to be kept high so that Australia could adjust its internal economic operations to the fact that we have had $9 billion wiped off our national economic capacity. In this respect not only would the honourable gentleman who asked the question but also the Leader of the Opposition do well to take a lesson from, of all people, the Premier of Queensland-who has got this right if not much else. I remind the honourable gentleman and the Leader of the Opposition of what the Premier of Queensland said about this question of interest rates. His comments were reported in the Bulletin of 31 March this year. He said: You can't force interest rates down arbitrarily. You can't do that because it would be a disaster. I will say this to the honourable member for Maranoa: You can take some comfort that he has got something right at least; he is absolutely right in that regard. The fact is that this Government is taking the necessary steps to create the condition within which a sustainable fall in interest rates can occur. We have addressed ourselves to the longer term questions of the restructuring of Australian industry to give it a more diversified export orientation. We have taken, and will continue to take, those steps which are necessary to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement as a proportion of the gross domestic product and, as honourable members will find when my colleague the Treasurer brings in his statement on Wednesday night, further substantial steps will be taken in that direction. I had hoped that there would be some joy on the other side of the House, although I doubt it, in noticing that these policies are already bearing fruit. Since mid-February official yields have fallen 3 percentage points for the shorter maturities and 1 1/2 percentage points for 10-year bonds. The major bank prime rates are down by up to three quarters of a point, to 17 1/2 per cent, with some banks edging lower. I also remind the honourable member that the Civic Advance Bank Ltd and Citibank Ltd have announced lower mortgage rates. For all these reasons I and my colleagues in government are cautiously optimistic of further falls in the general level of interest rates. Insofar as the record of this Government is concerned in making housing available for the people of Australia, we have an extremely solid record of achievement which stacks up so much better than anything to the Opposition was ever able to do. I remind the House of those facts. There has been a 42 per cent real increase in public housing funds. By June of this year we will have enabled the best part of a quarter of a million home owners to be assisted into home ownership by the first home owners scheme. Also the honourable gentleman should recall that the latest package includes a wide eligibility for the FHOS and it also includes measures to release up to $900m of savings bank funds for housing. That is what we have done in housing, significantly a better record than anything the Opposition was able to do. We make no apologies for the fact that high interest rates have been necessary during the last year to meet the economic crisis imposed from outside on this country. I bring it all together by saying that a body which knows something about housing in this country, the Housing Industry Association, which is able to speak with authority on this issue, makes the comment directly to us that it and its 16,000 members owe a debt of gratitude to this Government for the nature of its housing policies. It is an informed judgment. It is a correct judgment. Mr CUNNINGHAM —I address my question to the Minister for Primary Industry. Has the Minister seen ongoing reports of legislation before the Congress of the United States of America relating to lamb imports? What is the Minister's understanding of the current state of play and the possible impact on our lamb exports? Mr KERIN —As honourable members would know, the procedures in the United States Congress are very complex and the situation at present is particularly complicated. The Congress is going very protectionist in a range of areas, not all of which are related to agriculture. I think that the way the Congress is going, the mood of the Congress and the imbalance between Japan and the United States, is of concern to all of us here, not just to farmers. For quite some time the Minister for Trade and I have been monitoring some 21 Bills and amendments that are progressing through the Congress. One of the major Bills is the Trade Bill, which has now just got through and on which there was considerable debate, with many congressmen attaching various amendments and requirements. Eventually a compromise was reached between the Ways and Means Committee and the Rules Committee and that Bill finally passed by about 290 votes to 137, and that included the Gephardt amendment, which has caused so much concern not just in Australia but everywhere. That Gephardt amendment passed by 218 votes to 214 and therefore it is considered that it does not have enough support for any subsequent veto override. There were quite a few amendments of direct concern to Australian farmers. One was an amendment by a Mr Jack, I think it was, a Buy American requirement. That was defeated. There was another one by Mr Michel, which combined various elements of Buy American and the Gephardt requirement and that was also defeated. Most importantly, an amendment by Republican congressman Smith from Oregon, to bring lamb within the meat import law, was removed by the compromise between the two committees I referred to earlier. The compromise is that the Secretary of Agriculture will report back to Congress by 1 June on the effect of lamb imports into the United States. The United States and Canadian lamb producers are strongly backing their congressmen and members. They believe that Australian and New Zealand exports to North America are affecting their production. However, I think that the figures show quite clearly that we are not filling even half of the gap provided by the decline in production in the United States. We could really act together to complement each other-we could complement the work of the lamb producers in Australia and New Zealand and in the United States and Canada to develop lamb markets in those countries. Indeed, the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation has put forward that proposition. Every effort has been made by the Minister for Trade, Mr Dawkins, to make our views known on this matter. We have been in regular contact with the Administration and also, to the extent that we can, with key congressmen and movers of the various motions. The current pos- ition is that the Secretary of Agriculture has invited people from Australia and New Zealand to a meeting on 21 May to discuss the whole question. Mr Austin and Mr Frawley of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation will be attending. The Minister for Trade and I have recently had an opportunity to discuss the matter with Ministers Wise and Carney from Canada. Mr SHARP —I direct my question to the Minister for Communications. Is the Minister aware of the concern expressed recently by both the Iranian and Russian governments about the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program The Dingo Principle? Have those governments expressed an intent to cut valuable trade between themselves and Australia as a result of that program? The Minister will know that Australia's combined trade with those countries is an immense $1,274.7m, representing 4 per cent of Australia's total export income during 1985-86. How much does that program cost the taxpayers of Australia? Is it true that its audience rating is pathetically low? Has the ABC done a cost-benefit analysis of The Dingo Principle? In the light of its poor ratings and potentially disastrous effects on the Australian economy, will the ABC axe it altogether and provide something that the viewing audience wants to watch? Mr DUFFY —I thank the honourable member for Gilmore for his question. He has not been a member for the whole of the past four years, so I reiterate that programming is a matter for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. I have not sought to become involved in the issue; it would be wholly inappropriate for me to do so. I draw the attention of honourable members to some of the points that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Managing Director, Mr David Hill, made on 6 May. He said that the Corporation had not at that stage received a complaint from the Russian Embassy-he was referring to that particular episode of The Dingo Principle-and that while Press reports said that the Russian Embassy had protested to the Australian Government about the program, it needed to be understood that the ABC was completely independent from government in program matters. The interesting aspect is the final point made by the ABC's Managing Director-that it was completely independent from government in programming matters. That was probably clearly misunderstood, having regard to the last part of the honourable member's question. As I have said in this House on many occasions, on this sort of issue members of the public, members of this House, the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition are entitled to complain about any program about which they are concerned. The point that I wish to make, which I have made over and over again-and it is a position from which I do not propose to shift under any circumstances-is that I have not contacted the ABC about this matter, and neither has anyone on my behalf, and I do not intend to do so. Mrs DARLING —I direct my question to the Minister for Social Security. I refer the Minister to the vaunted cuts of more than $2 billion in social security related expenditure proposed by the Centre of Policy Studies at Monash University. What would be the implications of such expenditure cuts if they were, in fact, implemented? Mr HOWE —I thank the honourable member for a very pertinent question. I think that almost all national commentators who reflect on this Parliament have noticed that the Opposition that currently sits opposite is probably the weakest we have seen in the history of the Commonwealth. The Government for some time has made no secret of the fact that there would be a mini-Budget statement in May and that it would involve some very tough measures. It has not been beyond the Opposition to do some barracking in relation to that. Essentially, that is all it is; only barracking. When we ask the Opposition rather more specifically for some coaching in relation to the particular areas that it regards as requiring attention and to what extent it would want to go, we get absolute silence. We get no specific suggestions. We have to look outside the Parliament at some of the surrogates for the Opposition. One area is certainly the Centre of Policy Studies, which has been carrying out some major work in terms of how it would seek to advise the Opposition-an Opposition that never makes its own position clear, for example, about taxation-to achieve a 30 per cent taxation rate. It says that to achieve that would require about $12 billion of cuts. When most commentators on national Bud- gets talk about cuts they talk about the area of social expenditure and the social wage. Clearly the highest priority talked about is the abolition of Medicare, and it is said that that would save about $7 billion; that sounds a bit like abolishing the health system. In terms of social security, a figure of more than $2 billion of savings is proposed. Interestingly, the approach is to target those groups that one might regard as the poorest groups existing within the social security system. It is one thing to talk about the young unemployed, but a cut of $400m is also proposed. That would be achieved by reducing the level of unemployment benefit by 25 per cent after six months. That proposition would seek to attack the already low living standards of people, many of them aged people in their late 50s and early 60s, to achieve a quite significant and vulgar reduction of those people's living standards. The Centre of Policy Studies, taking something of a cue from the National Party, believes that the other major group that needs to be assaulted is sole parents. Mr Ian Cameron —Hear, hear! Mr HOWE —The honourable member for Maranoa says: `Oh, yes'. His attitude to sole parents is on record. He said in this place that the married people get sick and tired of what is going on. He said: `I have four children and I am sick and tired of working my guts out'-not that we have noticed-`and paying taxes which are used to support unmarried mothers'. Mr Reith —I take a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is the second long-winded answer we have had from this Minister during Question Time today. It is an abuse of Question Time and I seek your direction-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I find the Minister in order. Mr HOWE —So the honourable member for Maranoa singles out sole parents, who every commentator on welfare in this country says represent the poorest group. That group is targeted by the Centre of Policy Studies. It wants $340m taken out of the payments made to sole parents. Similarly, it considers the possibility of the abolition of family allowances, a program of considerable significance to low income families, as well as a number of other changes. It seems to me that it is one thing for an academic organisation to put out these kinds of proposals on behalf of various business organisations that seem very reluctant to pay the bill, but it is also incumbent on the Opposition to indicate where it stands. No matter what one may say about the Opposition, we know and the people of Australia know that it lacks any compassion and any feeling for low income families. Mr RUDDOCK —My question is to the Minister for Housing and Construction. I refer him to the figures released yesterday by the Real Estate Institute of Australia which show that average home loan repayments have increased by $281 per month under the Hawke Government. Does this massive increase in the cost of home ownership help to explain why rental vacancies have fallen to record lows in several capital cities, why housing rents have increased markedly faster than the consumer price index, why the number of home loans in arrears for more than four months has nearly doubled over the past year, and why public housing waiting lists have risen to record high levels? When can Australian families, currently suffering under the economic and taxation policies of this Government, expect some moderation in both the cost and availability of housing? Mr WEST —The first thing to say is that I and the industry organisations-that is, the Housing Industry Association and the Australian Bankers Association-have some doubts about the figures in the survey released yesterday by the Real Estate Institute of Australia. I believe, and on this point I am supported by the Housing Industry Association, that the figures are highly exaggerated. What is more, the survey was conducted before the recent 30 March housing package was released. To be specific, the recent housing package pegged the old savings bank rate once again at 13 1/2 per cent. There are 900,000-odd savings bank loans involved in that. For those people currently paying 15 1/2 per cent-that is, those seeking new loans-we have increased the income limit for the first home owners scheme, which will assist about 26,000 families. Of course, that means that they will not be paying the full interest rate because it will be subsidised. They will also be assisted with a lump sum to help to meet the deposit gap. Furthermore, low start loans will continue to be available for those who require them. People will be able to seek a low start loan from, for example, the Commonwealth Bank or Westpac Banking Corporation with early repayments on a loan of $50,000 of $522 per month and $568 per month respectively instead of $676 per months at an interest rate of 15 1/2 per cent. That is a very substantial concession for which people can apply. As far as interest rates are concerned, it is well known that the May economic statement will be outlined by the Treasurer on Wednesday. When one adds that statement's contribution to the already tight fiscal policy that this Government is implementing, takes into account recent downward trends in the current account deficit, and the fact that, as the Prime Minister mentioned today, short term interest rates, as exemplified by bank bill rates, are now down to 14.6 per cent, one will see after Wednesday that that downward trend in interest rates will continue and in due course will be reflected by a downward trend in housing interest rates. Before I conclude my answer, let me point out that the question of the honourable member opposite referred to the state of play with regard to public housing waiting lists. As the Prime Minister said today, we have directed record sums into public housing expenditure and the States have matched those funds to a certain extent. As a result of that, we have been able to more than double the number of acquisitions of rental stock per year. The Opposition, while complaining about numbers on public housing waiting lists, at the same time advocates the abolition of all Federal funds for public housing. I have said before that the Opposition will be guilty of the most extreme hypocrisy and contradiction if it complains about the numbers on the waiting lists while at the same time advocating the abolition of public housing funding by this Government. Mr Ruddock —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. Under the appropriate standing order, I ask the Minister to table the documents from which he was reading. Madam SPEAKER —Was the Minister reading from a private, confidential document? Mr WEST —I was reading from a private document and quoting from my own personal notes. Mr WRIGHT —I ask the Minister for Trade whether he can advise the House of the extent of the implications, for coal exports from Queensland, for the number of people who rely on the industry for their livelihood, and the devastating effect on the Australian economy, if such coal exports were to be terminated by capricious actions, particularly by the Queensland National Party State Government. Mr DAWKINS —I thank the honourable member for his question and preface my answer by saying that last week the Leader of the National Party of Australia-I see that he is not here today-introduced a matter of public importance in the Parliament, expressing his concern about the domestic policy issues which were impacting on export industries. I was able to point out to him on that occasion, and do so again today, that the biggest threat to our greatest export industry is a domestic policy issue-that is, the policy of the National Party in Queensland. The Queensland coal industry is very important. There were $3.2 billion worth of exports last year. It employs directly 10,000 people and another 32,000 indirectly. That industry is confronting difficult times. Competition throughout the world is up and prices consequently are down. The challenge for the industry is to maintain its competitive edge. We have been working, through the Australian Coal Consultative Council, to get the parties together to ensure that they do lift their game. Employers and employees do have to lift their game and reduce the extent of disruption which already exists within that industry. Into this environment is tipped the Queensland Government's industrial legislation. It is a quite blatant ploy by Premier Bjelke-Petersen, this rather bumbling and bellicose demagogue, quite deliberately to disrupt this industry. This law is designed to create strikes, not to prevent them. Indeed, we had the absurd spectacle last week of the appropriate Queensland Minister saying that he would not invoke the legislation in respect of a 24-hour strike; he wanted a seven-day strike before he would invoke that legislation. Twenty-four hours is not enough for him; he wants a seven-day strike. We have told the unions, of course, that it would be quite inappropriate for them to engage in industrial action in relation to this matter. Indeed, precipitate strike action would be quite wrong. Reliability of this industry in relation to our export markets is of paramount importance, and any markets lost may not be regained. The unions are expressing their opposition to this law. It is high time that the coal companies themselves came out of hiding and said what they actually believe about this law and express their opposition to it. We know that these companies are subject to intimidation by the Queensland Government. They have the threat of higher coal levies and higher freight rates being held over their heads if they dare to step out of line. However, it is about time the coal companies realised that they can no longer enjoy the luxury of silence. They must express their opposition to the law. It is easy for the Queensland Government to pass stupid laws through its Parliament. It is much more difficult to engage in the hard work, the hard work in which this Government has engaged, to try to improve the circumstances of that industry. We will continue our hard work, but it would be far easier without the caprice which is involved in this legislation. This legislation and its effects, quite simply, must be stopped. Mr WHITE —My question, which is to the Minister for Defence, relates to the Australian submarine project. In view of the great importance of this project to Australia's security and to Australia's defence industry, I ask: Is it true that the director of the submarine project has stated that the German consortium has offered Australia a commercial design which does not reflect the performance or standards required by the German Navy? Does the Minister agree with the project director's assessment? Is it a fact that the German Government and tendering consortium have stated on more than one occasion that the Australian submarine will be built to German and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation naval standards in line with the 24 new German submarines which will be central to the NATO submarine force for years to come? Do those standards meet the requirements of the Australian Navy? Mr BEAZLEY —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. I think that some of the matters which he raised would be more appropriately considered after the tender evaluation process is complete, and, of course, it gets completed with a decision by the Government. It is not my intention to canvass in this place the product of an assessment of some several tonnes of documents by some 300 individuals, the odd bits and pieces of which have, on occasions, been shaken out. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for me to respond to all elements of the question in detail. However, the honourable gentleman has given me an opportunity to make one or two points quite clear. Those points have, I think, been somewhat lost in the public comment to date, but they are points which I have tried to make on a number of occasions. Firstly, we have presented for decision by government two good submarines. The one that we choose will be the most effective long distance conventional submarine in service anywhere. We can look forward with considerable confidence to a maintenance and improvement of what is a very important part of our defence capacity should we choose to go either way. Secondly, it is sometimes lost in the debate on all items of defence equipment in this community that the Australian defence forces are not ignorant buyers. Occasionally one sees in the commentaries that are made an equality of assessment giving the views of the Navy, Army or Air Force on the one hand and that of a tenderer on the other. As far as I am concerned, there is no equality of assessment. The tenderers are interested parties, in a financial sense, when they approach the Government. I require, and any Defence Minister should require, our Navy, Army or Air Force, when assessing an item of equipment, to test every claim that is made against what is put before government for evaluation. As I said before, I do not regard there to be any equality in value of advice that may be given publicly by those doing the assessment and those who are the would-be salesmen. That leads on to an additional point about the quality of any assessment that is made. In regard to this program we are in about the fourth year, effectively, of a source selection process. There is a massive familiarity with what is on offer now, both inside the Department and inside the Navy. With this aspect of the assessment, which has been going on now for some months, over 300 people have participated in the evaluation, both naval and civilian personnel from various functional divisions in Defence, including the Design Branch of the Naval Engineering Division, the Production Branch of the Naval Materiel Division, the Naval Warfare Branch of the Naval Operational Requirements and Plans Division, the Force Development and Analysis Division and the Programs and Budgets Division of Defence central and people from the Capital Procurement Organisation. On top of that, there has been a submission of various aspects of the tender to several defence committees on which are represented members of the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce, the Department of Finance and the Attorney-General's Department. In the document which has finally been submitted to Cabinet there has been the most thoroughgoing analysis and the most unbiased picture that could be presented by what is a very expert service in the use of conventional submarines. So no judgment contained in any point put before the Cabinet has been arrived at by a lackadaisical process. There has been a detailed submission by a group of individuals who are among some of the most patriotic individuals in this country and who are determined to defend an Australian national interest. So I am cheerful enough to reject what purports to be from time to time potentially tainted assertions of what are and are not the opinions of the Navy. The opinions of the Navy and of everybody else will become well known in due course. All I can say about the detail of the honourable gentleman's question to this point is that I am satisfied with the process that has taken place. I am happy with the two submarines that have been offered us. I am happy with the combat systems that have been offered us. I am particularly pleased with the industry package, which is magnificent. I am delighted, too, that as we have come to a very much closer definition of the costs that are involved we have an affordable project, which is important, over the next decade. So what purport to be bits and pieces of what is an enormously complex analysis, which cannot be secured from one particular document or other in this process, and whatever may be people's assumptions about that, taken in their totality, an accurate assessment has been made and, as I said, we are in the fortunate position in Cabinet of being effectively, in our choice, in a no lose situation. Mr MAHER —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Since coming to office, how has the Government transformed and revitalised Australia's economy? Mr HAWKE —I think I thank the honourable member for his question. Given the list of our achievements, I cannot do justice to the question fully but let me just go to one or two features of our achievements. As the House has heard me say before, the first task we had in government was to rescue the country from the worst recession in 50 years which had been bequeathed to us by the Fraser-Howard Government. We did that, but from day one we were not content with just dealing with that immediate situation. We directed our attention to the fundamental task of restructuring the Australian economy. I will remind the honourable member and the House of some of the sectoral plans that we undertook. The immediate and most important was for the steel industry. After seven years of conservative government this country was faced with a situation where the steel industry was going to disappear. We promised a steel industry plan within 100 days and very close to that we produced a steel industry plan which now has resulted in a very competitive steel industry. The steel industry plan has been followed by plans for the motor vehicle production industry, the heavy engineering industry, the ship building industry, the chemicals industry and, of course, the textile, clothing and footwear industry. Those plans have, at all times, been bolstered by the appropriate macroeconomic policies. I do not intend to continue, as I could, at great length on the economic achievements of this Government and the judgments that we make about the success of our policy. I conclude, by summoning all the modesty I can to overcome my natural objections, by referring to what others say about us. It may not have escaped the attention of members opposite that analyses are being undertaken about the economic and political performance of this Government. This was detailed in the Melbourne Press of 4 May in a report of an economic and political analysis undertaken by Frost and Sullivan. The analysis looked at a number of countries around the world, including Australia. I find it difficult to refer to the headings, but I will. The article in the Sun, which is headed `Hawke Best-US report', says that according to the analysis it is quite clear that this Government will win the next election. The article in the Age of the same date is headed `Hawke will win-US analysts'. It is very interesting to see why that analysis is made. Part of the United States analysis is based on the belief that the economic policies that have been undertaken by this Government have been hugely successful. The article also points to another reason why we will win. It states: . . . the Liberal leader's lack of electoral appeal will give the Australian Labor Party the edge. We have a combination of our economic policy which has transformed the Australian economy and, fortunately, as an addition to our own positive achievements, the pathetic spectacle of an opposition led by a man who is increasingly without support within his own Party. Mr HALVERSON —Is the Minister for Social Security aware that as many as seven social security offices in Melbourne are closed to the public on Wednesdays? Is the Minister further aware that the decision has been taken not by his Department, but by a majority of members of the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association in each location? Is the Minister aware that the ludicrous situation exists where a Department of Social Security office with 50 staff, of whom only three are members of the ACOA, will close if two members so decide? Has the Department of Social Security informed the Minister of this situation? If so, what action does the Minister propose to take? Mr HOWE —It is true that social security offices have been closing for certain periods of time, in the sense that the counter is not open to the public, although the offices continue to operate. The reason for that is related to the enormous work load that has been generated as a result of measures taken by this Government to reduce overpayments and to review very large numbers of people. As I indicated to the honourable member for Richmond, to review, as we are currently doing this year, 100,000 people on unemployment benefit, represents a massive investment from a department which is involved in continuing to provide a service to a quite massive population. In fact, the Government makes some 100 million payments each year. As a result of discussions that were held, it was decided to make variations in relation to a questionnaire, which was referred to a week or so ago. It was also decided to experiment for a period of time with a situation in which offices would have a choice of closing the counter for a period of time on one afternoon of each week. That will be for a certain period of time, following which the situation will be evaluated and decisions made about the implications of that. Mr Howard —You agree with that? Mr HOWE —If I might say so, the Opposition cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, it is arguing that we ought to be doing much more by way of reviews, while on the other it is suggesting that that does not have implications in terms of staffing and of the services provided by the Department of Social Security. In my view, the Department continues to provide an excellent service to all its clients, notwithstanding the fact that considerable pressures are being generated by new procedures designed to reduce overpayments. Madam SPEAKER —For the information of honourable members, I present a schedule showing Government responses to House of Representatives and Joint Committee reports for the period 18 November 1986 to 7 May 1987. Order! Will honourable members please take note of the standing order in relation to the conduct of members while the Speaker is on her feet? Copies of the schedule are being made available to honourable members and it will be incorporated in Hansard. The schedule read as follows- HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND JOINT COMMITTEE REPORTS-GOVERNMENT RESPONSES FOR THE PERIOD 18 NOVEMBER 1986 TO 7 MAY 1987 AND OUTSTANDING RESPONSES TO REPORTS PRESENTED FROM 1980 Title of report Date Presented Date of Response Response within time specified(a) Aboriginal Affairs (House, Standing) Asbestos mining-effects on the Baryulgil Community... 9.10.84 25.11.86 No Aboriginal Education (House, Select)... 26.11.85 nrtd(b) No Aircraft Noise (House, Select)... 28.11.85 nrtd(b) No Australian Capital Territory (Joint, Standing) Hospitality in the ACT... 25.11.86 nrtd No Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings (Joint, Standing) Televising and radio broadcasting of both Houses of Parliament and their committees... 4.6.86 nrtd(b) No Electoral Reform (Joint, Select) Report No. 2-The operation during the 1984 General Election of the 1983-84 amendments to Commonwealth electoral legislation... 17.2.87 1.4.87 Yes Environment and Conservation (House, Standing) Environment Protection-Adequacy of Legislative and Administrative Arrangements-Second Report... 27.10.81 nrtd(b) No(d) Hazardous chemicals First Report... 29.4.82 nrtd(b) No(d) Second Report... 9.12.82 nrtd(b) -(d) Protection of the Greater Daintree... 24.8.84 nrtd(b) No Protection of Bungle Bungle... 28.3.85 nrtd(b) No Protection of the Great Barrier Reef... 12.11.85 nrtd(b) No New South Wales World Heritage properties Commonwealth/State administrative arrangements... 26.11.85 nrtd(b) No Relocation of Naval Facilities to Jervis Bay... 7.10.86 25.2.87 Yes(g) Namadgi National Park... 14.10.86 nrtd No Ranger Uranium-Water Management System... 16.10.86 nrtd No Fiscal measures and the achievement of environmental objectives... 19.2.87 (c) (c) Expenditure (House, Standing) Control of prohibited immigration by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs... 13.11.85 nrtd(b) No The Darling Harbour fiasco... 27.11.85 nrtd(b) No Civil Coastal surveillance Co-ordination... 3.6.86 nrtd(b) No Meteorological Services... 3.6.86 nrtd(b) No Commonwealth Assistance to the Arts... 18.9.86 nrtd No Review of 5 Auditor-General's Efficiency Audit reports into the Australian Taxation Office... 11.11.86 16.2.87 Yes(g) Telecom's zonal and charging policies in rural and remote areas... 20.11.86 (k) No Review of the Auditor-General's efficiency audit report on the control over manpower and property by the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia)... 20.11.86 20.2.87 Yes Review of the Auditor-General's efficiency audit report into construction project management practised by the Department of Housing and Construction... 23.3.87 (c) (c) Foreign Affairs and Defence (Joint, Standing) Australia and the Philippines... 20.11.86 nrtd No Disarmament and Arms Control in the Nuclear Age... 25.11.86 nrtd(h) No A Visit to Papua New Guinea... 27.11.86 nrtd No National Crime Authority (Joint, Standing) Second Report... 27.11.86 26.2.87 Yes New Parliament House (Joint, Standing) Precincts of the new Parliament House and the Parliamentary zone... 28.11.85 nrtd(b) No Certain aspects of the New Parliament House project... 27.11.86 nrtd No Report relating to the Parliamentary Zone Development Plan and proposed works in the Parliamentary Zone ... 2.4.87 (c) (c) Parliamentary Privilege (Joint, Standing) ... 3.10.84 (i) No Procedure (House, Standing) Alternative opportunities for Member to concisely address the House (First) ... 23.5.85 (e) . . Days and hours of sitting and the effective use of the time of the House (Second) ... 29.5.86 nrtd(b) No The standing orders and practices which govern the conduct of Question Time (Third) ... 27.11.86 nrtd No Publications (Joint, Standing) Review of the cost and distribution of the Parliament Papers Series ... 26.11.86 nrtd No Telecommunications Interception (Joint, Standing) ... 20.11.86 (j) No Transport Safety (House, Standing) (f) Passenger Coach Safety ... 4.6.86 27.11.86 No Sports aviation safety ... 24.2.87 (c) (c) Notes: nrtd-no response to date (a) the time specified by Government is now 3 months from the presentation of the report-S.Deb (24.8.83) 141. (b) the Government reported progress in the preparation of responses on 18.2.87. (c) the 3 month period for response has not expired. (d) the Government said its commitment to more prompt responses does not apply to reports presented in previous Parliaments-S.Deb (15.12.83) 3853. (e) on 29.11.85 the Government said the report had to be considered in the context of the effective use of the time of the House which the committee was currently inquiring into. (f) includes reports of the former Road Safety Committee. (g) 1986-87 summer adjournment excluded from calculation of response period. (h) Interim response on 17.3.87. (i) Legislation introduced by Presiding Officers (7.10.86, 19.3.87), supported by Government, proposed resolution tabled in each House. (j) Legislation introduced on 30.4.87. (k) Interim response on 1.5.87. Sources: Unless otherwise indicated, Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence) —Pursuant to sub-sections 10 (3) and 10A (2) of the Royal Australian Air Force Veterans' Residences Act 1953, I present the annual report of the Royal Australian Air Force Veterans' Residences Trust for 1985-86, together with the Auditor-General's report and audited statement of assets and liabilities, statement of activity and statement of sources and applications of funds for the trust fund. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —Pursuant to sub-section 31 (3) of the Atomic Energy Act 1953, I present an addendum to the 1985-86 annual report of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. The annual report of the Commission was tabled in the House on 23 February 1987. Didn't anybody in the Opposition notice that the table on page 126 was incomplete? Come on, confess! 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we consider the 2% discounting of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Scheme pension adjustment on 10 October 1986 to be a serious breach of trust by the Government. The Commonwealth has reneged on an established commitment as incorporated in Commonwealth legislation and benefit promise pensions are not being paid in full. In particular we resent the long-term effect of the discounting. The pension loss is compounded throughout the life of a pensioner and surviving dependants-into the 21st century for many. We consider this Government-induced penalty to be out of all proportion to the short-term `extraordinary circumstances of the economy' given as the reason for the discounting. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. limit the pension discounting effect of the Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation Amendment Act 1986 to the period 10 October to 1 July 1987 so that pensions are restored to the 9 October 1986 level as a base for the 1987 pension adjustment; and 2. consult with organisations representing pensioners before changing the terms and conditions of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Schemes. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Robert Brown,Mr Tim Fischer,Mrs Kelly,Mr Lloyd and Mr Allan Morris. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at the failure of the government to show restraint with equity. In particular, the decision to defer the November pension adjustments has resulted in a loss of $25.62 for a single pensioner and $21.36 for each married pensioner. The prospect of a further deferral of the May adjustment will result in the loss of another $35.10 for a single pensioner and $29.10 for each married pensioner. When you are scrimping to make ends meet, as is the case with many pensioners, you can't afford such a cut in living standards. Pensioners are looking for a new deal from politicians-more of the same is not good enough! Your petitioners request an immediate return to payment of May and November C.P.I. increases, and as in duty bound will ever pray the Government grant this request now. by Mr Cross,Mrs Darling,Mr Humphreys,Mr Katter and Mr O'Keefe. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Ms Jakobsen,Mr Kent,Mr Milton and Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: The costs of raising children are rising and the value of government provided economic assistance to families is declining. Families raising children are providing a vital function to society and are deserving of government provided economic assistance. Your petitioners therefore urge the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to: 1. Restore family allowance payments to their 1976 real money value. 2. Provide for the regular and automatic indexation of family allowance payments. 3. Increase the value of the Dependent Spouse Rebate to $1851 per annum, and convert it to a cash payment given directly to the non-income family spouse. 4. Amend the Family Income Supplement Scheme so that its value is increased, its eligibility provisions widened and its withdrawal provisions eased. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Charlesworth and Mr Cross. 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: Any proposal to abolish the Department of Veterans' Affairs would be of grave concern to ex-servicemen, ex-servicewomen and their families, because it would renege on clear and unequivocal commitments from various Commonwealth Governments to properly care for Australia's veterans. Your Petitioners humbly pray that your honourable House urge the Parliament to ensure that the Department of Veterans' Affairs continues to exist as a separate and distinct Department, servicing the needs of veterans and their families. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tim Fischer and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, we the undersigned citizens call upon all the Members to pay due respect to pensioners and concessional card holders and cease the constant erosion of our entitlements by the Hawke Government. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth: That we strenuously object to the Government's decision to delete 45 commonly prescribed drugs (including analgesics, anti-histamines, cough mixtures and expectorants) from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme; That we strenuously object to the Health Minister's assertion that the health problems for which these medications are prescribed (e.g. arthritis and allergic rhinitis) are ``relatively minor, self-limiting illnesses''. That we beg the House to reconsider these deletions from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker and Mr Wilson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled: We, the undersigned are deeply concerned at the impact of the new Fringe Benefits Tax on the following grounds: 1. its severe and damaging effect on business confidence, investment and incentive, especially in the rural, mining and small business sectors. 2. its capacity to seriously worsen unemployment through the additional costs it imposes. 3. its extremely negative impact on the competitiveness of export industries at a time when the nation desperately needs to improve its trading performance. 4. in that it may compel many honest and decent citizens to defy Tax in order to preserve their livelihoods, their business and the jobs of their employees, thus causing hardship, the breakdown of respect for the law and discord within the community. We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Fringe Benefit Tax Legislation forthwith. Your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The Petition of the undersigned shows that the closure of the Killarney Heights post office agency is opposed by local residents and businesses. Your Petitioners request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should recognise our concern and permit the continuation of the Killarney Heights post office agency. by Mr Connolly. 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: Any proposal to establish Memorials to Peace, Memorials to the so-called `Aboriginal War' and to anti-war activists and other like causes at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra would desecrate the Memorial as a fitting and solemn monument to those who served in Australia's Armed Forces and to those who died in defence of their country. Your Petitioners humbly pray that your honourable House will act to prevent anything which would desecrate the nation's memorial to Australia's former servicemen and women and war dead. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tim Fischer. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. We the undersigned petitioners of Australia respectfully show that the Veterans' community has been hard hit by changes and cutbacks to Veterans' Affairs in recent months, particularly arising from the May 1985 Mini-Budget and the 1986/87 Budget. Your petitioners humbly pray that this Parliament does not impose further financial cutbacks on the Veterans' community in the forthcoming May Economic Statement to be brought down on the 13th May, 1987. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tim Fischer. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that many Post Office Agencies are to be closed. They provide a network of offices with postal and agency services to residential areas and small communities. They serve a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced if forced to travel further to purchase postal items or collect parcels. It would be an unnecessary expense particularly for pensioners without their own transport. We maintain that the purpose of Post Offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer. They are a community centre particularly in country areas and if necessary they should be subsidised to retain them. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of Post Office Agencies and that the network should be extended, with the Agency services they offer expanded. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr 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 Systems. 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 Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the citizens of Australia shows- That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned about food irradiation. We ask you to use your power to prevent food irradiation from being performed in Australia. Food irradiation is dangerous because: Irradiation destroys the inherent values of foods and thus destroys human life. Specifically irradiation destroys proteins, amino acids, fats, lipids, carbohydrates, RNA and DNA (the building blocks of life), enzymes and vitamins. Irradiation creates toxic residues in the human body. Irradiation uses nuclear waste. That nuclear waste would be transported on public highways. Please support the health of all Australians by helping stop irradiation now. by Mr Millar. 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 showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Spender. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: 1. We the undersigned are totally opposed to the introduction of a $2.00 fee on prescription drugs for pensioners; 2. The impact of such a fee will be particularly felt by the chronically ill elderly who will be faced with a $2.00 burden with the purchase of each Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme drug; Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Ensure that prescription drugs continue to be provided to the pensioner population without the $2.00 fee on each prescription. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: Labor's Capital Gains Tax is standing in the way of economic development on the Far North Coast, a region with great potential for further growth and renowned for the enterprise and initiative of its local community. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal its anti-business anti-farming and anti-individual Capital Gains Tax. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The benefits of war widows have been altered, and they no longer receive pharmaceutical benefits from the Department of Veterans' Affairs. This is causing great concern and hardship, as quite a lot of their medications are no longer available, and there is nothing to replace them on National Health. They are now required to pay large amounts to obtain their medications, just to stay alive. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Honour its commitment to these war widows by returning their Veterans' Affairs pharmaceutical benefits to them immediately, and to refrain from worrying these ageing widows any further by tampering with our Veteran Affairs Act and breaking all promises made to our husbands. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain electors in the seat of Lilley shows- 1. That the Federal Government has given a commitment to the provision of tertiary education for the people of Australia; but 2. That certain aspects of the Higher Education Administration Charge may adversely affect access to tertiary education by some categories of students. Your petitioners therefore pray that: 1. The Federal Government discontinue the Higher Education Administration Charge as soon as is economically feasible. 2. During the operation of the administration charge, a graduated charge be introduced, the amount of which to be related to the number of units studied, so as to promote greater equity. 3. A set maximum charge be introduced for families to alleviate the burden of such a charge on single income earners with more than one dependent student. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Wannon electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation ever, and that on all the evidence available will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayers' money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. Petitions received. Motion (by Mr West)-by leave-agreed to: That in accordance with the provisions of section 10 of the Archives 1983 this House appoints Mr Hollis as a member of the Advisory Council on Australian Archives for a period of three years from 6 June 1987. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The crushing impact of Labor's high tax and high interest rate policies on Australian families and their dream of owning their own home. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr PORTER(Barker)(3.14) —The dire consequences of the Hawke Australian Labor Party Government's spending spree are now becoming clear for all to see. We know that as a result of Labor's policies inflation is up, interest rates are up, the deficit is up, and so the list goes on. But what does this mean in human terms? What are the social consequences of Labor's policies? The shocking truth is that Labor has shattered every Australian's dream; that is the dream of owning a home. The headlines in today's newspapers tell the story. The Adelaide Advertiser states `Average family can't afford a new home', and in the Australian `Home loan payments up 25 pc since 1985'. Our history of immigration reflects the great desire of people coming here to better themselves and their families. Australia had a reputation for being a country where one could work hard and get a family home. It was known as the lucky country. Under the Australian Labor Party, a family is lucky to make ends meet. Someone buying a home is lucky if he can keep up his repayments. During the second half of 1986, 81 per cent more home loans were in arrears than during the second half of 1985. The number of people in difficulties with keeping up their home loan repayments has skyrocketed under Labor. Someone seeking to rent will be lucky to be able to pay the rent; indeed, he will be lucky to find a house to rent. Someone looking for public housing will be lucky to get it because the queues have exploded under Labor. A young person who wants to get married, start a family and buy a house will be lucky to be able to afford it under this Government. In November 1984, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said: We pledge ourselves to bring home ownership once again within the reach of ordinary Australians. What, in fact, has happened? The Prime Minister has put home ownership beyond the reach of ordinary Australians and families now find it harder than ever to buy a home. The cost of both buying and renting a house has increased dramatically because of Labor's policies. Interest rates have risen to record levels. In December 1984, they were 11.5 per cent; last month they were 15.5 per cent. The Real Estate Institute yesterday indicated that average home loan repayments have increased by a staggering $281 a month under the Hawke Labor Government. They increased from $350 a month during the March quarter of 1983 to $631 a month during the December quarter of 1986. When Labor was elected in March 1983, it required 19.2 per cent of the median family income to repay an average home loan-- Mr Tim Fischer —What is it today? Mr PORTER —At the time of the last election, in December 1984-when the Prime Minister promised to bring the cost of homes within the reach of the average family and also that interest rates would come down-the figure was 20.3 per cent of the median family income. That figure soared to a record high of 26.9 per cent in the December quarter to 1986. In other words, families have never had such difficulty in paying for their homes. More and more families cannot afford to buy a house under Labor. Rental vacancies are at their lowest level ever. During March, only six in every 1,000 rental properties in Sydney were available to rent. Of course, under Labor rents have gone up. Private rents rose by more than 10.5 per cent in the year to December 1986. Fewer houses are being built. In 1984-85, 153,000 were built, but in 1986-87 it is expected that only 118,000 will be built. So much for the Government's record of assisting young home owners and getting Australians into their own homes. Labor members stand up here, day after day, saying: `We will stand on our record'. Their record is that now, more than ever, Australian families cannot afford to buy a home. More and more families are being forced into rental properties. There is a shortage of such properties, and their cost has increased. As a result, more and more people are being forced on to public housing waiting lists. Thus we have seen a blossoming of the number of people on public housing waiting lists. In June 1983 there were 124,000 people on public housing waiting lists, whereas in June last year the number was 157,000. This situation has arisen because of the economic policies of the Labor Government. It has caused interest rates to go though the roof and its taxation policies, including the capital gains tax and the removal of negative gearing, have driven investors out of the home building and renting market. Labor has only itself to blame. I want to recall a time when Australian families could actually buy a home and afford to pay the mortgage interest rates. I cannot remember a time when so many families have been confronted with such devastated economic difficulties as they face today. The cost of their housing is chewing up a larger and larger portion of their pay packet. At the same time, of course, other costs have also increased. The cost of essential items for families has gone through the roof. The price of food has gone up by 29 per cent; clothing prices for family and children have increased by 28 per cent; the cost of transport to get to work and for the children to get to school has gone up 30 per cent; and health and education costs have also increased. As we heard in Question Time today, the Prime Minister's response to this problem facing Australian families is to blame it all on overseas nations and on our overseas trading position. He says that we all have to take a cut in our standard of living because of the difficulties we face in the international trading markets of the world. As a farmer and exporter, I can tell the House that we have always had to battle to win and maintain overseas markets. Those markets have always been fickle and we have always had to change to meet market demands. For example, if the wool price is down, farmers who have the ability to change the balance of their production tend to move into cattle, fat lambs, or grain. If grain prices fall-as, indeed, they have done recently-people tend to move into sheep, and that is one of the reasons why the sheep price has increased. We cannot and will not ever succeed in selling our products overseas if the cost of production continues to skyrocket as a result of the Government's economic policies, taxes and charges. As a nation, we just cannot afford to carry the burden that this Government's extravagant spending spree has placed on us. We will battle the international markets, and we will change to meet international demands. We can get out of our trading problems; we always have done and we will always do so. However, we will not be able to do so if this Government continues to add to the burden of domestic costs through increasing its taxes and charges. We cannot afford to carry this Government any longer. If the Government would only get off the back of our wage and salary earners and get out of the way of our manufacturers and exporters, we could get back into the game. Australian families are being squeezed like never before; more and more just cannot make ends meet. This matter of public importance is not some political stunt that we have raised today; it is real life. Families have never been under such an attack. Their taxes are up. They are paying more in pay as you earn tax, and they will be paying even more after the changes on 1 July than they were paying when this Government came to office. Families with children have been especially disadvantaged by this Government's policies. The value of the spouse rebate and the family allowance has been cut by 25 per cent by this Government. No wonder even the unions are starting to react against the Government. The Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association has put out a pamphlet entitled `Family Income Under Pressure'. It states: Single income families with dependent children are under financial pressure today as never before. The unions are saying that their members, their wives and their children cannot sustain their standard of living under this Government, and what is more they are finding it extraordinarily difficult to make ends meet. The SDA states: . . . the larger the family, the greater has been its financial loss. Low income families have suffered the most from the decline in the value of family allowances. So much for the Australian Labor Party's belief that it can assist low and middle income families in Australia. It has consigned low and middle income families in Australia to the rubbish heap. The Government does not care, the Prime Minister does not care and, of course, the Treasurer (Mr Keating), in his car with tinted glass windows, does not care about middle and low income Australians. Instead of helping the families who are having such difficulty in making ends meet, the Government plans to increase family taxes. It is looking at reducing the dependent spouse rebate and the family allowance in yet another attack on families, especially single income families. The Australian Catholic Social Welfare Commission said recently: Any reduction in family benefits would be a hidden and unfair increase in the tax burdens on families. The fact is that direct and hidden taxes are already the major cause of family poverty. It also said: Disguised increases in family tax burdens will only lead to more marriage breakdowns, more welfare dependency and more families unable to repay their loans. Is that not exactly what is happening today? Australian families are in crisis and Labor is contributing to that crisis. Labor has to get off the back of the average Australian family. The way out of our problems is not to increase taxes on Australian families. Single income families in particular have suffered under Labor. Let me just refer to a media statement by the Australian Institute of Family Studies which highlights the problems faced by single income families. It states: . . . a one income family with two children requires an income of approximately $42,900 in order to have the same disposable income of a single male on average yearly earnings of $24,000. This is because of the costs of supporting family members and is the reason family allowances were introduced. It is no wonder that more and more mothers of young children are being forced back into the work force to try to help the family budget, to try to stop the family from being bankrupted and to try to save the family home. The Government's economic policies constitute the most serious attack on Australian families and the very fabric of our society. I believe it is the greatest attack that we have seen on Australian families since the Great Depression. It is time for Labor to change its direction. It has to stop taxing Australian families out of existence. It has to lift the burden on Australian families. The attack on Australian families must be halted. The Opposition has the remedy. Our tax and welfare policies will be co-ordinated to discriminate positively in favour of families, especially families with young children. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(3.29) —With regard to the Opposition's inadequate matter of public importance today, let me first deal with the question of the survey by the Real Estate Institute of Australia for the March quarter which alleges that housing loan repayments have risen by an average of $124 per month or in some cases by 42 per cent. I certainly put it to the House and to the people of Australia that, as I said at Question Time today, that report presents quite an exaggerated picture. What is more, the Housing Industry Association and the Australian Bankers Association are in complete agreement with me. For instance, Dr Silberberg, the Executive Director of the Housing Industry Association, pointed out that the affordability index used by the Real Estate Institute and MGICA Ltd did not take account of the changing structure of housing finance. He said: Since housing loans have been deregulated and more funds have become available, people have not had to take out as much additional high cost finance. He was talking about the old practice of cocktailing. He continued: They are now more able to put all their finance on a first mortgage through the banks. Similarly, the Australian Bankers Association Executive Director, Mr Cullen, said that the figures presented over the weekend by the Real Estate Institute of Australia gave a very misleading picture. Let me expand on what Dr Silberberg said. That the measures used in that report ignore significant structural changes in the way in which housing finance is being provided. Since April 1986 cocktailing of housing finance has almost disappeared. This has enabled prospective home buyers to borrow from one source only and at one interest rate. This has led to an increase in the size of the average loan recorded by savings banks. Total repayments under the new arrangements can be significantly less than they were under the combination of a bank loan and a loan implementing the so-called cocktail system, whereby loans at higher interest rates were used to supplement the bank loan. I hope that that is clear to the Opposition. Let me put it in another, perhaps simpler, form. The Real Estate Institute stated that the average repayment had increased by $124 a month, and in some States by 42 per cent. Let us look at the situation. In late 1985 a housing loan of $50,000 at a rate of 13.5 per cent cost $604 a month. At a rate of 15.5 per cent, the cost is $676. That is a 12 per cent increase, and it is a result of an increase of 2 percentage points in the interest rate, from 13.5 to 15.5 per cent. It is a far cry from the sort of beat-ups and exaggerated claims that illustrate to me, and to the more responsible people in the industry-including the Housing Industry Association, which wishes there to be confidence in the industry-that the Real Estate Institute of Australia, by presenting some of these beat-up reports, can be the industry's own enemy. The Institute does not have the full agreement of the industry in regard to those sorts of exaggerations. Furthermore, these surveys have been issued after, but conducted before, the announcement of the March housing package. In that package we protected the 13.5 per cent ceiling on loans made before April 1986. By reducing the bank reserve asset ratio requirement from 15 to 13 per cent, we have released another $900m for housing finance, if the banks so direct it. We have increased the income limits for the first home owners scheme. I referred to that point in Question Time today, and I will come back to it in a moment. We gave a forward commitment over the next triennium to provide $700m a year for housing finance by way of grants through the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. Of course, we restated that the States would be able to nominate up to 60 per cent of their State government borrowing program at 4.5 per cent, repayable over 53 years. In this financial year that has been worth almost $600m at a rate of 4.5 per cent, to the States. Of course, the Opposition, while saying that it will abolish the CSHA Federal funding for public housing, at the same time weeps crocodile tears for those who are on the waiting lists. I was saying what we had done in the March package, which superseded what may have appeared, to some degree-although it was exaggerated-in the Real Estate Institute's March quarter report. We have protected those 900,000 loans at an interest rate of 13.5 per cent. How could those 900,000 loans that we have protected have gone up by $124 a month? That is the first point. The second point is that we have assisted those earning less than $34,000 a year-that is, at the top end of the range-with two children, through the first home owners scheme to meet the deposit gap and have subsidised their monthly interest repayments. The table of benefits available for others is on the record. I urge all of the home seekers who may have been misled by these extravagant figures of the Real Estate Institute of Australia to go to their lending institutions and see what sort of deposit and interest rate subsidy assistance is available through the Hawke Labor Government's first home owners scheme, particularly since it has been improved. Let me give an example: A family with an income of $25,000 a year-that is, 108 per cent of average weekly earnings-with one child can now receive $5,500 from the first home owners scheme. Before the increase in income limits on 30 March, such a person would only have received $1,744. Honourable members can see how obsolete REIA survey figures have become in regard to people who are eligible under the first home owners scheme. They are very important points. We have protected all of those people who have savings bank loans at the 13.5 per cent rate, who took out their loans before April last year. We are giving very substantial assistance to those who meet the income requirements and who are seeking their first home. Let me deal now with the question of the private rental market. It has been said that this is an area of concern. I am not saying that the private rental market is not tight. Clearly, in several cities, it is. But as I have said before, if one looks at the tables put out by the Real Estate Institute of Australia, one will see that the vacancy rate today is worse in only two capital cities than it was in the middle of 1982. The vacancy rate in Sydney at that time was 1.7 per cent; today it is about 0.9 per cent or one per cent. In Perth, five years ago it was 2.6 per cent and now it is 1.2 per cent. But in Melbourne the vacancy rate is now 2.1 per cent compared with one per cent previously; in Brisbane it is 4 per cent now compared with one per cent previously; in Adelaide it is now 2.8 per cent compared with one per cent previously; and in Canberra it is 4.7 per cent now compared with 1.9 per cent previously. So when honour- able members opposite talk about the so-called crisis in the private rental market, they are talking about two capital cities in particular, or maybe three. The question is, given the fact that interest rates are on the way down, whether we should be doing anything extra in addition to what we have already done with regard to the implementation of a depreciation allowance of 4 per cent. Should we increase that in order to improve the situation in, say, two cities when it may not be really required in all other parts of Australia, at a time when interest rates are coming down? Let me now look at interest rates. Of course, the bill rates in the time of the previous Government reached the staggering height of 22 per cent. Today, as was said during Question Time, the figure is 14.5 or 14.6 per cent. I am not saying that interest rates are not a key factor as far as housing policy is concerned. Clearly, they are. We can pay out record sums in Federal assistance for public housing; we can increase the benefits available under the first home owners scheme; we can peg old savings bank interest rates to 13.5 per cent; we can release more money into housing from bank reserve asset ratio deposits with the Reserve Bank. But at the end of the day it is correct that we must do something about interest rates. The point is that that is just what the Government is doing. What would the Opposition do? Would it allow housing interest rates to crash overnight from 15.5 per cent to, say, 11.5 per cent? Would it be able to sustain that? No. We are seeking a sustainable fall in interest rates, and that is what we are achieving. The current account deficit has been, of course, trending down over the last few months. The bank bills rate today, as I pointed out, is 14.6 per cent-its lowest level in almost a year. I assure honourable members that the tight fiscal policies that we have already started to implement will be enhanced by the statement of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) at 7.30 on Wednesday night. What is more, the dollar is currently much more stable. As I said, we are seeing a downward trend in general interest rates. It will be a sustainable fall, and that is something we would not see if the Opposition were in government. I refer now to the availability of housing finance, because that is clearly pertinent to the matter of public importance that has been raised today. The availability of finance depends very much on continuing increases in growth in savings bank deposits. Last Friday we saw that the monthly figures, seasonally adjusted, for March showed a $866m increase in depositors' balances, which is the largest increase since July 1986, and that, year on year to March, deposits in savings banks have grown by 16 1/2 per cent, resulting in very strong lending by the savings banks. In February, the savings banks lent at an annualised rate of $9.8 billion. I expect that strong lending to continue, A majority of the savings banks agree with me. Just the other day spokespeople for the Westpac Banking Corporation-although the ABS figures overall for March are not yet released-kindly released its own figures which showed that Westpac lent $198m during March. That was a record for Westpac. What I am saying is right; it is not just pie in the sky. The short term interest rates are coming down and bank lending is strong. After the May statement the short term rates will come down further. It is fair to say that the increased deposit growth and the increased lending will shortly translate into increased housing approvals. The factors which I have already mentioned, plus the improvements to the first home owners scheme, will lead to an upward trend in housing approvals which I forecast will translate into more commencements over the rest of the calendar year 1987. In the remaining time available to me, I address the taxation policy aspect of the matter of public importance. We are the only people who have a legislated tax package of reforms on the record. The Opposition was in government for seven or eight years and it did nothing in terms of tax policy. We have introduced income tax cuts. According to a table in front of me, the former Government left office with a top taxation rate of 60c in the dollar, dropping down to 48c, 46c, 30c and 25c. Already, the rates are down to 55c, 46c, 43c, 29c and 24c. On 1 July this year, when the final part of our tax reform strategy takes effect, the rates will be 49c, 40c, 29c and 24c in the dollar. That is worthwhile income tax reform. Last year the tax cuts applied across the board. This year we are giving attention to the 60c in the dollar rate, which last year came down to 55c and will go down to 49c on 1 July. That is the income tax side of the picture. There have been other reforms, such as the fringe benefits tax, to prevent the sidestepping of the system by the payment of non-cash benefits to high income earners in particular. Similarly, there has been the capital gains tax, which is prospective only and which exempts the family home and treats earnings on capital as taxable income. Clearly, from a wage and salary earner's point of view, that is desirable. Furthermore, we have done this at a time when we have been able to reject the suggested consumer tax and when the Opposition is unable to produce any tax policies at all. All the Opposition has been able to do is to utter a list of long promises which, according to our reckoning, amounts to $16 billion. Even if the Opposition reduced that figure by half-if it were $8 billion or $10 billion-I must say to it and to the people of Australia who are listening this afternoon: Where will the money come from? A consumption tax maybe. The Opposition is not capable of answering that, nor is it capable of producing a tax policy. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(3.44) —It is very interesting that the closer we get to an election, the more Ministers seem to be prepared to indulge themselves in making forecasts. The reason for that is clear. They have no expectation that they will be held to their forecasts and, therefore, in the timeframe that is left they will be in no way accountable. I would not encourage anybody to rely on the forecasts given by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) in the run-up to an election. We are discussing this matter of public importance today because two reputable bodies, the Real Estate Institute of Australia and a firm that deals in mortgage insurance, have produced a quarterly survey in which they consider the whole question of home loan affordability in Australia. That paper makes a number of very simple and clear points, which even the Minister ought to be able to understand, which all Australians clearly understand. The first point is that home loan repayments for the average family have increased or, in the words of the writer in the Sydney Morning Herald, `soared', by $124 a month during the past year. In the same time, average weekly income has increased by only 6.5 per cent. That $124 a month increase means that, over the same period, home loan repayments have gone up by 24 per cent. That is easy for people to understand when they have to pay such amounts. We heard two defences on this matter by the Government in Question Time today. The first was by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). His approach was one of confession and avoidance. He said that interest rates had been kept high because of the level of the deficit. He acknowledged that interest rates are high to all Australians, and the high levels have been maintained, because the Government, as an instrument of economic policy, has determined that all Australians must pay higher interest rates. It is not for me to try to demonstrate this. Any number of organisations can do so. From the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, in its annual report, to the Government's own reports from its Economic Planning Advisory Council, which it set up, and the Minister's own Indicative Planning Council-all have made it very clear that interest rates are a question of economic policy. They are determined by government. Government has a choice as to whether it keeps interest rates high or reduces interest rates and uses other instruments of economic policy to deal with the problems which we face. I shall quote briefly from a report by the Economic Planning Advisory Council, because it makes the point more clearly than I can. The report says: Interest rates are determined by the supply of and demand for funds. These depend on real economic trends, overall monetary conditions and expectations about inflation and the exchange rate. It continues: . . . in the last few years interest rates in Australia (especially at the short end) have risen above those in most other countries, both in real and nominal terms. There have been three principal reasons for this: Market expectations of continued higher inflation rates in Australia- I add, under this Government- Market perceptions of the risk of further real depreciation of the Australian dollar . . . associated with uncertainty about Australia's external payments situation; and The resolve of the authorities to maintain an appropriately high monetary stance . . . That is the answer-the resolve of authorities, of this Government, to maintain an appropriately high monetary stance. The Government is responsible for it. Interest rates have had to be kept high because the Prime Minister and his Government have determined that that is the approach which must be taken. The Minister's Indicative Planning Council said exactly the same thing. Let me turn to the second approach, the other argument put forward by the Minister. The Minister says that if one gets some figures which one does not like, one queries the statistics. This is the approach which he wanted to take. He suggested that the figures produced by the Real Estate Institute create an exaggerated picture and that, if we looked at the Government's new housing package which it introduced in March, we would see a different approach. He argued that this would result in the community not having to use cocktail loans in the future; they will be able to go to an institution and get one loan at one interest rate and they will be far better off. I have had produced from the Parliamentary Library a summary which the Minister might like to see. I was unable to approach him earlier, because he was speaking at a time I decided to use the material. The document, which was authored by Mike Lawlor, deals with mortgage repayments. His document produced one simple statement; that is, if one considers the cocktail arrangements vis-a-vis the single loan arrangements, one sees that there are different results depending on whether one has a higher or lower income. The fact is that the abolition, effectively, of cocktail loans has had an impact on those with higher than average incomes by reducing the amount of interest paid. But according to Mr Lawlor's study, in the past cocktail loans for the people at the cheaper end of the market, in other words, people on average weekly earnings or lower, were cheaper. Anybody can produce statistics on these matters. I have a whole lot more. Other people have spoken on these matters besides the Minister and those who have seen fit to try to defend him. A recent statement reported in the Age by the chief economist for National Mutual Royal Bank, Dr John Marsden, dealt with the same questions. He said that home mortgages are now harder to afford than they have been for the last 17 years and possibly since World War II. He has produced a mortgage affordability index which shows a steady slide since the peak in the 1970s to the possible post-war low of the present. He said that the difficulty in affording mortgages has resulted in falling household disposable income over the past two years combined with higher real interest rates. So the problems are there for all Australian people to feel and for people such as the Minister to know and understand. I am quite surprised at the way in which he has sought in the House today to defend the situation. I do not have time to deal with the other aspects I would like to deal with in this debate, but it is important to understand that not only have interest rates gone through the roof, which has had the dreadful consequence of people not being able to afford a home but also they cannot get into public housing. In June 1983, 124,000 people were on the waiting lists and 157,000 people are on those lists now. It does not matter what the Minister says. Those are the statistics. The Government might have provided more money but that is not dealing with the problem. Interest rates have gone up further. Private dwelling rents have gone up by over 10.2 per cent. What prospect does one have of renting a house when rents have gone up by that amount? In the short time I had to prepare my speech on this matter I thought it might be illuminating to consider the Minister's own electorate. A recent headline of the Illawarra Mercury, a newspaper which circulates in the Minister's electorate and which deals with the problems of Wollongong, an industrial city in New South Wales, was: `So you thought you were doing it tough . . . car is the home for a destitute family'. The Salvation Army made it very clear in the article that in this case a husband had walked out on his wife and, no longer able to afford the rent that was being charged for the unit in which it was living, the family had had to move out. It was reported that the mother and her two young children had been living in a small car in the central Wollongong carpark for two weeks because they could not find suitable low cost accommodation in Wollongong-a city in the Minister's own electorate. Mr McGauran —Why didn't they go to their local member? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! I ask the honourable member for Gippsland to desist from interjecting from all sorts of strange places in the House. I have drawn his attention to this on a number of occasions. I have not been advised by the Clerk that he has changed his seat. I formally warn the honourable member that if he continues to interject from other places in the House he will be removed from the House. Mr RUDDOCK —The problem, as evidenced in the Minister's electorate, is clear. I could take honourable members through any number of studies. An article appeared in the Bulletin on 2 December 1986 which dealt with the Murray family, not Ms Murray but Jacqueline Murray and her husband, who are having problems in making ends meet. The article gives details of the family's budget. It sets out the position of average families in our community, the difficulties they have and the disposable income they have left after interest payments and taxes. The Murray family had just $113.60 for food, clothing, holidays-I could go through the full list-petrol, entertainment, education, pharmacy bills and pre-school costs after they had paid interest and taxes. That is the nature of the problem we are talking about today. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Ms McHUGH(Phillip)(3.54) —I often wonder why Opposition members get up week after week with these matters of public importance on housing when, week after week, all they do is expose their record and enable our Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) and our members to say that of course we recognise that there are considerable problems in the area of housing but that we are tackling them with sensible policies. Here we go again. The Australian public knows that this Government is tackling the problem and it has every reason to trust in a better deal from us than from a very discredited and divided Opposition. So let us look at some of the things Opposition members have said today and yesterday. Yesterday a Press release on housing was put out by the shadow Minister for Housing, the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). Amongst other things, he said that, notwithstanding the Government's spending in excess of $200m on the first home owners scheme in the last year, we have seen a major fall in housing approvals. It is interesting that the Opposition now supports the first home owners scheme and continually gives us credit for the amount of money we have spent on it. To say that we have seen a major fall in housing approvals is simply not true. The latest figures from the Housing Industry Association show that sales of new houses during March 1987 were at their highest level since October 1985. So why on earth issue a Press release saying exactly the opposite? In my electorate of Phillip, an electorate that is often targeted when we are talking about housing problems, already 976 applications have been approved for the first home owners scheme. That will cost $4,473,000 and already $3,374,000 has been paid out to electors in my electorate. The shadow Minister, in his Press release yesterday, said: Had the government not been so enthusiastic about increasing taxation to fund such schemes as Medicare . . . with significant effects on inflation in the housing market and on interest rates, Australians would now be much better off. Let us examine that incredible statement. We have not increased taxation. The tax cuts this Government is bringing about will come into effect on 1 July. The tax cuts are one of our major expenditures. They will cost the Government approximately $5 billion, including imputation, in one year. But the money saved by the capital gains tax, the fringe benefits tax and the quarantining of negative gearing will amount to $1,800m in one year. They are the sorts of rorts the Opposition wants continued and expects will help in the housing area. Liberal policies, including Liberal taxation promises, will blow out the deficit to $16 billion. The only thing that really interests the Liberals is continuing the rorts. Claiming that tax shelters such as negative gearing are the only factors responsible for providing a private rental market is an absurdity. This Government will bring in constructive and legitimate tax measures such as the depreciation allowance as an incentive to the provision of private rental accommodation. Yesterday the shadow Minister for Housing said that we had increased tax to fund schemes such as Medicare, which increased interest rates, which in turn affected housing. The Opposition plans to dismantle Medicare and force the public into the private system. That was tried under the Fraser Government. The effect was that health costs as reflected by the consumer price index were the fastest growing costs to the community in those years. Two million people had no medical or hospital cover whatsoever. Against this, the cost containment for medical services for all Australians under Medicare is right on budget. In a statement yesterday the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), referred to the appal- ling fact-the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) has also referred to this-that 100,000 people are now either permanently or temporarily homeless, sleeping out of doors and in refuges. It does no one credit, on either side of this House, to stand up and merely relate instances. We all know of the problem. It is an appalling fact. This Government has been trying to do something about it for several years and has had considerable success, whereas the Opposition actually talks about getting rid of the Commonwealth Government's involvement in public housing. The Opposition has declared in its policy that it will abolish the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. As the Minister for Housing and Construction said in Question Time today, that will have the most appalling effect on the homeless of Australia. Not everyone in Australia is dreaming of his own home. Many people hope, more than anything else in the world, to qualify for public housing. They will not be able to hope for it if members of the Opposition ever get into power because one of the first things they have said they will do is abolish the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. The only provision they intend to make for incentive in the private rental market is by maintaining the tax shelters and the tax rorts. We are adopting macroeconomic policies which will bring interest rates down. In last year's Budget we slashed the deficit by $3.5 billion. We can show that we are able to cut spending in a thoughtful and careful way. This does not correspond with the Opposition's mad calls for cutting spending. Where would it cut spending? Would its cuts do anything to help the sort of people we are concerned about in this matter of public importance today? Would the Liberals and the Nationals even agree on where to make these cuts? What would be the effect of their cuts on the people this matter of public importance purports to be concerned about? On the other hand, the favourable trend in the balance of payments, our very carefully thought out wages policy, plus the May statement to be brought down this week are all measures that are assisting the fall in interest rates. Sensible policies have now been put in place by a caring and thoughtful government to promote a better climate for interest rates. The timing of any fall in interest rates depends on the current account and international financial conditions. As I have already said, the Liberals' spending promises, together with the tax programs that they have already announced, would probably amount to $16 billion. Housing interest rates would have to go up as a result of their policies. This Government took major action in April 1986 to assist the housing industry. It has received very general and unanimous praise from the industry for what it has been doing this year. In the March 1987 package the Government confirmed the maintenance of the 13.5 per cent ceiling on existing housing loans. The measures adopted in March 1987 will ensure an adequate supply of housing finance and, through increases in eligibility limits for the first home owners scheme, will improve access to housing by low income earners. As a matter of fact, the number of loans from all major housing lenders in February 1987 is at the highest level since October 1985 in contradiction to what the Opposition has claimed today. The highest ever monthly total in value terms is $1.1 billion, with savings banks accounting for $832m. In number terms this is 21 per cent up on February 1986 and, in value terms, 44 per cent up. This Government is adopting a thoughtful, considered and sensible approach to the problem that it recognises exists for Australians in the housing area. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The debate is now concluded. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Debate resumed from 30 April, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —I ask for leave of my distinguished colleague, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) to foreshadow an amendment to be moved on behalf of the Government which relates to the Wine Grapes Levy Collection Act 1979. Leave granted. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I understand that this is a drafting matter. The honourable member might like to advert to it in the course of the debate. The proposed amendment will extend the protection afforded by the proposed new section 10 (2) of the Wine Grapes Levy Collection Act 1979. Information is being obtained as a direct or indirect consequence of the furnishing of the return or information, so as to bring the provision into line with similar provisions in other legislation. This is by way of an explanatory memorandum which would need to pick up that amendment, if the House agrees to it. I thought I should mention that at the outset. Apparently it has just been brought to the notice of my Department. I thank the honourable member for letting me say those few words. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(4.06) —In his second reading speech, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) commenced by saying: This Bill continues the practice of introducing an omnibus Bill into each sittings of the Parliament as an expeditious way of making a large number of non-contentious amendments to legislation not otherwise being amended. That has been the practice, although it seems to be the tendency that the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) gets larger and larger and each time the Bill comes in, its field becomes all-embracing. Instead of being called an omnibus Bill, it could well be called a kitchen sink Bill commencing, as it does, with the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 and concluding with amendments to the Wine Grapes Levy Collection Act 1979 to which the Attorney-General has just referred. The amendment to the proposed amendment to which the Attorney-General has just referred is something that I can deal with immediately. It would have this effect: It would insert in proposed new section 10 (2) of the Wine Grapes Levy Collection Act certain words after the words `any such return or information that is furnished'. It would be amended in these terms: A person is not excused from furnishing a return or information that the person is required under this Act or the regulations to furnish on the grounds that the return or information might tend to incriminate the person, but any such return or information that is furnished-- the additional words come in here- `and any information or thing (including any document) obtained as a direct or indirect consequence of the furnishing of the return or information' is not admissible in evidence against the person in: (a) criminal proceedings other than proceedings for an offence against subsection (1) or (5); or (b) proceedings for the recovery of a penalty payable under section 5. What the amendment does is not put the provision of the Wine Grapes Levy Collection Act 1979, an Act which empowers certain persons to request information, on the same basis as the various immunities that are to be found in current legislation or passed by the House over the last few years. In short, it simply follows the ordinary immunity provision and, as such, we have no objection to it. I wish only to make some brief comments on some of the matters which are dealt with by this Bill. Various amendments are made to the Audit Act 1901; one of the amendments provides: The Auditor-General when requested by the Minister will be able to audit the financial statements of bodies, such as incorporated companies controlled by the Commonwealth. This is a sensible oversight power. A number of bodies are controlled by the Commonwealth which could profit from an examination by the Auditor-General. This amendment should be supported. The Automotive Industry Authority Act 1984 is being amended to remove the requirement that a company be incorporated in Australia to be eligible to participate in the motor vehicle and components grants scheme. As the legislation is presently framed, Holden's Motor Company, now a United States of America subsidiary, would be excluded. That is not the intent of the scheme, and the Act is being amended to reflect the intent. That, once again, is sensible. The motor vehicle industry is in a desperate financial condition. On a per capita basis, sales of new cars are the lowest that they have been for many years-and that is another achievement of this Government, the legislation of which has had a direct effect on the viability of the motor vehicle industry, particularly legislation such as that pertaining to the fringe benefits tax. The Crimes Act 1914 and the Removal of Prisoners (Territories) Act 1923 are being amended for, among other reasons, the purpose of removing two old common law rules. First, sentences of Federal offenders and Territory offenders will cease to run for the period that such offenders are at large. Under the common law they had a free kick, and the purpose of this legislation is to get rid of the free kick. If a prisoner had broken out of prison and had managed to stay at large, the effect of the existing common law rule was that while a prisoner was at large and his sentence had expired he could not be detained, and of course that was a considerable incentive to the more entrepreneurially-minded of prisoners to remove themselves from prison by unorthodox means. The other common law rule to be overcome deals with the case of a person who is accidentally released from prison, for example as a result of a clerical error. Under this amendment a prisoner would be required to return to prison, whereas presently a prisoner could not be returned to prison because the warrant had expired. There are some delights under the old common law system which need to be exhumed and examined from time to time-and I have referred to two of them. The Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 is to be amended. The explanatory memorandum states: Proposed amendments of section 6 of the Act are to enable the Director of Public Prosecutions to file an indictment where the Director is satisfied that a person has been erroneously committed for trial- and I emphasise the word `erroneously'- in respect of a State or Territory offence and not the appropriate Commonwealth offence. I should have thought that the amendment, which I think is sensible, might well have gone further. The amendment-proposed new sub-section (2c)-provides: Where: (a) a person has been committed for trial otherwise than in respect of an offence against the laws of the Commonwealth; and (b) the Director is satisfied: (i) that the facts or evidence on the basis of which the person was committed for trial disclose the commission of an indictable offence or indictable offences against the laws of the Commonwealth; and (ii) that, had the person's committal for trial for the indictable offence or indictable offences been sought on the basis of those facts or that evidence, the person could have been committed for trial for the indictable offence or indictable offences; the Director may institute a prosecution on indictment of the person for the indictable offence or indictable offences or any of the indictable offences. Putting that into more terse language, it seems to me that, where a person is committed for trial, but not in respect of an offence against the laws of the Commonwealth, and on an examination of the facts on which he was committed a Commonwealth indictable offence is disclosed, and had the person's committal been sought on the basis of those facts and the Director is satisfied that the person could have been committed for that offence or perhaps for a number of offences, he can go ahead and prosecute that person on indictment. On balance, I think that that is a sensible course. We always need to weigh the right of people to have committal proceedings so that an accused person has the opportunity to test the evidence against him and to persuade the Magistrates Court that he should not be sent to trial. But this provision deals specifically with the case of a person who has already been committed for trial, where certain facts have emerged in the course of those proceedings, on the basis of which a prosecution on indictment is sought. In those circumstances I think that the balance weighs in favour of the Director of Public Prosecutions having that kind of power. The Management and Investment Companies Act 1983 is also to be amended. I have heard some expressions of concern about the amendment. The explanatory memorandum is not helpful; it is quite misleading. The Attorney-General's office was kind enough to take up my query concerning this amendment. The explanatory memorandum states: Proposed new section 21 (5) is substituted to enable the Management and Investment Companies Licensing Board to impose, vary or revoke conditions on a licence at any time. In fact, that is quite wrong. The purpose of the amendment is a very limited one. Existing section 21 (5) provides: The Board may impose conditions when granting a licence under this section and may at any time when the licence is in force, by notice in writing served on the licensee, vary or revoke any of the conditions of the licence or impose further conditions. I emphasise the words `impose further conditions'. There are cases-and I believe that this in fact applies to the majority of companies which have been given licences under the Management and Investment Companies Act 1983-where in fact no conditions of any kind have been imposed, and a doubt arises as to whether it is possible to impose further conditions on a company when no conditions at all had been imposed previously. I understand that this amendment seeks to overcome that doubt. It does not achieve the far more sweeping proposal outlined in the explanatory memorandum. I might say that that is a very good example of the reason why courts should approach explanatory memoranda, and indeed second reading speeches, with the greatest caution when looking around for some aids to an interpretation and understanding of what the legislature had in mind. Assuming that it had anything in mind at all, in this case the court would not be enlightened by this kind of advice. Finally, an amendment is made to the Family Law Act 1975, under which there would be a right of appeal to the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia from a decree or decision of a judge rejecting an application that he or she disqualify himself or herself from hearing a matter. The explanatory memorandum-and I believe in this instance it is correct-goes on to say: The Full Court of the Family Court does not have the power to issue a writ of prohibition against a trial Judge of the Court nor power under s. 94 to entertain an appeal against the refusal by a trial Judge of an application that he or she disqualify himself or herself. The only way that such a refusal can be reviewed is by an action in the High Court, in its original jurisdiction . . . Of course that is extremely expensive, complicated, cumbersome and not the kind of remedy that should be the only remedy left to people who are confronted with an application to a judge; that that judge disqualify himself or herself, which the judge refuses. Anyone who has practised law knows of cases where such applications have been made. It is quite wrong that there should be no right to appeal for a person who believes, for example, that a judge has pre-judged a case. That is neither justice in fact, if the judge has pre-judged the case, nor the appearance of justice. The amendment will overcome that situation and I welcome it. If time allowed I could, I suppose, spend another 24 hours going through the various amendments to this Bill. I do not propose to do so. I content myself with saying again that this is the kind of omnibus Bill which comes around from time to time and which is a useful way of dealing with technical matters, of tidying up legislation and dealing with the kinds of problems that I have touched upon in certain areas, so that one does not have to propose a separate Bill to deal with each of those matters. It is, of course, very necessary that governments keep in mind the need to confine this sort of Bill to matters which truly fall within the kinds of laws which may be tidied up and amended, so that we do not have really substantial changes made under the guise of tidying up. But I am not accusing the Attorney-General of any heinous offences on this occasion. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(4.24) —As the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) said, many of the items covered in the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1987 are minor but there is quite an incredible range of changes. Some are almost of a cosmetic nature but some are quite significant. One certainly touches a lot on the people I represent in an inner metropolitan seat in Sydney, and that is the ethnic people, the people who, for one reason or another, have not taken out Australian citizenship but who nevertheless are residents of Australia and have this fact stamped in their passport. The legislation proposes amendments to the Australian Citizenship Act 1948, which will delete all reference to return endorsement in the Migration Act 1958 and will instead substitute the phrase `resident return visa'. From inquiries which I made this afternoon it appears that there will still be a three-or five-year limit on return visas. Many members of parliament who have tried to help their ethnic constituents and residents know that sometimes members of a family, who are meaning to become Australian citizens, who have settled in this nation, have to leave because there is a sudden illness in the family, and they have to go back to Italy, Spain, Greece or somewhere else. Perhaps a parent is dying or a father or mother becomes ill and, to cut a long story short, those members find that they want to come back to Australia. Those people have never abandoned their intention to return but perhaps five years have elapsed before they get themselves organised to make the break and come back here. Then of course they find that their return visas have lapsed. I have had a number of such cases, of people who regard themselves as Australians and who perhaps had applied for citizenship before they left, only to find themselves, due to a technicality, unable to return and who have to go through all the rigmarole of applying to migrate but find that they are perhaps no longer qualified because their skills are no longer needed, they are too old or because of all sorts of other problems. It is very sad when we have such cases referred to us as we can do very little to help those people except perhaps to say: `Go home and try to come back and I will try to help you'. One case that was referred to me by the late Paul Landa was that of a Spanish family. The wife had worked for him and his wife as a housekeeper, and they had of course known the family. The members of that family had meant to become Australians and they did exactly what I have just said. They went home as the father was dying, and after being away for five years they found it was too late to come back. I have had many other cases of Italian, Argentinian or Chilean families who, because of an illness, have gone back to their country to care for a parent who needed care. I feel that there should perhaps be more effort made by the Government to tell people: `Do not travel if you are not an Australian citizen. If you can become an Australian citizen and have no reason for not taking out citizenship, pay your $35 fee, take out citizenship and then travel on an Australian passport'. I have heard that Australian embassies and high commissions, while they do great work, are not over anxious to get involved in cases of people who may be Australian residents but who have passports of other nations. If people are travelling the world on passports that state that they are issued by the Italian, French or United States of America governments but are Australian residents, they really should look to their own country for help. If they get into trouble they cannot expect Australian embassies to help them as they are busy, and the staff are totally occupied. Members of parliament visit those places and see how busy the staff are. I say to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young) that I think there should be a bigger campaign amongst communities, such as mine, to encourage people to become citizens. In the 1970s the Greek community in Marrickville launched a campaign by giving out citizenship forms in shopping centres. It did great work by encouraging people to take out citizenship. There is now a processing fee-but it is still a very reasonable fee-to become an Australian and to have the opportunity to carry an Australian passport, which is an honour. The procedure for obtaining passports has been tightened up. Today we are essentially dealing with the return resident visa. If a citizen of another nation, who had Australian residency, finds that he or she is overseas and cannot come back, perhaps he or she will have some appeal to the Immigration Review Panel, but that is not very much of an appeal right because that is a very slow and tedious procedure. I feel that what we need here is something like the Canadian system, more of a judicial appeal to some sort of tribunal, where the applicant can appear in person if necessary. But of course it is not possible to do that if such a panel sits only in Australia. Justice must be seen to be done in these cases as well as be done, and I believe that justice is being done in the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I think no one in this House would have more immigration cases and representations than go through my office. I have found that in all cases there is fairness and an attempt to try to weigh up the various points put in favour of each case. Some of the other elements of this legislation are of interest. There are amendments to the Quarantine Act 1908 to authorise a search of luggage and cargo entering mainland Australia from the Torres Strait. The Torres Strait is part of Australia. At low tide one can walk from the Torres Strait-the Australian islands-into Papua New Guinea, yet if we ring up the Department of Health it says: `If you are going to Papua New Guinea we advise that you take malaria tablets'. But if we are going to the Torres Strait no one tells us to take malaria tablets. I do not know if the anopheles mosquito stops at the border or has any evidence as to where Papua New Guinea ends and the old border of Queensland starts. But I can see a good reason why there should be searches of luggage and cargo entering Australia from the Torres Strait. That is one of the loopholes that this legislation is proposing to close. There is an amendment to the Trade Practices Act to eliminate the overlap and possible conflict of the provisions of the Act with certain terms of the Vienna 1980 United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. That Convention is to be implemented in each State and Territory and, once it is in place, the proposed amendment will be made and Australia can accede to the Convention. The Convention is long and obviously is aimed towards somehow unifying and codifying the laws relating to the international sale of goods. It does not apply to goods bought for personal, family or household use, goods bought by auction, or the sale of electricity-that relates to European countries where, for example, France sells electricity to its neighbours. Nor does it apply to ships, vessels, hovercraft or aircraft-large, one-off purchases in most cases. The Convention sets out all the laws on sale of goods, performance and contract. Those laws vary from state to state-and from State to State in Australia-throughout the world. One interesting section relates to the passing of risk, which must be of great significance when goods are damaged, lost or stolen. The Convention will be brought into legislation when all the States agree. The Bill has provisions dealing with the National Crime Authority that will extend the scope of the secrecy provisions of the Act to include people engaged in the operational work of the Authority. A new provision is to be inserted to enable the issue of warrants for the arrest of absconding witnesses, and to enable the execution of such warrants even if not in the possession of the relevant officer when making the arrest. Everyone knows that a citizen has the right of arrest if he believes that someone has committed an offence. The proposed amendment is a novel extension by covering the arrest of absconding witnesses. There are other minor items in the Bill. For example, there is an amendment to the Honey Industry Act to extend the terms of the current members of the Australian Honey Board in order to allow time for a poll of producers. I have visited Tasmania and greatly admire its leatherwood honey. I know that the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Price) has a great interest in leatherwood honey. When he and I were in Tasmania I inveigled him into buying a large container of leatherwood honey, but he never quite knew what to do with it as none of his family particularly liked it. However, I and my family have a great fondness for leatherwood honey. The First Home Owners Act is also to be amended. More discretion will be placed in the hands of the secretary of the administering department regarding the dating of applicants' contracts. Often, an applicant may not know the date of a contract; it may be left undated, in which case the applicant is then in the hands of the agent or the solicitor. There is also an amendment to enable an intending spouse to join in the application, thus putting the applicant on the same basis as a married or de facto couple. Currently, a young man or young woman who is buying a property and who is proposing marriage has no basis for joining the intended partner in the application. As honourable members know, the first home owners scheme has been enormously successful in encouraging young Australians to obtain homes of their own. The Government subsidy has often been just enough to allow people to purchase homes-perhaps not in my electorate, but in the newer suburbs where housing is cheaper. Many thousands of people from my area have qualified for funding under the scheme. The other proposed amendments are varied. They deal with the Director of Public Prosecutions Act, the Customs Act, the Dairy Produce Act and the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act. I wish the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) good luck with that legislation. I do not doubt that other speakers will deal with various other aspects of the legislation. I wish to mention one last item-the National Museum of Australia Act. The Council of the Museum, which will be set up on the shores of Lake Burley Griffin, does not have the authority to sell or dispose of historical material which it owns or which is in its possession and which does not form part of the national historical collection. Much material is given and bequeathed to such museums. We all know of community museums or museums in the big cities, such as the Power House Museum and the Australian Museum in Sydney. They have the power to sell, lend or give certain material to other authorities. That is a serious deficiency for the National Museum. It will be rectified by this legislation. I shall not delay the House further, but I encourage it to support the Bill. Mr MCGAURAN(Gippsland)(4.36) —This Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill is the first Bill this year in what has become a regular legislative updating procedure. It amends or repeals a range of Acts. The measures are said to be uncontentious, although naturally several are significant and provide honourable members with the opportunity to speak on the Acts, issues or subjects covered by the dozens of amendments in this omnibus Bill. I shall run through some of them quickly before I raise a matter of real concern to the National Party of Australia regarding one specific amendment. I begin with the Commonwealth Prisoners Act. I understand that the courts in New South Wales are required to set non-probation periods, not non-parole periods, when imposing sentences of three years or less. That is an interesting development in the law of New South Wales, which is not understood by those of us in other States. The amendment will ensure that the courts in New South Wales may fix non-probation periods for Federal offenders as well as State offenders. As a matter of public policy, there is a requirement of further toughening in the sentencing procedures at both State and Federal levels. I think that I speak for most honourable members in saying that the public is heartily sick and tired of offenders being released under non-probation periods or early release schemes and being let loose on the community. It is a matter of immense frustration for most members of the public that offenders, many guilty of serious crimes, appear to be released from custodial sentences far too early. In much the same vein, the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act is to be amended so that a new conciliation and caution procedure is introduced for the resolution of minor complaints against Federal Police members. I trust that, as the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) sought to reassure us in his second reading speech, the amendments have been developed jointly between the Australian Federal Police and the Ombudsman after consultation with the Australian Federal Police Association. I very much take the view that the Hon. George Paciullo, the New South Wales Police Minister, took in his recent battling public debate with the Ombudsman of that State about the procedure governing complaints against the New South Wales Police Force. I agree entirely with the New South Wales Minister that the hardened criminal element, and further afield than that, will take advantage of the complaints procedure to hinder, frustrate and, in some cases, even deter police investigations. During my short career as a criminal lawyer, I came to realise that one would have to be naive in the extreme to believe that criminals would not use every available avenue to hinder the case being built against them by investigating police. On more than one occasion I declined a brief because I believed the action of the charged person was simply designed to frustrate the police investigation, and therefore to frustrate the court. I certainly would have no part in what I believed would have been a fraud against the court. The Export Market Development Grants Act 1974 is very interesting to members of the Liberal and National parties because it seeks to correct an anomaly in the Act that prevented the Commonwealth, State or Territory governments from claiming grants under the export market development grant scheme. Some of the colleges of advanced education and universities now selling places overseas and which have links with the Commonwealth, State or Territory governments are prevented from applying for grants under this scheme. So the Government, in allowing places to be sold to overseas students, has to amend the Export Market Development Grants Act 1974. We believe that there is no earthly reason why places cannot also be sold to Australian students who are able to meet the price. Of course, it would be a matter of negotiation between the institutions of higher education and the prospective students. The National and Liberal parties have made clear many times in this chamber and in a policy release outside that we would free up higher education so as to allow more places to full fee paying Australian students. If the Government offers this opportunity to overseas students, it is a nonsense, if not outright hypocrisy, to deny the same educational opportunities to Australian students who are, fortunately, able to afford it. There is also an amendment to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986. I need not detail that at all, because the next conservative government will abolish that body, which is an undoubted waste of government expenditure. I hardly need concern myself with technical amendments to that Commission's Act. The First Home Owners Act 1983 is amended so as to confer on the Secretary administering the Department of Housing and Construction a wider discretion to determine, for the purposes of an application under the scheme, that the date of the applicant's contract was later than actually stated on the contract. There is some irony, if not sadness, about this amendment to the legislation, given events in the past few months leading up to the fact that a first home is simply not an option to a growing army of Australians, particularly young Australians. How any member of this Government can sit idly by while interest rates go through the ceiling, forcing a dramatic and corresponding increase in monthly repayments, escapes me. A number of members, during Question Time as well as in the debate on the matter of public importance, put to the Government stark, undeniable evidence of suffering encountered by first home buyers, as well as second and third home buyers. This problem is not restricted to young people, although young people setting out on life, perhaps after marriage, bear the brunt of the high interest rates. High interest rates affect any number of sectors of the economy as well as individuals, but the chickens really come home to roost when it comes to the purchasing of homes. The National Crime Authority Act is amended as well to extend the scope of the secrecy provisions so that anybody engaged at certain times in operational work, although not employed by the Authority, will also be covered by the sec- recy provisions. It is worth noting the recent highly publicised successes of the National Crime Authority. I do not believe that it receives sufficient credit for the quite extraordinary successes it has been tallying, at least recently. That success has been a long time in coming but it is welcome, although overdue-mostly because of restrictions imposed by the Government, first in establishing the Authority, and secondly in staffing it. I wish to concentrate on a very serious oversight by the Government in regard to the Dairy Produce Act 1986. The Attorney-General, who has charge of this legislation, seeks to assure us in the second reading speech that these amendments are not contentious but are strictly routine and of a mechanical nature, whereas in fact the amendments to the Dairy Produce Act are, for several reasons, of tremendous concern to the dairy industry. I want to expose to this House the totally unacceptable actions of the Government in relation to the Dairy Produce Act. The suspicions of the National Party were heightened when it became clear that the industry had no knowledge whatever of the provisions in this Bill. On further investigation, our worst fears were being confirmed. The amendments will prevent members of the Executive Council of the Australian Dairy Industry Conference, the industry's peak body, from sitting on the board of the Australian Dairy Corporation. Far worse has been the handling of this matter by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). I wish to place on the Hansard record the industry's version of its treatment at the hands of the Minister for Primary Industry, a Minister who time and time again has been criticised in and outside this House for his apathy-and there is no other way to put it-towards the people he supposedly represents and his consistent failure to advise them of Government actions affecting their industry. The Minister for Primary Industry is becoming more distinguished for his failure to consult all types of rural industries and interest groups than he is for any legislation that he brings into this House or any initiative that he supposedly undertakes to try to inject new life into rural industries. Not just the dairy industry but virtually every primary industry has a string of complaints about being kept in the dark under the administration of this Minister for Primary Industry. Time and again the Deputy Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), has been the first to convey news to the various dairy industry leaders of what this Government is doing in the Parliament. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! I remind the honourable member that he should keep to the Bill. Mr McGAURAN —Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill has been no exception to the track record of the Minister for Primary Industry. Why has he failed to advise the industry of these amendments? We need to look back to early last year when industry leaders, including the President of the ADIC, Mr Pat Rowley, and several others, met personally with the Minister to discuss dual membership-which this amendment seeks to destroy-of both the ADIC and the ADC. They left that meeting with a clear impression from the Minister that only two ADIC members would be excluded from the ADC Board-the ADIC Chairman and his Deputy Chairman. Some time later it was noted by producers that the Minister was qualifying his stand and saying that the management committee of the ADIC-a total of four including the two leaders-would be excluded from the Board. Challenged on these points, the Minister asked whether there was any evidence of his comments in writing. That is what he said to the members of the dairy industry who had consulted him and entered what they thought was a binding agreement. The Minister for Primary Industry asked them whether they had any evidence of his comments in writing, to which the industry leaders, of course, replied there was none. I remind members that I have consulted widely with dairy industry leaders, should any member of the Government wish to challenge these fairly serious allegations against the Minister for Primary Industry. The Minister admitted: `I have only a vague recollection of our earlier meeting and what had been agreed'. What a disgraceful cop-out! Did the Minister not have any notes or make any notes following the meeting? Does he claim that he never gave those assurances or is it all just a memory lapse? But worse was yet to come. This amendment ensures that all 18 members of the ADIC Executive Council will be excluded from the Board, including some prominent industry spokesmen for whom the National Party, and I am sure the industry as a whole, have the highest regard. They include the President of the United Dairy farmers of Victoria, Mr Jim Saunders, an industry leader who has led his State industry through some of the most difficult times on record and who was instrumental in negotiating the revised dairy marketing agreement with the Minister. Mr Jim Saunders is now excluded. The Government forgets his experience, forgets his successes and forgets the fact that he represents and is the duly elected head of the UDV; he cannot sit on the ADC. The most insidious aspect of all this is that the industry had no inkling that this new and far wider exclusion clause was being introduced to the Parliament. Why should it have had any inkling? It was relying on the word given to it personally by the Minister, on his undertaking. Why did he not advise the industry of such a controversial and adverse decision of his Government? Why does he continue to regard farm industries in such a high-handed, sloppy, apathetic and dismissive manner? Simply, why will he not come clean with the dairy industry? Why did he try to sneak this provision through an omnibus Bill of some 69 pages? Why was it left to the National Party to uncover this savage new widening of the original agreement between the industry and the Minister? One of our senior staff, Mr Russ Neal, well known to National Party members as a diligent and thorough person, first spoke, at my request, with dairy industry leaders when I, as spokesman shadowing the Attorney-General, first sighted this statute law Bill and realised that I must check it. Mr Neal was astounded to find that the industry had no idea that this Bill was coming forward and, moreover, had no idea that the change in the makeup of the ADIC and ADC boards was very different from what the Minister had led it to understand would occur. There is tremendous concern among dairy producers about these changes, although on balance-and only on balance-the ADIC, having been alerted by the National Party, has had the chance to discuss this issue and has now resolved that it will not seek specific amendments. Nevertheless, the Minister's actions are totally inexcusable. One wonders whether he is trying to spike the Corporation board with his own lackeys. His action has been exposed as underhand and unacceptable. It will be to his long discredit that he has acted against the Australian dairy industry in this way. On behalf of the dairy industry, the National Party registers its disgust at the Minister's actions. We express disappointment in the Attorney-General in his seeking to collaborate with the Minister for Primary Industry in getting this apparently innocuous amendment, buried under a weight of amendments, through the Parliament. If ever a lesson abounded for members of the Opposition to scrutinise properly the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1), this certainly is it. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(4.53) —I wish to speak on the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1987. We have just heard a very interesting speech from the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran). He canned as lackeys all the members who have been appointed to the Australian Dairy Corporation. I hope they are all taking note of what he said. It was a direct attack on the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) who has done an excellent job and has brought the farming industry back from its knees on to its feet again. Things are looking good in the rural sector. Mr McGauran —Oh, for goodness sake! What a fool! Mr CHYNOWETH —Things are looking up for the farmers. One can look at wool and wheat prices. Mr McGauran —Wheat? Ha, ha! Mr CHYNOWETH —The dairy industry and others are starting to look better. I come from the city. We just use the products but we read in the papers of how things are starting to pick up a little. This is all because of the excellent work done by the Minister. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member for Gippsland has already received a warning today. Mr CHYNOWETH —During this debate I wish to speak about something which is not quite as down to earth as dairying and other topics that have been discussed. I refer to the Anglo-Australian Telescopes Agreement 1970. Mr McGauran —As important? Mr CHYNOWETH —For the information of the honourable member for Gippsland, it is very important. He should listen and learn something. The Act currently restricts the functions of the Anglo-Australian Telescope Board to those specified in the agreement annexed to the Act. The United Kingdom and Australian governments have now agreed that it is desirable for the Board to assume from the United Kingdom authorities responsibility for the future management of some of the additional facilities already in place at Siding Spring. These amendments will enable the Board to undertake other functions as prescribed by the regulations. Since 1970 both Australia and the United Kingdom have been partners in the construction and operation of a 3.9 metre optical telescope, the Anglo-Australian telescope which is at Siding Spring in New South Wales. This telescope has achieved world status in the astronomical community and has contributed significantly to better understanding of the Southern Hemisphere sky. A very significant factor in the success of the AAT has been the co-location of the 1.2 metre Schmidt optical telescope which has been constructed and operated since 1971 by the Royal Observatory at Edinburgh as a facility of the Science and Engineering Research Council. Access by Australian astronomers to this wide field telescope and its associated advanced measuring facilities in Edinburgh and Cambridge has been provided informally since its inception. The co-operative use of these two complementary telescopes has led to astronomers of the two countries being recognised as the leaders in many fields such as quasars and galactic structure. At the moment they are also studying the supernova which has just occurred; that is, it occurred hundreds of thousands of light years ago but its light has just reached earth. It is quite a fascinating and exciting moment for all astronomers. It is unique in the ancient history of astronomy. Despite financial stringencies that both the Australian Government and the United Kingdom Government are undergoing, and the consequences for funding of scientific research, it is essential to maintain a strong basic research effort. The United Kingdom-Australian co-operation in optical astronomy will significantly complement our basic research activities in the field of astronomy here in Australia. British astronomers have pointed out that the main purpose of the Schmidt telescope is to take wide-angle photographs which can be studied later to pick out interesting objects, so the library of plates that it produces is very important. It is just as important as the telescope itself. At the moment the library and measuring machines are in Britain and British astronomers are worried that the plates might be stored in Australia where they would not be able to study them as easily as they can at the moment. However, this agreement will alleviate those problems. It will involve a slight increase in the funding that will go to the AAT Board, but this is something that is very worthwhile. As I have said, it is something in which Australia has taken the lead. We have a strong, talented team of astronomers. I am quite certain that in the near future as this supernova light gets closer to Earth and we see the changing pattern and what is happening to that star, we will be in the forefront of world discoveries in relation to it. Once again, these discoveries are being brought about by the Schmidt telescope and the Anglo-Australian telescope. I recommend this part of the Bill to honourable members to read. Perhaps one day we will be able to go out and look through this telescope at Siding Spring and see the excitement happening within the universe. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(5.00) —The Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1987 makes changes to two areas that are of interest to me; that is, the Australian Citizenship Act 1984 and the Migration Act 1958. The amendments in the legislation are complementary and are basically part of an updating process, as are many of the changes in the Bill. The basic purposes of the updating are, firstly, to replace references to the Social Services Act with the correct title of Social Security Act; secondly, to replace references to `maintenance guarantees' with the term `assurances of support'; and, thirdly, to replace references to `return endorsements' with `resident return visas'. The upgrading process which is necessary in the Australian Citizenship Act and Migration Act is reflected, I believe, in many areas of the operation of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I noticed with some interest a Press release issued by the previous Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the present Minister for Community Services (Mr Hurford), on 29 July 1986. The Press release reads: Genuine residents who did not take out citizenship but who wished to travel after the expiry of their three year multiple-entry visa would be able to obtain further resident return visas valid for up to five years. According to the Minister this is a simplified updating of the process that allows people to travel backwards and forwards to and from Australia, even though they are not citizens. That notification of 29 July 1986 indicated that changes would be made to the administration of immigration on 1 January 1987. In fact, that has happened. There has been an updating of procedures of language and practice. On 3 July 1985, in another statement, the former Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs said that his changes were bringing about simpler and faster processing of applications. He talked about other areas that this Bill does not deal with directly, but which are related. He stated: The change-of-status provision is too often abused by visitors at the expense of legitimate applicants waiting in overseas queues. I intend to ensure that only the most genuine change-of-status cases are considered in Australia. Others will have to go home and apply in the proper way. That statement of 3 June 1985 would lead most thinking Australians to believe that there was in train a simpler and faster processing and a simpler, faster administration of the Migration Act. The amendments that we are considering today move part of the way towards achieving that, purely by acknowledging a change in terms. Definitional changes basically are the reasons for the amendments, but there are some administrative implications which are highly significant. I believe that the immigration processes to Australia have collapsed. They are in a state of chaos. An updating process should be applied to the administration of immigration to Australia. I believe that under the current Government this administration is in a complete shambles. Figures prove that that is the case. Not only has there not been a simpler and faster processing of applications but there is an absolutely interminable delay in deciding whether those people who come here and wish to stay indefinitely-a process which has not been encouraged by Australian governments-should be able to do so. So on the one hand there is a delay in assessing whether people can be allowed entry to Australia, and on the other hand there is an interminable delay once they have arrived here in deciding whether they can change their status. The measures we are debating amend various sections of the Migration Act-sections 5, 11, 11A, 11B, 11C, 16 (1), 55 and 67 (1) (a). These amendments seek to remove the concept of return endorsements and apply `assurances of support' instead of `maintenance guarantees'. There is protection, I believe, for those seeking return endorsements. The protection is clearly stated in the amendments that we are debating. The amendment to section 56 of the Act replaces the term `maintenance guarantee' with `assurance of support'. There must be, I believe, some assurance of support in regard to particular categories of migrants. I refer to family category A, family category B and, in some instances to other categories. Children who are under 18 and aged parents fall into the special needs and relatives categories for which assurances of support are sought. The assurance of support is really a process of statutory declaration whereby a relative undertakes to make sure that somebody's needs are properly cared for and attended to when he arrives in Australia. There has been a delay in the acceptance of these amendments. Because the amendments are so simple, I guess one must look to other departments. I would doubt whether the delays were caused by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I think that the compendious nature of this legislation means that many departments must be geared up and ready to go at the same time. The delay in this instance may be due partly to other departments. The delay in this case flies in the face of the reference by the former Minister to a simpler and faster processing system. One has only to compare yearly figures for immigration cases awaiting determination. If one compares the figures for June 1985 with those of June 1986, in the family reunion program, there has been an increase in cases not determined of 47 per cent in family category A and 53 per cent in family category B; the figure for the extended family category is 53 per cent; and for skilled migration 254 per cent. A simpler and faster processing cannot be seen to be effective and to be working if one looks at the outcome of these processes. In the employer nomination scheme category there has been an increase in delay of 56 per cent; in the business migration program, 148 per cent. The figure for the independent category is not bad-it is 13 per cent. The figure for the special category is 151 per cent, and refugee-special humanitarian program, 13 per cent. The processing figure for humanitarian cases is quick. But in the categories which can really help Australia, the figures for delays in the 12 months are double, or treble, those of other categories. There is a 240 per cent figure for delays. The average across the spectrum is 66 per cent. But in the areas in which the former Minister said Australia should be simpler and faster in processing applications, we have extended, extraordinary delays. There are quite crazy situations. In Berne, the financial capital of the world, a person must wait longer to have his application processed than does a person in Madrid. Today, in financial areas, Australia is really moving ahead. We are developing a strategy and a status for world finance. The categories of skilled and independent concessional migrants are not being processed more simply and faster; we are holding them back. This seems to me to be completely the wrong priority. The House will be aware that there have been some areas of concern regarding this legislation. In most areas, however, adequate assurances seem to have been given by departmental officers regarding the way in which the decisions will be administered. I am informed that the validity of the assurance of support is usually for 10 years and that the Government decided on 3 June 1985 that, once the subject was granted Australian citizenship, the assurance would cease to be valid-I do not disagree with that-and that the purpose was to require sponsors to undertake additional obligations. Those additional obligations are sought and undertaken. However, regarding an assessment of a person's commitment to Australia, under the new provisions which apply to the Australian Citizenship Act in terms of resident return visas, there is an indication that he must spend two of three years in Australia. I think that that is a slight relaxation, to my remembrance, but it is not difficult for us to accept it. The updating process to which I referred earlier should go right across the board to the administration of immigration and ethnic affairs. I draw the House's attention to an example of the delays that can occur. I do not do so flippantly because I believe that it is characteristic of many instances that have come to my attention. An Italian businessman who, with his family had invested $600,000-odd in Australia was visiting Australia and he decided that he wanted to become more involved with the family business, so he invested more of the family fortune. He currently employs 34 Australians. He had to go through the most dreadful examination of his personal and financial affairs by the New South Wales Department of Industrial Development and Decentralisation. If we are to have a simpler and faster processing system, it seems crazy that State departments and every Tom, Dick and Harry can become involved in simple decisions. This guy was waiting 12 months while a State department fiddled around and looked at the balance sheet of the parent company before deciding whether it was profitable. It looked at how much money had been invested and whether it had been invested in the right place. It seems wrong to me that a government department can intervene between a person making an investment and the type of investment he has chosen. If somebody loses his money by making a bad investment, or happens to choose a winner, I think that is irrelevant to a State department. However, the process was that a State Government department in New South Wales sought copious answers to questions that took months of research and preparation of information that was not readily available in the normal form of business organisations. If we are to speed up the process and, as the former Minister said, make it more appropriate that the Migration Act be administered in the terms which we are considering today, the Government must fulfil what it claimed it had done when the former Minister said just 12 months ago: The changes introduced in 1985 have been successful. The Government's policy is to maximise benefits to Australia, while maintaining a commitment to humanitarian aims. That has not occurred. As I have demonstrated, those people who are of absolute and prime benefit to Australia in terms of their skills, knowledge and the investments which they can make here, are waiting two and a half times longer to have their applications approved than they were waiting 12 months ago. When one links that to the delays that have occurred for people in South Africa who are opposed to the system of apartheid applying in that country and who have been asked to wait 29 months before their application for a visitor's visa is considered, one must realise and accept that the Government's improved and simpler system, one that is now enshrined in law, is not applying on the ground. There is a big gap between the statements made in this House and the Parliament, the newsletters and the Press releases and the actual fact as it occurs to people who seek to use our system. It is one thing for us to make laws, no matter how minor, and it is a different thing for this Government and its Ministers to apply those laws and to administer the wishes of the Parliament in a way that is beneficial to all Australians. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(5.16) —As we all know, the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) is a very special operation aimed at reducing the involvement of this chamber in the business of considering separate Bills for separate items. It is called `a Bill for an Act to make various amendments of the statute law of the Commonwealth, and for related purposes'. Obviously, many honourable members wonder how they should approach it. I think that there is only one approach, and that is for the House to take the opportunity to discuss the purposes of the principal Acts embraced by the Bill. In other words, the House, in agreeing with this compacting procedure, should not allow itself to drift to a situation where the second reading debating rights are in any way curtailed. We have already heard some honourable members' contributions as to the impact of some of these amendments which are said to be minor but which, in practice, are quite major. I mention that because of the tactics that some honourable members adopt when they hear criticism of legislation is to mount a hue and cry about relevance because they want to narrow the range and direction of comment. Obviously, a Bill of this nature takes away certain parliamentary opportunities to comment as it contains over 30 statutes which, if debated individually, would afford a speaking opportunity amounting to some 10 hours per member. By using the compacting procedure which the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has introduced again this year, the opportunity for individual members is reduced to some 20 minutes. I do not say that in any sense of grievance but to illustrate the nature of the arrangement. The other feature to which I should draw the House's attention is that the legislation came upon us very quickly. The explanatory memorandum was distributed last Monday. It contains 82 pages. We were due to debate the legislation last Wednesday but, thankfully, we were given a bit more time and we are debating it today. However, the timetable takes a generous view of the responsiveness of honourable members to the wishes of the Leader of the House (Mr Young). I think that it is unwise, with a Bill of this nature, to proceed with such haste because it is not an easy matter to lay hands on Acts of Parliament in a form which would make such a timetable intelligible. Many Acts have lost their convenience of consolidation; so what we must do, as members of parliament, is to scan through and pick on things which concern us. Let us consider one of the first items-amendment to the Anglo-Australian Telescope Agreement Act 1970. By no stretch of the imagination can this amendment be described as a tidying up amendment. It is a piece of substance-I hasten to add, in the right direction. The amendment enables the Anglo-Australian Telescope Board to expand its functions beyond the United Kingdom-Australian agreement of 1970. It enables regulations to do that. We as a parliament are not told in what direction the functions will be extended or given estimates of cost. The agreement, as honourable members may know, was born out of the fact that the Royal Observatory at Greenwich has an interest in the Southern sky and the collaboration is of value to us. The original agreement took years to put in place because some scientific lobbies thought that we should not be throwing scientific resource money around in this way. I think that that was very short-sighted. The debate touches on a very interesting principle: Should we continue to support a centre of Australian scientific excellence simply because this is a fundamental way to sustain international scientific reputation? It is pure research and there will be the Philistines who will say that we can do without it. Clearly, by virtue of this legislation, the extension of the powers of the Board have escaped a number of filters and razor gangs and, without explanation, it lands here as a matter of some wonderment. For those with an innate pride in the achievement of our astronomers, it flickers as an illustration of what we can get away with in such legislation. As an aside, I note that there is an amendment in this Bill which makes Commonwealth drivers responsible for the costs of damage in circumstances of unauthorised private use or drunken driving. This is somewhat belated, but again I suggest that it seems eminently sensible. The citizenship provisions in this Bill, engaging amendments to the Citizenship Act and the Migration Act, seem to me to offer an improvement in the identification of people who enjoy only residential status but who have a necessity or wish to travel abroad. A system of endorsing identity papers by return endorsement will now be dispensed with and instead provision made for the resident in Australia to be treated as a permanent resident outside Australia. This is a valuable and simplifying change and is appropriately placed in this omnibus legislation. Amendments to the Australian Trade Commission Act enable the managing director to become the chairman. In the case of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the device was eschewed and a separate chairman was appointed. That was a sound move. The ABC is a hot potato and it is important that the executive is insulated from the public contest. I am not so sure that the Australian Trade Commission is so sensitively placed. The measure strengthens the Minister's hands by putting the managing director in the direct line of fire and the effect is that the role intended for the chairman is not so much exercised by the managing director as by the Minister. The concept of a chairman gives the Commission the flexibility of not being required to take management decisions to the Minister. Certainly, if the Minister is prepared to strengthen his hand in this way, he must be prepared to take the onus which goes with the transfer of power back to the Minister. It is probably not a good thing in principle, and I hold a very cautious view of the change. But in the meantime I take the opportunity to say that the news coming from the Commission is good. I am particularly glad that it has embraced the tasks of attracting direct investment to Australia, thereby increasing technology transfer. Honourable members may not know that this area suffered years of neglect under the old system under which Treasury denied trade a role and instead concentrated myopically on stimulating financial transfers. Substantial amendments appear in this legislation in respect of police functions and powers and the Crimes Act. Again, we find the device of special language to improve presentation. Should a prisoner accidentally released be reincarcerated? Common law says that he should not. This legislation says that he should be sent back to gaol under warrant. In this circumstance my sympathies are with the Attorney, but the amendment to a common law right cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be categorised as simply `tidying up'. In the same manner of substance I place the matter affecting the control of property of persons penalised for complicity in narcotics dealings and the amendment affecting the Director of Public Prosecutions. I would now like to turn to a consideration of what I regard as the most important component of this omnibus legislation-the Audit Act. The Audit Act establishes the powers of an Auditor-General responsible to the Parliament. What I find a little extraordinary is that amendments to those dimensions are of such a proportion as to take up six pages of the explanatory memorandum. It is clear that, while some of the drafting clarifies the legal situation for the Auditor-General, other parts are quite substantive. It seems to me extraordinary that this legislation is cobbled up in the device of this Bill. After all, the Auditor-General is an officer of this Parliament, not of the Executive. One would have thought that the Attorney-General, of all people, might have regard to the special status of the Auditor-General and his relationship with this Parliament. The second reading speech on this Bill contains 30 lines of bromide, telling us absolutely nothing. Euphemistic statements are used as a trick to waylay the unsuspecting. Recently in this House I had occasion to rebuke the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) for his lack of frankness in a recent second reading speech. Items which might raise contention-for example, the assets test-were not mentioned in his second reading speech and one had to rely on the explanatory memorandum. As we all know, Parliament is not the Labor Party room, where all kinds of presentational ruses are presumably used to get matters through the Party. We expect brevity in the second reading speech but not at the expense of truthful presentation. I suggest to the Leader of the House (Mr Young) that he might take up the issues I have raised. After all, it is not a good thing for the reputation of government for any encouragement to be given to what I think is a growing impression that the Government is being less than frank in what it is putting to the House in second reading speeches. Returning to the Audit Act, we are given no adequate explanation for the necessity of section 11a. The legislation enables the Auditor-General to report to Parliament on its efficiency audits by making that action a report on itself as part of a report of its other activities. Presumably, there is a legal barrier which has to be cleared away to empower the Auditor-General to continue to report, as he is at present doing, to cover efficiency audits. But does it mean that some additional powers of critical presentation are available? What does it mean? A new procedure is drawn up for certifying the authorisation of expenditure. The effect of the amendment is to remove, as far as possible, the Auditor-General from the process and to empower the Secretary of the Department of Finance to proceed without the requirement for auditors' certificates. This is euphemistically described in the jargon of the misleading second reading speech as follows: The Auditor-General will also be given some discretion on which matters are included in his reports. The obligation on the Auditor-General to report on all breaches of the Constitution or legislation is now reduced to an obligation to report on matters of sufficient importance. I am not sure what the administrative outcome will be. Will it mean that there will be no reporting, that there will be no investigation in areas not determined to warrant reporting? Are we deliberately going to risk scandals which would have remained detectable under the old system? Honourable members might suspect that what we are seeing in these amendments is the imprint of proposals to cut down staffing. For efficiency reasons we take risks and exempt bad debts from malpractices as less of a cost than the cost of a huge superstructure designed to protect the situation against deviations. We may expect a few scandals such as the one in Queensland, where an officer used funds he authorised for a sporting organisation with the intention that the money would be in place when the cheque was cashed some time later. High interest rates and times of declining standards of living can open loopholes of temptation which, in less pressing times, would not be taken. In these circumstances is it advisable, or even desirable, that these auditing arrangements might encourage such risk taking? As I said, I believe these audit amendments are quite significant. They do not fall into the category of tidying up. They open the system to risks. One wonders whether those risks should be taken. Doubtless there will be much ministerial rushing for cover as the `not important' scandals implicit in this new arrangement hit the fan. The power to subject the activities of the Australia-Japan Foundation to comments by the Auditor-General is interesting. The Foundation comes under the Minister for Foreign Affairs. One wonders how far the activities of the organisation are to be judged by financial tests alone. What value will the Auditor-General bring to his judgments? Still, the opinion approach enables an outside view to be taken of the organisation and will enable the Minister to bring an arbitral spirit to his function. Before closing my remarks on what I regard as significant amendments to the Audit Act-amendments which should have stood alone out of regard for the special status of the Auditor-General and his relationship with Parliament-let me illustrate again the misleading obtuseness of the second reading speech. It states: The amendments will ensure that departments report to Parliament on their special operations-a requirement which has not existed previously. What special operations are we talking about? Why do we not have a more frank presentation of the Minister's intentions when he makes these sorts of statements? It is enormously important in any second reading speech that those sorts of questions are answered directly and frankly. I invite the Attorney-General, in his reply, to the speakers to this Bill, to fulfil that obvious function. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(5.29) —I rise tonight to highlight to the Parliament and beyond the fact that the legislation before the House, the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1), needs to be studied in detail. As my colleague the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) has correctly pointed out, one needs to pick up the many minor matters dealt with by the amendments contained in the Bill and relate them to their parent Acts to find out exactly what is involved. One then finds a pandora's box of legislative enactment embraced by this omnibus Bill. It covers an enormous plethora of parent legislation encompassing many areas such as trade, the Australia-Japan Foundation, the Defence Force Reorganisation Act, social security and repatriation legislation, and so forth. In terms of some of the amendments embraced by this Act, it is possible to highlight to the House that, as I speak, the city of Albury is being subjected to selective mail bans from Victoria to Albury and from Sydney to Albury for road delivered mail at great dislocation and cost to many electors, organisations and small and large business operators following some union action contrary to an order by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. I appeal to the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy), whom I have alerted to this fact, to take whatever action necessary to bring about a breakthrough in this dispute at the earliest possible opportunity. I totally resent and reject the provocative, very damaging and devastating action being imposed by a union seeking to make a strategic dispute stick on the Government, to register its complaint to the Government. It has chosen Albury as the location because the Albury Taxation Office is there. Therefore it might upset government revenue collection because much of the taxation business of Victoria is now processed at the Albury Taxation Office. The union has obviously planned this strike with great care. The upshot of this strike is that people and the economy are suffering. But there is huge damage to the general administration and economic activity of the nation's growth centre as a consequence of unionists once again taking the law into their own hands and proceeding without care to community concerns or the cost to the community by imposing selective mail bans. I mention this in passing because the scope of this legislation is so wide and it amends so many Acts that I feel it is in order to highlight the damage being caused and the havoc being wreaked, yet again, by industrial lawlessness on the people, businesses and organisations at Albury. One area of the law amended by the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) includes the export market development grant legislation. It relates, in the main, to governmental educational services for external students and, in particular, to the Commonwealth, State or Northern Territory governments as regards students outside Australia. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you would be aware because you are such a discerning person particularly on matters relating to education, that would pick up many Malaysian students and many other students from Association of South East Asian Nations who come to Australia to avail themselves, on a commercial and an assisted basis, of education, especially at the tertiary level and subsequently return to their homeland, be it an ASEAN country or beyond. I want to point to a trend in this context. Our trade with ASEAN is not as good as it should be. I mention Malaysia as it is directly involved with this clause. In 1984-85 our exports to Malaysia were valued at some $603,822,000. In 1985-86, this declined to $516,317,000. In 1984-85, Australia's trade with Singapore was $782,002,000 and in 1985-86 it declined to $725,780,000. Finally, we have minuscule trade with Thailand, given the terrific potential of the bilateral relationship between Australia and Thailand. If this country is not careful it will miss the bus in terms of the dynamic economic activity that will descend upon Thailand over the next decade. What do we find? In 1984-85 our exports to Thailand were valued at $200m. That has declined to $162,065,000. The omnibus measure before the House gives me the opportunity to highlight, if only briefly-I would not want to transcend on your will or determination on this matter, Mr Deputy Speaker-that our trading situation with ASEAN leaves much to be desired. A great deal more has to be done. At least the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) gives the Export Market Development Grants Act a further provision in respect of that trade. I would like to refer to the provisions of the Dairy Produce Act 1986 which were covered very adequately by my colleague, the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran). He pointed out that very little consultation took place between the Government and the dairy industry before this clause was snuck in in the middle of this huge Bill and presented as a fait accompli to the industry which has had to negotiate time and again with the Federal Government and State governments and now finds this very shabby deal, this very shabby approach from the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and from the Government at large. This is at a time when the dairy industry is at the crossroads and in crisis. I oppose the action of Midland Milk Pty Ltd, a company in Shepparton, Victoria, which has started an interstate milk war. I point out further that in the long run an all-out interstate milk war will not benefit the consumers or milk producers on either side of the New South Wales-Victorian border or across Australia. Again, I suspect that there has been some unholy alliance perhaps between the son-in-law of the Victorian Premier and certain other elements of the Victorian dairy industry to bring about this try-on to collapse the milk marketing approach in Australia through the action of Midland Milk in shipping milk to the Sydney liquid milk market. I have my suspicions in that regard, as have many dairy industry leaders, particularly in New South Wales. But for the time being the whole thing is back on hold as a consequence of further discussions which have taken place at the State level and also with the Federal Minister for Primary Industry. It is something which needs to be monitored very closely indeed. I repeat than an all-out interstate milk war, whilst it might mean a reduction in milk pricing for a brief period will, in the long run, lead to problems for consumers in the winter milk supply and problems with dairying on both sides of the border. Mr Cunningham —Cheaper milk. Mr TIM FISCHER —I challenge the honourable member for McMillan to say that he supports the actions of Midland Milk. Mr Cunningham —That was your terminology, not mine. Mr TIM FISCHER —The honourable member said clearly and unequivocally that he supports Midland Milk in its sabotaging of the milk marketing arrangements against the Victorian State Government's official policy. But there is an unholy alliance. We now know that the honourable member for McMillan is part of this unholy alliance which involves the son-in-law of the Premier of Victoria who is an executive of Midland Milk at Shepparton and which also involves some elements of the Victorian dairy industry agropolitical structure. We will watch with interest to see how this saga will finish. I can only say that both the very large number of dairy farmers and the milk consumers whom I represent in the electorate of Farrer have a direct interest in the successful interstate marketing arrangements and they should oppose the collapse of those arrangements. Finally, I would just like to focus on one other area in relation to this omnibus measure before the House. I refer to the social security and repatriation provisions. It is a minor drafting adjustment and one which I and the National Party are certainly not opposing. But it does give me leave to point out, in the context of this particular amendment, that many veterans, war widows and ex-service personnel are terrified by the approach of the mini-Budget in two days' time. They wonder whether they will be subjected to unfair, unjust and excessive cuts in their entitlements when they have already undergone a deferment of a consumer price index increase at the end of last year and a range of cutbacks and changes in the last two years since the 1985 mini-Budget. Those people remember that mini-Budget well; there was no consultation with the Returned Services League and other veteran's organisations ahead of the mini-Budget of 1985. Suddenly, overnight, the Government produced the biggest cutdowns on totally and permanently incapacitated pension criteria ever adopted by any government of any political persuasion since World War II. It covered large sections of the Veterans' Entitlement Act; it was put into the mini-Budget legislation and it represented a massive tightening up of TPI criteria. The measure was rushed through Parliament as part of the 1985 May mini-Budget legislation. I serve notice here and now that the National Party of Australia is well equipped to examine the detail of the May mini-Budget 1987. It will be my responsibility to examine in particular the changes and cut-backs flowing from the 1987 mini-Budget that might be imposed on veterans, war widows and ex-service personnel. We will go in to bat in terms of these changes and cut-backs, after they have been duly considered. I point out that the Parliament and the Government have a responsibility to ensure that the right thing is done for people who served their country in time of war. Any cheap-handed approach by the Government, along the lines of implementing unfair, unjust and excessive cut-backs in relation to entitlements of veterans, war widows and ex-service personnel, will be bitterly resented right across the nation. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(5.42) —In my brief remarks tonight I wish to refer to the amendments to the Management and Investment Companies Act 1983 which are set out in Schedule 1 of the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1). These amendments relate to the powers of the Management and Investment Companies Licensing Board to impose conditions and to vary or revoke such conditions when granting a licence, or during the currency of a licence. The explanatory memorandum is anything but clear about the precise import of the amendments. I take this opportunity to offer some comment on the management and investment company program as it now stands after some three to four years of operation. That program stemmed from an initiative of the Hon. David Thomson, the Minister for Science in the Fraser Government. Mr McGauran —A good Minister, too. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Yes, a good Minister. He commissioned a report, the so-called Espie Report, to be prepared under the chairmanship of Sir Frank Espie of the then CRA Ltd, heading a committee of the Australian Academy of the Technological Sciences. On its accession to office, the Hawke Government picked up this report and legislated for the establishment of the management and investment companies-MICs-in late 1983. The complementary tax measure was enacted in the nick of time in June 1984. The program thus got under way in the middle of 1984, and so it has had three years of effective operation. The purpose of the measure was to promote the establishment and development of a private sector venture capital market in Australia. The formation of management and investment companies was to be fostered by the provision of a tax incentive to encourage investors to subscribe capital to them. The incentive is that such subscriptions are 100 per cent tax deductible in the year that the capital is subscribed. In turn, the role of the management and investment companies is to invest in new, fledgling, high technology, export oriented and potentially fast growing businesses. Thus, the selecting of investments and the risk taking, the picking of winners and losers in this high tech area, if one wants to put it that way, is a matter for the private sector and the market-place, where it belongs. I would add that the role of the management and investment companies is to afford a new business not only finance but also management, technological and marketing assistance. Provision was made for a board to license management and investment companies as part of a mechanism for limiting the cost of the tax concession to government. The present amendments in the Bill refer to the powers of this licensing board. My initial reaction was a fear that these amendments represented an unwelcome increase in the powers of, or the potential for the exercise of powers by, the licensing board-and I refer to powers to impose conditions on the management and investment companies-because this board is the instrument of government involvement in this scheme. Happily, the record is that, in the granting of most licences, to date, no conditions have been imposed. The whole scheme has been virtually a 100 per cent private sector operation, as indeed was originally intended. So, in the light of the explanation given to my colleague, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), to which he referred in his speech earlier today, one's fear has been largely allayed. Within the framework to which I have referred, the quantum of tax deductible capital subscribed has been limited in this way to the order of $40m each year, at a cost to the Government in tax forgone of the order of $20m each year. This limitation on the total dimensions of the program has been the rub. The scheme is now in its fourth year of operation in formal terms and the position is that the management and investment companies are undoubtedly strapped for cash. In that three to four years, some 11 management and investment companies have been licensed. They include companies such as BT Innovation, Continental Venture Capital, Western Pacific, CP Ventures Ltd and so on. Those companies have fostered the development-in most cases, the successful development-of upwards of 100 new predominantly high technology companies. The basic problem is that the $40m of new money each year is too little to be shared among the 11 management and investment companies. The position that most of the companies now find themselves in is that the bulk of the money presently unallocated, together with the next instalment of capital raising under the scheme-that for 1987-88-is needed for further round financing of their existing investments. This situation is thus effectively limiting the making of new investments. Earlier this year a proposal was put up and approved in principle by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) to allow the management and investment companies to issue two types of shares-one class A, to attract the tax deductibility for investors, and the other, class B shares, which would be non-tax deductible. This would have required only minor change to the Management and Investment Companies Act and it was hoped that this proposal could be implemented reasonably quickly-perhaps the changes could have been made in this Bill. However, in respect of that very reasonable and costless proposal, the Government has dragged its feet and nothing has happened. Some companies have sought to exploit one possibility under the present Act, namely, to approach and seek additional capital from pension funds. One company, CP Ventures Ltd, is planning to raise some $25m, I understand, from this source in an attempt to lift its capital towards the $50m mark, widely judged to be the minimum size for a viable venture capital fund in the United States of America and Europe. In conclusion, the real issue is whether the management and investment companies program is succeeding in its stated objective of kick-starting, of seeding, a venture capital industry in Australia. In the general context of financial deregulation of recent years, this question is difficult to assess, also because of the macroeconomic policy failures of this Government. There is the yawning balance of payments gap, the mounting overseas debt-matters which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) chose not to refer to when answering the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) on the alleged good economic performance of this Government-and, most pertinently, the associated crippling level of interest rates in this country, still fully 7 to 10 percentage points higher than any of the other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, which are very adversely affecting the business investment climate. In the event, the Government has requested the Bureau of Industry Economics to carry out a review of the scheme to make an assessment of its general success and the extent to which the private venture capital market has developed since its introduction. I gather that even the proposed changes in relation to capital raising, to which I have referred, will await the Bureau's report. It does need to be borne in mind that the scheme has been in effective operation for only three years. On the basis of evidence as to the high success rate of the companies supported by the scheme, the high proportion of export income in their gross sales, and yet continued anecdotal evidence of the difficulty fledgling companies confront in obtaining venture capital, there would seem on the face of it to be a pretty strong case for its continuance for some years yet. However, the definitive inquiry by the Bureau is to be welcomed and then an explicit government decision is required in the face of rumours that the scheme could be terminated. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(5.52) —I would like to make a few comments in this debate in relation to the comments made by the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), who spoke in relation to the dairy industry and to the changes in this legislation. He also made some comments in relation to the New South Wales dairy industry and the Victorian dairy industry, with special reference to Midland dairies. He tried to put on the record in the House that I was making certain statements in relation to the industry, so I want to put on the record what I really believe in relation to this, and not to have on the record the comments of the honourable member for Farrer as to what I allegedly said. Whilst I do support the moves that were taken by Midland dairies in selling milk into New South Wales, I think they have to be put into their proper context. We hear a very strong case being put by members of the National Party of Australia in New South Wales in particular and in Queensland on behalf of their dairy industry. As a Victorian, of course I take a slightly different view to what they do in relation to it. What we have in Australia are two completely different structures of the dairy industry. Victoria has a structure which is identical to that of New Zealand, and of course New South Wales and Queensland are still operating a structure in their industry which is identical to that which Victoria had some 10 years ago but which has been phased out over that period. So what we are really looking at, if the members of the National Party are really concerned, is that there comes a time when change has to be recognised and has to take place over a steady period. In other words, industry in Victoria changed over a 10-year period. All that the Victorians are looking for at this stage is to see some pressure put on New South Wales to make it realise that if it does not change, and change progressively, to a more efficient practice in producing milk eventually it will hand the new Sydney and Brisbane markets across to the New Zealand industry, which is very efficient. I know that what I am saying is slightly outside the scope of the legislation, the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1987, but I just wanted to put on the record that what we are looking at, as far as Victoria is concerned, and what I strongly support, is structuring the industries according to the realities of the markets and the competition. Henceforth, if people such as the honourable member for Farrer keep putting their heads in the sand and doing a South Africa on this issue, it will eventually be to the loss of their constituents. I just wanted to put on the record the facts as far as that is concerned. I strongly support the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) in his changes to these statutory authorities, in view of the necessity to put them on the record in such a way that they do work very effectively on behalf of all people-the consumers, the producers and the people who work in those factories. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(5.55) —I rise to speak this afternoon on the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1987, about which the Minister at the table, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), said in his second reading speech: This Bill continues the practice of introducing an omnibus Bill into each sitting of the Parliament as an expeditious way of making a large number of non-contentious- I will dispute that later- amendments to legislation not otherwise being amended. Some of the amendments made by this Bill tidy up, correct and update existing legislation. Other amendments are of minor policy significance or are matters of routine administration. I take issue with the Minister because I think some of the matters raised in this omnibus legislation are of important policy significance and need explaining, and that in fact the legislation raises the important question of the role of Parliament and of individual members of both the Government and the Opposition in this Parliament in this sort of legislation that we are asked to approve, just because it has an omnibus role and a tidying up role. As I said on an earlier occasion, I have had a continuing interest in this type of legislation because it does affect both the role and the work of this Parliament. When I spoke last year on the 1986 legislation I said, in relation to the history of these Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bills, that until the early 1980s they were seldom introduced, but that with the growth of government their introduction had become more repetitious. I think last year we had two. This is put down to the growth of inaccurate drafting by some, but we have lost the original purpose, which was to make good an inconsequential amendment of a general drafting nature. What is now happening is that mistakes are being made and covered up by this type of legislation. We are also getting policy changes in a general omnibus Bill being made under the guise of a tidying up situation. I warned on that occasion-and I stated this to the Parliament-that this was not good enough. I said that the role of the Parliament had to be examined in relation to the matter, because we need to have an intelligent debate. I believe that the Minister at the table is prepared to have an intelligent debate and to answer questions that are asked of him in this debate. But that is not good enough because policy issues are raised in this legislation. Let me mention some examples. For instance, let us look at the amendment to the Management and Investment Companies Act 1983 that the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards) was speaking about. The provisions about management investment companies in this omnibus Bill, the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) legislation, in fact change the terms and conditions of the granting of licences. I would have thought that that was fairly fundamental in relation to an individual piece of legislation. Here we have provisions in the Management Investment Companies Act for the granting of licences. I would have thought that if the terms and conditions of licences were going to be changed a Bill ought to be introduced, a second reading speech made and that issue debated in the Parliament. I would have thought that that would be quite fundamental. If there are new terms and conditions on the granting of licences, and if a board is being given power to grant those licences, I would have thought that that would have been an important matter of policy significance and in fact would have been examined on its own. I would be very interested in the answer to that question and I ask the question of the Minister at the table. Again just browsing through the enormous number of amendments made to various Acts of the Parliament, another Act to be amended is the Australian Tourist Commission Act. The effect of changes to one of the sub-sections I think is to change the term of acting appointments from six to 12 months. I would be interested in what the Minister has to say about that. Again, I would have thought that that was not just a tidying-up operation. It is a policy matter that should be addressed by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), who is responsible for the Australian Tourist Commission. He should raise an amendment in parliament. On the same page of the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill there are amendments to the Australian Trade Commission Act, the Barley Research Levy Act, the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Trust Fund Act and the Automotive Industry Authority Act. I again ask the Minister what will be the effects of each of the changed definitions? I do not know, because Parliament has not been told. Are they or are they not significant? The definition of `Australian company' is omitted. What is the effect of that on the Automotive Industry Authority Act? In addition, the definition of `eligible company' is altered. What is the effect of that? It could be a matter of important policy significance, and the Minister should introduce it into the House as a specific Bill. These matters are of concern because it is part of the increased tactics of government to come to parliament and say that something is a general tidying and updating of legislation and that we should all simply vote and agree it. That is not good enough. As I said earlier, there is now a trend to bypass the proper procedures of parliament. I remember that the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) showed an intelligent interest in the subject on the last occasion that the matter was debated. There is now less and less time to debate important issues-both individual pieces of legislation and, even more so, omnibus Bills. There are more and more important and significant amendments in such Bills as this one. When we were debating the matter in 1986, I said that I hoped that the parliamentary draftsmen-those who were there then, and, I hope, those who are here today advising the Government-would get the message that parliament has had enough. Pieces of legislation should be amended individually when amendment is needed. It is important that the supremacy and sovereignty of parliament be restored. We should have intelligent discussion in committee stages, not only of this Bill but of all pieces of legislation, as a matter of general reform. As we move to the new parliament building in the next 12 months, I hope that there will be a focus on the need to reform the procedures of this place; the need becomes more urgent. As parliament moves into the new building, which is more geographically isolated than this building, there is a risk of members becoming out of touch with general community attitudes simply because of its geography. As parliament moves to the new building, we should not lose the opportunity to grasp the nettle of the need to reform parliamentary procedures. We must stop the trend of growth of government and the sort of legislation that we are discussing today. This omnibus Bill makes various amendments to a whole host of acts and for related purposes, without adequate debate, without reasons being put for the amendments and without any committee examination by parliament. There is an urgent need to reform parliament's committee system to examine both the sort of legislation that is before us and individual pieces of legislation. There is a need for a range of committees to examine legislation during its committee stage. The House may remember that in the days of the Fraser Government legislation committees were experimented with and abandoned. That was a tragedy because a meaningful role for the House of Representatives was beginning to develop. The Senate has Estimates committees which do valuable work by examining legislation line by line. This House is losing something by not being able to examine legislation in detail and to inquire of public servants the nature of that legislation. Other than the special House of Representatives committees that examine particular areas of activity-such as the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs-that provide an opportunity for honourable members to talk with public servants, there is a great need for the legislator of Australia to examine the Public Service bureaucracy. I think that that would be welcomed by public servants. I serve on the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, which is currently inquiring into the effectiveness and efficiency of Australia's representation overseas. The Committee is hearing evidence from a number of departments, and it is valuable for honourable members to have the opportunity to talk with those who live behind the walls of bureaucracy in Canberra. I find that they welcome the opportunity to come and talk with honourable members. It is useful for them to listen across the board, from both sides of the House, to what honourable members have to say. It is very valuable for parliament to have the opportunity-indeed, it should be a role-to examine legislation in detail and to talk with and ask questions of those public servants who draft our legislation. I hope that that opportunity will not be lost. This Government, like others before it, is long on the rhetoric of the need to reform the parliamentary process, but slow to do anything about it. The need to reform the parliamentary process becomes greater day by day. The Government has increased the size of the Parliament, yet there has not been any increase in the number of committees or change in the nature of their work. There is an argument that, if we had a meaningful committee stage for legislation or set up legislation committees, we could do away with many of the existing House of Representatives committees, save money in the process and have a more effective examination of legislation. As we move to the bicentenary and to the new parliament building, it is very important that the Government faces the fact that not only the Cabinet and the Ministry but individual members should examine an issue. It is important that honourable members come out of their party rooms-in the Government's case, the Caucus room-where there is not sufficient time to debate and examine legislation in detail, come to the Parliament and give the Parliament a much more meaningful role. There is an increase in the growth and size of government day by day. As the power of government grows and the power of the Executive branch increases, there is a diminution of the role and ability of parliament to examine legislation. The Bill before us contains a whole host of amendments, some of which are complicated and some of which have policy significance, but no explanation is made to Parliament. The opportunity for reform must be grasped by Parliament; if it is not, the growth in power of the executive branch will only increase. I believe that the next year or so will be very important. If these matters are not grasped by the Parliament in fulfilling its role the Parliament will be a less democratic place. I am grateful for the opportunity of speaking on this legislation. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(6.10) —in reply-I thank all members for their contributions, although I do not necessarily agree with all that they have said. It is a matter of record that we have had a Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill for at least 10 years or more. As the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) has said, there are now 148 members of this Parliament. He omitted to say, I think, that they work very hard. I cannot for one minute see how they can spend any more time on their work, since most work 80 hours a week now. I do not criticise the honourable member, but I point out that we went through the exercise of having committees and they were not a success. They were abandoned during the time of the Fraser Government. There are committees now to deal with amendments to legislation. I point out that, although the Bill is of some size in terms of the number of Acts it alters, no Opposition amendments are suggested to it. I am not here to give advice to anyone, but it is clear from my experience in Parliament that the only time a member should be on his feet and getting stuck into the Government is when he has a proposal about something he believes the Government is doing wrong. There are many opportunities to take that action, such as Question Time, on matters of public importance, and when there is a suspension of Standing Orders. What I say now does not apply to the honourable member for Higgins, but what some honourable members said today had nothing to do with the matter before us. If I may say so charitably in the absence of the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), he talked extensively about what would be contained in the May statement although no-one knows what will be in that statement. This is a case where largesse is extended and members are given 10 minutes if they have something to say, and I am happy about that, but some members took their full time and did not satisfactorily suggest how to get more minutes out of an hour or days out of a week when it comes to the effective work Parliament is trying to do. We are not helped by a Senate that decides to impose its own time constraints and will not deal with legislation unless it gets it at a time that suits its convenience. The parliamentary draftsmen came in for a slight slap on the hand, but they do their best under difficult conditions, because legislation such as this is effective in being able to amend a number of machinery aspects of legislation. I will deal with the matter as I see it. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender)-I thank him for his support-raised a number of matters that he emphasised were important. They related to both the Audit Act and the reasons why that Act is important to us. Understanding his support for the measure, I again invite the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) to understand what is being done. In no way does the legislation affect the independence of the Auditor-General, as the honourable member thought it might. The Auditor-General is an officer of the Parliament and, through his office, has to examine matters and make reports. That will still be the case. There is no suggestion of any matters being affected so that the Auditor-General can no longer report on them. The legislation merely emphasises the fact that, if there are substantial breaches of legislation or of the Constitution itself, the Auditor-General will be fully able to report that matter to the Parliament. In no way is the independence of the Auditor-General affected. The honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) complained about delays in the migration area. He said that the administrative processes in that area were in a state of collapse. I am sure he will pursue that matter in Question Time or on some other occasion as that is a matter of concern to him, and to anybody else if it is the case. Obviously the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young) will be able to assist the honourable member in overcoming some of the misconceptions that he might have in that regard. The real issue raised here seems to be whether we can have separate legislation for each alteration but, given the time constraint, that is just not possible. I point out that legislation such as this has been used by Governments of all persuasions as being the best way to reform some of the matters that need effective and urgent legislation. The honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) became ferocious about the whole matter. He said that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) did not understand several matters. In dealing with the dairy industry he particularly mentioned the amendments relating to people who were members of the Australian Dairy Industry Conference executive as against the Australian Dairy Corporation. He said he was surprised that nobody in the industry knew anything about the matter: It was a dreadful surprise to members of the executive of the ADIC who were perhaps no longer able to be members of the ADC. In other words, there was to be no cross-membership. I am surprised about this. I am told by the Minister that he advised all such members about the position in correspondence dated November 1986. It is pretty clear that the people informing the honourable member for Gippsland about this matter have omitted to tell him that they were told individually by the Minister that in appointing as members of the ADC members of the ADIC executive he was prepared to accept cross-membership only as a transitional arrangement. He indicated that the individuals concerned would not be considered for reappointment to the ADC in future unless at that time the person concerned was not a member of the ADIC executive council. The Minister also informed the Chairman of the ADIC of his position in this matter. That answers that question. The honourable member for Gippsland is anxious to make his mark in this place as what I would call the deputy shadow Attorney-General, and I am surprised that he has now decided to launch into this area. In future he should be better briefed. If he wants to raise matters of this nature, he should do so at Question Time or as a matter of public importance. I am not here to encourage debate, but I point out that the last time Parliament discussed any dairy matter was over two years ago. However, I am not here to give advice. If there is so much concern about these matters in the dairy industry, the honourable member has plenty of opportunity to exercise his talents in that regard. The honourable member mentioned a few other matters, and he raised an objection about everything he referred to. He said that his Party would abolish the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. We know that. It was set up by the Fraser Government in accordance with an international covenant to which this nation is a party. If the National Party ever gets to power-and God forbid that it does-it would apparently abandon that international covenant and there would be no need for a Human Rights Commission. The only other people who would not want such a commission would be those of the Eastern bloc or some people in South Africa. The honourable member for Gippsland was also concerned about the first home owners scheme. I am delighted to know that it has now been brought back as part of the policy of the Opposition. For a long time that was going to be abolished as well. I very much thank the honourable member for North Sydney for his intelligent support of the legislation and I thank the Opposition for its support. If there are matters of significance amongst the matters raised, the appropriate Ministers will deal with them. Whether they relate to tourism or other subjects, I am sure my colleagues will be only too happy to deal with those matters. I thank the House for supporting the legislation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(6.19) —I move: Page 67, Schedule 1, clause 3, item relating to proposed subsection 10 (2) of the Wine Grapes Levy Collection Act 1979, insert `, and any information or thing (including any document) obtained as a direct or indirect consequence of the furnishing of the return or information,' after `any such return or information that is furnished'. The amendment extends the protection afforded by the new section to include any information or thing obtained as a direct or indirect consequence of the furnishing of the return so as to bring the provision into line with similar provisions in other legislation. The matter really is on the basis that where that information is required it cannot be used to incriminate a person in any subsequent prosecution. It is on that basis that the amendment has been moved and is understood. Amendment agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 30 April, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —I understand it is the wish of the House to debate the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill 1987 concurrently with the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1987. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —I indicate to the House that some amendments will be moved on behalf of the Government. They are consequential amendments in drafting terms and they have been circulated. I have given a copy to my colleague the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(6.22) —The measures in the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill 1987 and the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1987, though long delayed, are welcome. They recognise the truly international character of organised crime. The purpose of the Bill may be stated in these terms: The legislation is to provide a basis for Australia to enter into arrangements with other countries whereby it can request and grant assistance in criminal matters. The Bill will form that legislative basis. It provides for assistance to be granted and received in respect of the investigation and prosecution of crime and the recovery of assets, including money, obtained as a result of crime. At present international assistance is available to Australia only informally through Interpol. The Bill specifies the nature and methods of obtaining assistance from Australia in matters by foreign countries. In contrast, the types of assistance available to Australia from foreign countries are stated in broad terms only. The detail of the reciprocal assistance measures will depend on the domestic legislation of each foreign country with which we deal. The spread of serious organised crime in our society and throughout the world cannot be doubted. Organised crime is entrenched in our society. We have had a number of major investigations, carried out by royal commissions, into organised crime. The National Crime Authority has been established. Everywhere there are indications of the growth of organised crime and of the concern that people have about its growth and about its strength. Its growth reflects the times. Crime does not stand still, and organised crime in particular does not stand still. There is no mystery to the expression `organised crime'. What does it mean? It means crime run as a business. Criminals are in the business of plundering others for profit. Organised criminals do it in a far more organised way than was the case in the old days when things seemed to be so much simpler. There is a very uneasy feeling that the criminals are winning. I will give just one example from the report of the Australian Police Ministers Council for 1984-85 which was tabled a few months ago in the Parliament. It referred to the operations of a criminal syndicate. This was said in relation to the effectiveness of the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence: A principal ABCI project identified a syndicate criminal organisation with international connections. At this stage of its development its primary source of income is the illicit drug industry but it is penetrating legitimate business and commerce with the funds generated by such illegal activity. The annual income of this group, derived from local marihuana plantations alone, has been conservatively estimated to be in excess of $550 million. The organisation resorts to violence including murder or suspected murders, 3 of which have occurred overseas. The organisation remains a continuing threat to Australian society despite 270 arrests by Australian Police Forces. That is but one example of the problems this society confronts. Some of the salient features and the workings of organised crime that are relevant to this Bill are: First, the interstate and international nature of its activities; second, the use of modern communications, of travel and the telephone-that means of instant communication which is used by criminals for setting up and carrying out criminal enterprises; third, reinvestment of the proceeds of organised crime in legitimate business activities; and, fourth, the corruption of police and of public officials. The destructive effects of organised crime are all too plain. I will say nothing more about them. I will now say something about some of the deficiencies of this Government's approach to organised crime, which has been marked by a great deal of rhetoric and a complete absence of any strategic plan. Let me list some of those deficiencies. The first relates to criminal statistics. There is no system for the national collection of criminal statistics. How are we to deal with organised crime if we have no means of gauging the dimensions of the problem, if we have no system of national statistics that will enable us to analyse and to correlate criminal activities? The next deficiency relates to illegal betting. The Government has not even attempted to grapple with the problem of illegal betting. Let me remind honourable members that illegal betting is not a glamorous back street business. It is a highly organised form of crime and those involved in it make use of Telecom Australia as an essential part of their activities. Without Telecom, illegal betting, starting price betting, would virtually disappear. Yet nothing has been done by this Government to bring in offences under the telecommunications power so that those who engage in the use of Telecom facilities for illegal betting activity would be subject to heavy penalties. It is a perfectly obvious response and yet it has not apparently been thought of. Certainly, we have never heard of it. The next deficiency relates to the National Crime Authority, the principal Commonwealth investigative body, which has no power to investigate illegal SP betting. In part that is due to the fact that the National Crime Authority has a limitation which is fixed by reference to the amount of punishment that may be inflicted. Ironically most illegal betting activities, even though they are such an important part of organised crime, are subject to fairly minor penalties. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr SPENDER —Before the suspension of the sitting I was outlining some of the deficiencies in the Government's approach to organised crime. I pick up with the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence, a body of great importance in the investigation of organised crime, in gathering intelligence concerning organised crime; yet it does not have sufficient resources to fulfil its charter. That is a very basic deficiency. If one looks to the evidence for what I have just said, it is to be found in the annual report of the Australian Police Ministers Council to which I referred a short time ago. I turn next to the National Crime Authority. This body does not have adequate powers to investigate organised crime. It may investigate offences or suspected offences against State laws only with the authority of the inter-governmental committee. There is a potential for a political veto. All of us should want to get rid of that potential, but it is entrenched in the legislation. That arises because there is a power in a State which is to be subjected to an investigation, or the possibility of an investigation, by the National Crime Authority, using the coercive powers, to exercise a veto against that investigation. The Australian Taxation Office suffers from deficiencies and inefficiencies in the investigation of tax evasion which have been examined by some of those who have had to look at the operation of that Office, how it conducts its affairs and how it goes about the business of detection and prosecution of tax evasion. Law enforcement agencies do not have adequate access to taxation information that is relevant to their investigations. This has been the subject of a number of recommendations. The public interest is a very great one in making sure that law enforcement authorities have access, with proper safeguards, to taxation information for the purposes of the investigation and prosecution of serious crime. This is a course which has been resisted by the Taxation Office. It is one that we need to embrace because, by giving access under proper safeguards to taxation information, we will facilitate the pursuit of criminal offences and the convictions of those guilty of them. The last deficiency is that the Government does not appear to be able to keep an effective monitor of the resources needed by all Federal agencies involved in law enforcement. Those are but a few of the deficiencies in the Government's approach to organised crime-an approach which has been high on publicity and low on co-ordination of effort. Let me say that this is a good Bill and we welcome it. Let me turn to it. The purpose of the legislation, as I outlined earlier, was to give to other countries, and for Australia to get, international assistance in criminal matters. Clause 5 lays down the objects of the Bill. They are these: The object of this Act is to facilitate the provision and obtaining by Australia of international assistance in criminal matters, including: (a) the obtaining of evidence, documents or other articles; (b) the provision of documents and other records; (c) the location and identification of witnesses or suspects; (d) the execution of requests for search and seizure; (e) the making of arrangements for persons to give evidence or assist investigations; (f) the forfeiture of confiscation of property in respect of offences; (g) the recovery of pecuniary penalties in respect of offences; (h) the restraining of dealings in property, or the freezing of assets, that may be forfeited or confiscated, or that may be needed to satisfy pecuniary penalties imposed, in respect of offences; (j) the location of property that may be forfeited, or that may be needed to satisfy pecuniary penalties imposed, in respect of offences; and (k) the service of documents. If one looks at some of the principal features of the Bill, one sees these elements: First, the Bill does not limit the provision of obtaining of assistance otherwise than in accordance with the legislation itself. Next, in dealing with the case of requests by foreign countries, assistance can be given only to those foreign countries which are specified in regulations made under the Bill, or under the Act, as it will be. The Attorney- General has power to refuse assistance under clause 8 which provides that a request of a foreign country for assistance under the Act shall be refused if, in the opinion of the Attorney-General, it relates or gives rise to one of a number of disabling grounds, such as the prosecution or punishment of a person for an offence that is of a political character. Under clause 8 the Attorney-General may refuse assistance if one of a number of disabling grounds is, in his opinion, established, such as, the request relates to the prosecution of punishment of a person in respect of an act or omission that, if it had occurred in Australia, would not have constituted an offence against Australia law. A foreign country which seeks assistance from Australia must substantiate its request. Provision is made for evidence to be taken in Australia and for documents to be produced in Australia. That is done by clause 13, which is concerned with a magistrate's position when a magistrate is taking, amongst other things, evidence. Under clause 13 (4) the magistrate conducting the proceeding, under an earlier sub-clause, may permit the person to whom the proceedings in the foreign country relates to have legal representation at the proceedings before the magistrate. I have omitted certain parts of that provision, but the point is that the magistrate is to have a discretion as to whether a person to whom the proceeding in the foreign country relates is to have the right of legal representation. I have no doubt that a lot of careful thought was given to this provision. But there is a very basic rule which applies in Australia, that is, that a person who is accused of a crime and against whom evidence is being tendered has an opportunity to be present and to have representation. True it is that we do not expect that a person, in cases in which a person has been proceeded against in a foreign country, should be present in Australia when evidence is being taken. But it is a marked departure from our approach that there should not be a right for that person to have legal representation. For example, if evidence is taken overseas on commission in respect of a matter arising in Australia, a party to the proceeding is always entitled to be represented at the taking of the evidence. The reason is obvious. If oral evidence is taken, how can that be tested if the person to whom that oral evidence relates, a person who is the subject of a charge, does not have the opportunity to test that evidence by cross-examination? It appears to me that that is a cardinal defect in this area of the Bill. It is one that I have drawn to the attention of one of the Attorney-General's officers as I wanted him to consider it for the purposes of examining the prospect of an amendment to overcome the problem about which I am talking, since I believe that the Attorney-General is a person who likes to see the basic rules of our system preserved. Continuing on with what may be done on behalf of foreign countries, search and seizure provisions are provided for so that documents and so on may be searched for and seized so they can be presented in evidence overseas or used for purposes relating to investigations. Also, there is a provision for the giving of evidence in foreign countries by prisoners in Australia. This is an important provision, as the intent is that if a prisoner in Australia can give relevant evidence in some foreign proceedings, so long as there are sufficient undertakings to protect that person whilst he is overseas, he or she should be made available to give evidence. But there is a problem, and it is this: Clause 26 (1) makes provision for a prisoner giving evidence overseas and states that the Attorney-General must be satisfied that the prisoner has consented to giving evidence in a foreign country. Let us consider the realities. What will happen if a person in the iron hotel in Australia who is serving a 20-year sentence for a very serious criminal offence is able to give evidence which is directly relevant to criminal proceedings in another country, perhaps involving some old colleagues in the crime trade, and his assistance is sought? Do we really imagine that he will say: `That is nice. I would like a little trip. It would be pleasant to go to Britain, France or West Germany and give evidence'? Of course not. After all, people who end up in gaol on serious offences are not the most public spirited of citizens of this country. I suggest to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) that if we persist with that provision, it will mean that the effectiveness of that part of the legislation will be nullified. That would be a great pity. I ask the Attorney-General to reconsider the question of a prisoner consenting to giving evidence overseas. As long as the rights of a prisoner are going to be safeguarded, as long as we can be certain that that is the case before he leaves the country, it seems to me that we should not say: `Do you want to go?'; what we should say is: `We have secured your position. No harm will befall you as a result of your going overseas and giving evidence, but go you will. As to what evidence you will give, that is something you must decide yourself'. Those matters should be redrawn. I ask the Attorney-General to think very carefully about those two provisions, although I have already had an explanation from his office as to the reasons they were drawn up as they were. I now want to say something about delay. In our view, legislation of this kind should have been introduced a long time ago. When the Government was in opposition, it said a great deal about organised crime and about the record of the Fraser Government in that area. It was contemptuous of the work done by the Fraser Government although the Fraser Government set up the National Crime Commission which was the genesis of the National Crime Authority. We welcome the introduction of this Bill. It is a well drawn Bill and I commend those who had the task of drawing it up. It deals with a difficult field and deals with it in a way which makes it a very intelligible piece of legislation. The Attorney-General, when introducing the Bill, said that the legislation represented the implementation of the recommendations of Royal Commissioner Mr Justice Stewart, who inquired into the activities of the Nugan Hand Group and reported in mid-1985. It is bad enough that it has taken the Government, which has been riding the organised crime bandwagon, just on two years to bring in this legislation in its final form; but the need for updated mutual assistance legislation had been emphasised to the Government long before the Nugan Hand report. In fact, the legislation generally implements recommendations made by Mr Costigan and others four or more years ago. Earlier I said that the Government lacked a strategic plan to combat organised crime. I repeat that it is plain that it does because, despite this Bill, and despite the Bill which we will debate later tonight which deals with the confiscation of criminal assets-which, again, is a well-drawn piece of legislation in a difficult area-we lack a planned comprehensive approach to combating organised crime. If severe and lasting damage is to be done to organised crime, it is essential that we have such a plan. It should include these elements: First, across the spectrum intelligence gathering to build a detailed picture of the activities of organised crime; secondly, analysis of the needs of all Federal agencies involved in law enforcement and adequacy or inadequacy of personnel, training and resources; thirdly, a planned upgrading of personnel, training and resources in those agencies; fourthly, co-ordination under a senior Minister of the work of all Federal agencies involved in law enforcement. Presently, law enforcement is scattered through different departments and agencies under different Ministers-for example, the Attorney-General, who has the conduct of the Crimes Act; the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, who has the administration of the Customs Act; and the Minister for Social Security, who has to deal with welfare fraud. Fifthly, we need to have an urgent reappraisal of the many outstanding recommendations of royal commissioners and special prosecutors into organised crime for changes to laws and to law enforcement practices. A great deal of work has been done; a great deal of work has been neglected. The work should be analysed. The analysis should be made public so that we have a public statement of what the Government's position is on all outstanding recommendations of persons such as Mr Costigan, Mr Justice Stewart, Mr Redlich and others. Lastly, I wish to refer to what Mr Pino Arlacci had to say in Mafia Business. Mr Arlacci was, and I believe still is, a member of the Italian Government's Anti-Mafia Commission. In his book, in which he examines the mafia and what he calls the mafia ethic and the spirit of capitalism, he concludes by giving some recommendations as to how we can deal with organisations such as the mafia. His concluding recommendation is to the effect that we might: . . . draw up an international convention against large-scale crime. This would lay down the scope and aims of actions undertaken by individual States, and ensure that the struggle against crime was waged by forces as mobile and agile as those deployed by the enemy. I believe that must be the next step. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(8.21) —The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), as usual, embraced a judicious mixture of polemics and sensible comment on the legislation currently before the House, the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill and the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Consequential Amendments) Bill. It is probably fair to say that his contribution is most accurately summed up by repeating his terminology, his contribution, that this legislation is good legislation and that `we'-the Opposition-welcome it. When we strip all the polemics away, the Opposition has, I think constructively, endorsed the substance and spirit of the legislation before the House. It is inevitable, I suspect, in discussing legislation of the import of this legislation that we consider the whole trifecta-if I can use that rather unfortunate analogy, given the comments of the honourable member for North Sydney on SP bookmaking-of legislation that will be proceeding through the House this week; that is, the mutual assistance legislation and proceeds of crimes legislation currently before the House and the telecommunications interception amendment legislation. The reason I name the legislation is in response to the comments of the shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for North Sydney, about the Government allegedly lacking a strategic plan in its fight against organised crime. If there is an argument that we lack a strategic plan-an argument which I will address in a moment and vehemently oppose-we have certainly, through this House and another place, brought to bear the tactical weapons that would be a condition precedent to any effective fight against organised crime. Not only do we have the raft of legislation I have just referred to, but ever since this Government was elected one of the main areas it has had to direct its attention to is the area of organised crime. The Opposition rightly says that the genesis of the National Crime Authority lay in the National Crimes Commission which was a product of the Fraser Government. Certainly that is the case, but it is worth noting that that long overdue initiative was taken very much in the autumn of the Fraser Government's life. It had many years in government. The Fraser Government's record in this area is bereft of any substantive initiatives. To that extent the Opposition comes to this argument with little standing. If one looks at this Government's contribution in the area of organised crime over a relatively short time-frame, as I have indicated, a whole range of initiatives need to be acknowledged. This Government has significantly upgraded the resources and improved the personnel of the Australian Federal Police, referred to earlier, through its managerial efforts of the AFP. That is a matter of record, not a matter of opinion. The computer capacity of the Australian Federal Police has been significantly upgraded. Once again, perhaps the genesis of the acknowledgment of the role of computers came about during the Fraser period but it was really the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union which concentrated everybody's mind on the importance of appropriate computer facilities. In regard to the independent Australian Customs Service, the honourable member for North Sydney, referred to the allegedly disparate number of ministries involved in the fight against organised crime. I do not think anyone in this House would argue with the proposition that the Australian Customs Service is now a much more effective body in the context not only of its wider duties but also of the fight against organised crime since its rather substantial reorganisation. The establishment of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was recommended by one of the royal commissions. I am afraid that I cannot recall which one now, however, I think it was Justice Stewart's Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Activities of the Nugan Hand Group. In any event, the establishment of the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is acknowledged by most observers to be one of the most significant contributions to facilitating the processes that need to be brought to bear in this very important fight. I can recall Opposition members implying at one stage that it was going to be a rather partisan organisation until a couple of very famous Labor Party identities became the subject of its sometimes over vigorous response to some issues. Mr McGauran —Are you criticising it? Mr GRIFFITHS —Yes, I have done so on a number of occasions. I remind the honourable member that I have criticised the Office, particularly in the context of the theory that has emanated from it which is that people in public positions ought to bear a higher burden than ordinary members of the community. That is a relatively unique approach to fighting crime. It is not reflected, to my knowledge, anywhere else in the world. I believe that Mr Temby has brought quite an inappropriate test to bear. Nevertheless, the Office of DPP is an independent body and I suppose that it is up to that body to make such a decision. However, I think it is worth noting that, almost with total unanimity, commentators from across the whole political and legal spectrum have indicated concern, and in many cases opposition, to that type of test. So I certainly reserve the right-and indeed the duty-to criticise that organisation where I believe it is appropriate. I hope that we all reserve such a right in relation to any Australian institution. The national drug summit and the resulting campaign were another major initiative of this Government and, at the margin, an important initiative in the fight against organised crime. I will now address the detail of the legislation. In some of the debates my colleagues and I had leading up to this legislation coming into the House a concern was expressed about how this legislation was likely to impact in circumstances where Australian citizens were facing the death penalty in many of the countries with which we would be dealing as a result of the legislation. Concern was expressed that, for example, not only in those contemporarily well known countries such as Malaysia where there is a death penalty for certain drug offences, and a range of other offences for that matter, but also in the United States, for example, where a whole range of States now have the death penalty, the legislation could act to implicate an Australian government-I am not talking about the Labor Government in this context; in a couple of decades time there might be a Liberal-National Party government-- Mr Maher —No; too early. Mr GRIFFITHS —Too early? Perhaps there will be such a government in three decades, towards the end of the century or a decade or so after. In any event, there may be circumstances in which an Australian government, acting consistently with this legislation, was effectively involving itself in a process the result of which could be to effect the death penalty on an Australian national. Mr McGauran —That's not our decision. That's their decision. Mr GRIFFITHS —I think that in his interjection the honourable member for Gippsland is saying that that is a decision of another country. If honourable members of this House have a strong and fundamental opposition to the death penalty-as I do-it would be quite inconsistent with that approach to facilitate the death penalty by co-operating under this legislation. For example, a whole range of protections are built into the legislation, such as refusal of assistance in clause 8 where we specifically say that we will not co-operate where the prosecution of a person is related to an offence of a political character. I think the honourable member for Gippsland would agree that that is an appropriate and sensible approach. We could also refuse assistance if the prosecution were related to a person's race, sex, religion, nationality or, again, political opinions. I do not think there would be any doubt in this House that that is an appropriate injunction. Clearly there is a possibility that Australian nationals could eventually be dealt a death penalty as a result of our co-operation under this legislation. I simply wish to make the point for those in this House who strongly oppose the death penalty for most types of offences that would be relevant pursuant to this legislation-I think it is important to place this on the record-that there are people who would strongly oppose co-operation where that penalty is likely to result. I do not need to remind the House of the documented cases under our own system where people have been executed for crimes that subsequently they were clearly established not to have committed. The reason I bring it to the attention of the House is that while we must accept that that danger is an ongoing risk of a judicial process that has, as its final sanction, the death penalty and that that judicial process is part of our own system, certainly as a matter of logic we would have to conclude that the dangers of a wrongful death penalty being imposed could be much greater in jurisdictions over which we have little direct control. I believe that a number of provisions might be used by future Attorneys-General to ensure that the possibility does not arise where Australian nationals could effectively suffer the death penalty under judicial processes with which we might have concern or in circumstances where, on objective criteria, we would have the same concern. I specifically refer to clause 8 (2) (e). This is an area where we would be likely to refuse assistance. It states: . . . the provision of the assistance would, or would be likely to, prejudice the safety of any person (whether in or outside Australia); or I think it is probably the case that that clause is meant to relate to other circumstances, but I think it is one that an Australian Attorney-General could rely upon in the circumstances to which I have referred. My time has nearly expired, but I will just run through the substance of the legislation in terms of how it will be translated in specific instances: Obtaining evidence, documents or other articles relevant to a criminal prosecution; provision of documents and other records; the location and identification of witnesses or suspects; the execution of requests for search and seizure; the making of arrangements for persons to give evidence or assist in investigations; the forfeiture or confiscation of property in respect of offences; the recovery of pecuniary penalties in respect of offences; the restraining of dealings in property or in the freezing of assets that may be forfeited or confiscated or that may be needed to satisfy pecuniary penalties imposed in respect of offences; and the location of property that may be forfeited or that may be needed to satisfy pecuniary penalties imposed in respect of offences and the service of documents. Some of those areas were previously the subject of co-operation between Australia and other countries, but this legislation effectively provides the basis upon which we can ensure that other countries will honour their obligations to Australia; that is, they will be enjoined with a legislative base on which to take certain steps subsequent to requests by this country and vice versa. There are a range of other matters that I would like to have gone through. I simply conclude by repeating the theme I started with-it is perhaps inevitable that the Opposition will get up in this House, particularly on issues such as this, and seek to attack this Government's record. I believe any objective observer, particularly on consideration of what this Government has brought about compared with its predecessor, can only conclude that the Government has made a significant contribution to the fight against organised crime. It has not ended with the passage of this raft of legislation by any means, but on any comparative basis it is a significant improvement on the previous position. I think that most objective observers, when stripped of the need for polemics, will agree with the approach that we have taken. I believe that we have brought in legislation rather speedily when one takes into account the enormous complexities involved. I believe that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and his colleagues should be congratulated and the legislation-indeed, it is being supported by the Opposition-should be supported on a bipartisan basis. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(8.37) —In speaking to this very important legislation-the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill-it is not my intention to launch into an unrestrained attack on the Government for its failure to deal adequately with organised crime. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) would agree with me that nobody disputes that this Government has taken some initiative, even tentative steps, towards dealing with the problem of organised crime. However, together with the honourable member for North Sydney, we utterly reject any contention made by the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths), the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) or anybody else on the government benches that the Government has made a full assault on organised crime. There are too many instances of half-hearted attempts for us to be convinced that this Government is totally-I stress the word `totally'-rather than partly committed to tackling organised crime. Before addressing the substance of the legislation I will comment briefly on some of the matters raised by the honourable member for Maribyrnong. This tired old argument that the previous coalition Government did not do enough to fight organised crime is wearing very thin. I would like the Attorney-General to table his speeches, his questions and his statements made during his years as shadow Attorney-General alerting the nation to the cancer of organised crime. The simple fact is that there has been a sudden awakening from a childish naivete about organised crime. It was not until the early 1980s, following the startling revelations of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, that this chamber, perhaps to our shame, began to address the problem of organised crime. Up until then it was a major concern of the Bureau of Criminal Intelligence, the various State police forces and the Federal Police but nowhere were legislators properly addressing themselves to the issue until the Costigan Commission, following from too many royal commissions that had been shelved and reports that had been shelved, brought to light the vastness of organised crime stretching across all sectors of society and even corrupting the judiciary, the legislature and the police forces in a way none of us dreamed or dared to fear. On coming to office in March 1983 this Government was presented with the undeniable evidence of the extent of the problem. It was, therefore, left to this Government to begin to put into place the agencies and the legislation equipping those agencies with sufficient tools to fight organised crime. I, for one, acknowledge, as part of a collective failing, the absence of concerted effort in past days. I take issue with the remedies suggested by the honourable member for Maribyrnong for the problem of organised crime. He referred to the findings of the Costigan Commission but, for heaven's sake, the Costigan Commission was prematurely wound up long before it could properly complete its own investigations and act upon its recommendations and references, which were then handed, sadly, and in my view in a very much disjointed fashion, to the incoming National Crime Authority. So, honourable members opposite should not hold up the Costigan Commission as the flagship of their flight against organised crime, when they so hampered its efforts that they left a former Royal Commissioner very disappointed-and the Attorney-General knows that that is putting it very mildly. Moreover, the honourable member for Maribyrnong sought to convince us that the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Customs Service are now highly efficient, well resourced and successful bodies. Given the resources and the limitations under which they must operate, I have the highest regard for the Federal Police and the Customs Service, but the fact is, as their representatives, particularly from their staff associations, will point out, they have one arm tied behind their back every day; every time they seek to implement the law they find themselves frustrated at every turn. Mrs Kelly —Who said that? Mr McGAURAN —The Australian Federal Police Association, for a start, maintains that that is the case. It is strange that the honourable member for Canberra need ask who is telling us that the Australian Federal Police are poorly resourced, as this concerns her own electorate. This has come from their own Association. Further, on a more specific matter, the honourable member for Maribyrnong has flagged the concern that he has that, under the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill, Australia may be called upon perhaps to return an offender to face the penalty of death. It is not our place to second guess the penalties of other countries. As the honourable member for Maribyrnong has pointed out, to give him his due, in clause 8 of the Bill the Attorney-General can refuse assistance in certain circumstances. A whole list of criteria are set out but, basically, assistance can be refused if it is merely to fulfil a political action or an action of a political character. In other words, if the Attorney-General believes that there are substantial grounds for believing that the request is made with a view to punishing a person for a political offence or an offence of a political character, he can refuse it. I do not believe that, if the application, from another country is in proper order and a case in relation to a crime has been made prima facie and we know that the offender will be returning for a fair trial, the Attorney-General should refuse that application on the basis that capital punishment is the final penalty if the defendant is found guilty. Mr Cleeland —You support capital punishment, don't you? Mr McGAURAN —I am asked whether I support capital punishment. I do; for some crimes I support capital punishment-make no mistake about that-and I think that I speak for a significant majority of Australian people. This is not capital punishment as it was once applied but capital punishment for the most heinous crimes. This legislation is an important part of a package that the Attorney-General has introduced. He has foreshadowed the introduction of further legislation in the weeks to come. I refer to the extravagant claims of the honourable member for Maribyrnong that this legislation is a very significant advancement in the fight against organised crime. This legislation, by itself, cannot possibly in any way deal significantly with the fight against organised crime. It is a very important tool to be added to several other pieces of legislation which, collectively, will add up to a very significant and, in many cases, successful tool against organised crime. Later this evening we will debate the Proceeds of Crime Bill. That legislation will also assist in this matter, but I ask the Attorney-General: Where is his supposed legislation requiring the financial transactions above $10,000, for instance, to be recorded? For instance, where is his RICO type-racketeering, influence, corrupt organisations-legislation from the United States of America? Further, why are we seeing Press reports that the Attorney-General cannot get the measure through Caucus? Why cannot the Attorney-General get through those financial recording legislation measures so desperately needed? Mr Lionel Bowen —Next week. Mr McGAURAN —The Attorney-General thinks he can get it through Caucus. Well, the Attorney-General deserves our congratulations. In fact, while speaking of congratulations, I might say that the Attorney-General deserves qualified congratulations for having brought the legislation to this point. We know that he has had to deal with some lunatic members of the Left, who regard in an antiquated way the civil liberties of an individual to an absurd degree. Of course it is a balancing act between equipping law enforcement agencies with the necessary legislative powers to fight organised crime as against the rights of individuals. However, for too long the Labor Party has tipped that balance in favour of the criminal. It has taken until this time, some 4 1/2 years after this Government came to power, to find some legislative base being provided to combat organised crime. It is not too little but it is certainly very late. Moreover, the Attorney-General's telecommunications interception legislation does not go far enough, and he knows that it does not go far enough, with its absurd Central Telecommunications Interception Agency. The legislation does not go far enough in that the crimes upon which a warrant can be obtained for phone tapping are not extensive enough. The National Party has a number of worries in regard to this whole legislative process. We congratulate the Attorney-General. Given the constraints under which he works, and being a member of the Labor Party, quite frankly, he has really made a mighty effort. However, anyone who tries to convince us that the legislation is sufficient is, quite simply, either, first, misunderstanding the nature and powers of organised crime and the sophisticated techniques employed by those in organised crime or, secondly, is totally ignorant of the subject altogether. Sadly, too many honourable members on the Government benches fall into that latter category. Mr Hodgman —Or are protecting the New South Wales Right. Mr McGAURAN —The honourable member for Denison would suggest that too much of this legislation is to protect the New South Wales Right. It is not the time or the place to pursue an allegation like that, except to say that the honourable member for Denison has had some experience in these matters and is speaking from a point of view of some knowledge-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —If the honourable member for Denison wishes to interject he might do so from his own seat. I think it is some time since the honourable member for Denison has occupied the seat in which he is now sitting. Mr McGAURAN —I have always found the honourable member for Denison to be extremely helpful in discussions such as this, and I am grateful for his assistance. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Gippsland may realise that interjections are never really helpful and in fact are not in accordance with Standing Orders. If the honourable member for Denison wishes to interject, he might do so from somewhere more appropriate to his standing. Mr McGAURAN —It is simply that one can hardly term the honourable member for Denison `normal' in the sense that his actions in this place will always be of an abnormal character. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is also a standing order about ironical expressions, I think, to which the honourable member for North Sydney has drawn the attention of honourable members from time to time. Mr McGAURAN —The National Party's position is quite simple: This is good legislation, and those who have assisted in the drafting of it deserve credit. It is remarkably complicated; it seeks to deal with some of the most complex and sophisticated problems associated with international crime. We have an immense amount of respect for the draftsman and those members of the Attorney-General's Department who have assisted in preparing it. After all, they can only work within the guidelines laid down by the Attorney-General-and therein lies our criticism. I worry still that this legislation, breaking as it does new ground in Australia, can hardly be expected to be the panacea for all evils in dealing with international crime. I very much suspect that in the not too distant future we will be considering in this chamber amendments to the legislation. That is certainly not a criticism of the Attorney-General's Department but rather an acknowledgment of the extraordinarily sophisticated-- Mr Millar —Nature. Mr McGAURAN —I say thank you to my good friend the honourable member for Wide Bay; ever so eloquent and never lost for a word himself. It reminds us of the sophisticated nature of organised crime and that the very best-sadly-legal and accounting brains are employed for the purposes of frustrating the legal processes of not just Australia but those of many other countries also. As other speakers have said, this Bill will provide the legislative base whereby Australia can enter into legislative arrangements with other countries and thereby request from each other and grant assistance to each other in criminal matters. It is worth noting that the assistance is not just related to the prosecution of crimes but also to the investigation of crime, so that assistance can be required at a preliminary stage. Further down the line it relates to the seizing of the proceeds of crime, and that is terribly important. I understand that although this legislation was introduced in October of last year, the major reason why it has only now been reintroduced into the House is that it needed to align with the Proceeds of Crime Bill 1987, which as I say will be debated later this evening. So there is now a very secure, but certainly not watertight, and very comprehensive package of legislation which will interlock and which will work, as I say, to deter and arrest organised crime. At present assistance is more or less on an informal basis, and we use Interpol which, as all honourable members would be aware, is very limited in its investigation. The late Senator Alan Missen was a very caustic critic of Interpol, having visited that agency on more than one occasion in Paris, and he was always very concerned about the lax security and the failure of that body properly to protect its informants as well as, of course, to protect evidence that was acquired in the course of investigation. So if anybody believes that he can deal with organised crime on an international basis simply through Interpol, he is sadly mistaken. Moreover, at present Australia can take evidence with the aid of its extradition legislation, but as all honourable members would be aware, this is done unilaterally and naturally brings no obligation on the other country to reciprocate. Mr Hodgman —Trimbole. Mr McGAURAN —The honourable member for Denison highlights the example of Trimbole and that forever will remain a blot on this Government's record and a testimony to the incompetence of a government which was not nearly serious enough about apprehending a most sought after organised crime figure. In saying that, I freely acknowledge that this Government received very little, if any, assistance from the Irish authorities. I shall, of course, invite the Attorney-General to respond further to that. I know it is a matter of great sensitivity to him personally, and he is likely to fly into a rage every time we mention the name Trimbole, and accuse the previous Government of letting him escape in the first place. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for Gippsland might stick to the debate rather than make aspersions on members of the House or attribute other attitudes to members. He might be better sticking to the substance of the amendment which he might be talking about or to the Bill before the House. Mr McGAURAN —Mr Deputy Speaker, the Bill really arises out of long discussions over many years between Commonwealth countries and indeed gives effect to the Commonwealth scheme on mutual assistance in criminal matters, which was agreed to by Commonwealth Law Ministers in Harare, which of course is the capital of Zimbabwe, on 1 August 1986. Other members have listed the provisions of clause 5, which will allow and facilitate the obtaining by Australia of international assistance in criminal matters in areas including, as I say-they have been identified-the obtaining of evidence; the provision of documents and other records; the location and identification of witnesses or suspects; the execution of requests for search and seizure; the making of arrangements for persons to give evidence or assist in investigation; the forfeiture or confiscation of property in respect of offences; the recovery of pecuniary penalties in respect of offences; and the service of documents. The Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Consequential Amendments) Bill is very much as its name suggests. It will amend various Commonwealth Acts as a consequence of provisions in the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill 1987. The most important aspect of those amendments is the fact that it will repeal provisions in the Australian extradition legislation in relation to the taking of evidence for the purposes of criminal proceedings overseas, since now the substance of those provisions will be included in the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill. I congratulate the Government for this specific piece of legislation. It will enormously assist in the battle against organised crime with all of organised crimes international dimensions. I do, however, express concern on the part of the National Party of Australia that this legislation has been so long in coming, that it is part of a package which at first sight seems appealing but which on closer examination falls far too short of the mark in addressing with total determination and commitment the fight against organised crime. Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(8.56) —I must say that I was very disappointed with the speech that the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) has just made in response to the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill 1987. I would have thought that rather than just criticise the Government he would have had some understanding of the complexity of this issue and the initiative that members of the Government, and even honourable members here who, when they were in opposition, took to try to deal with organised crime. The honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) sitting next to me was the person who, in the 1970s in this very House, moved a motion that we establish a crimes commission to investigate the problems of crime in this country. Mr Jacobi —But the previous Government rejected it for four years. Mrs KELLY —That is right. As he said, the then Attorney-General, Senator Durack, rejected it time and time again. That is how much will the Opposition had to do something about organised crime, and at a time when this Government comes forth with a package of legislation which is the most significant package of legislation ever introduced into this Parliament to deal with law and order, all the Opposition can do is say: `Well, they have done all right but it has all just taken a bit too long'. It just shows how little understanding members of the Opposition have about the complexities of government and also about the will of this Government actually to take some action to combat organised crime, instead of just talking about it, as those opposite all did when they were in Opposition. Mr Jacobi —The Trimbole problem was a result of the extradition treaty which they never put in place. Mrs KELLY —That was just one aspect of it. Honourable members opposite stand up there and criticise, and talk about the Trimbole farce, but they have to understand what their Government did about those extradition treaties. Mr Jacobi —Nothing, absolutely nothing. Mrs KELLY —That is essentially the problem that we had to deal with, the years of absolute neglect in the area of organised crime. This Government has to be congratulated, and the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), who is at the table, should be congratulated on the initiative not just of this legislation but on the whole package of legislation, because this Government acknowledges that crime knows no State boundaries, nor borders between countries. This Bill acknowledges the reality of modern international crime and sets up for the first time in the history of this country the legislative basis for Australia to negotiate treaties with other countries which will make it possible for the Government to get witnesses and accused back here to face the courts. It will also, when it meshes with the Proceeds of Crime Bill which is due for its second reading straight after this legislation, enable the Government to freeze profits generated from criminal activities and salted away in deposits overseas and ultimately to get them back. At the same time Australia will be able to export or repatriate any international criminals who have hidden here rather than them store their ill-gotten gains. They are fantastic initiatives. We did not hear any congratulations of the Government for these sorts of initiatives. All we hear is the sniping from the National Party because it has no understanding at all of how hard it is to get this legislation in place. This is incredibly significant legislation, and it stems directly from an Australian initiative that was unanimously endorsed at the seventh United Nations Crime Congress in Milan in 1985. That initiative has resulted in the negotiation of a record number of treaties in the two years since then, and I again wish to make a point of congratulating the Minister and the Government on their success in this matter. The Bill should also be seen as the Government's unprecedented will to clean up the financial system of this country, an area that the Opposition neglected for all its years in government. The Bill results from the same clear-sighted realism as the deregulation of the economy by the Treasurer (Mr Keating)-deregulation that recognised, and at last responded to the realities of the world economy, world trade and Australia's position in that economy-and the Government's demonstrated commitment to equity in taxation policy. We, as Australians, do not like bottom-of-the-harbour schemers; we do not like those who rip off the rest of us; above all, we do not like the criminals who turn our children into junkies for their own selfish profit. It is not enough not to like them-we must do something about them. It is not enough to stand up, as the honourable member for Gippsland did, and say: `Bring in capital punishment; that is what we want'. It is the simplistic view-that to bring in capital punishment would solve a lot of problems. We must be as sophisticated in our approach as the criminals are in theirs; we must be as sophisticated as are the international criminals. We need to understand the way that profits are sent outside this country, the way that they get shuttled from one tax haven to another until they have almost disappeared. These two Bills demonstrate how Australia's sophistication has grown. It is encouraging to note how keen the world's governments have been to support our initiatives and to legislate to give teeth to those responsible for following the tainted money trail on its slimy course around the world. Yet sophistication, while necessary, is not enough; there must be political will, and that is what the Hawke Government has in abundance. That is what is demonstrated in this legislation. We will attempt to remove the profit motive in crime, just as we have removed the tax shelters and spoilt the tax avoidance schemes of the greedy and the unprincipled. We will follow tainted money to its hiding places and we will impound and confiscate it. Like all other criminal laws, this legislation aims to become unnecessary. It is aimed at eradicating what it deals with and making crooked and corrupt schemes not worth the trouble for the crooked and corrupt who invent and profit from them. We shall not succeed completely-weeds thrive, we all know that-but we have the will to succeed. With this Bill and the Proceeds of Crime Bill, we have a sophisticated mechanism to enforce our will. Organised crime is here in Australia. While I was preparing for this speech, I re-read David Hickey's book as a reminder of some of the criminal networks that exist. The serious theme in his book-the theme that builds up out of a mass of details, anecdotes and transcripts of court proceedings and inquiries-is the increase of overseas influence in Australia's crime scene during the past 20 years. That increase in influence is sinister and unwelcome; so, too, is the increase in profit export that has been occurring as a result of that growing overseas involvement. I do not mean to argue that tainted money left in Australia, or laundered at home, is better than tainted money in some off-shore hideaway. I mean to imply that the beneficiaries of tainted money have been persuaded that a lack of international co-operation in hunting them down allows them to be increasingly cheeky in their operations. If they feel that they can safely send their profits to secret and safe havens-to which, when the heat is turned up too high, they can take themselves also-criminal activities appear to be worth the risk. This Bill, and the growth of co-operation between countries that has made it possible, will disabuse criminals of that notion. The thought of Australia's criminal masterminds basking in the Mediterranean sun or cruising in their gin palaces across the Caribbean will give way to the much more satisfying thought of their faces behind cold bars waiting for escorts back to a criminal court in Darlinghurst or wherever. The Bill is designed to make the world smaller for the Mr Bigs-smaller, colder and far less glamourous. There is glamour in all this, and a certain fascination. The picture of Ronald Biggs at a recording session with the Sex Pistols in Rio is vivid; it is the stuff of the tabloid Press and the basis of many a sensational film. Many of the prominent racing identities who successfully camouflage their real activities, and send the money that they have allegedly made from a lucky streak with the bookies to a numbered account, have colourful identities that mask a pretty murky daily life. Take their money, follow it, follow them if they take off, and we will catch them. Without profits, they cannot protect themselves; without protection, they cannot survive, and their glamour can pass to those who deserve it. We can have colourful federals instead, serving the cause of justice and truth, operating through international and Australia-wide mutual co-operation, and covered in a much more just kind of glamour. The Bills' potential for social profit is very high. Take the financial backing away from the heroin trade, make the profits too hard to hide, and we will not only save the cost of addiction-medical costs, legal costs, the cost of wasting human potential and the cost of grief and the cost of policing-we will save the costs to this country of investment in death. Let us take our notorious friend Cornwell, for instance. We have brought him back to face charges but, and better still because it is unprecedented, we have millions of dollars made by him from drug running, which were found and frozen in Swiss bank accounts-and that before we have even signed the final agreement with the Swiss Government. The agreement, the first made by that government in 50 years, has been accepted by the Swiss Administration, but still has to go through the procedural formalities of the Swiss system. We do not want to count our seizures before we have them, but I think that there is reason for quiet celebration. We have heard rumours of a flight of money from Swiss banks to other locations. However, no other country has so stable a political record as Switzerland, and criminals like a solid stash for their money. I think that our agreement, once finalised, will be a very effective move against tainted money. I am not naive and I do not think that any honourable member believes that this Bill alone will be the answer. It will not root out a problem as large as this, and as large and as international in scope as crime has become, but it will make it harder. This Government is trying. The Attorney-General, who is at the table tonight, is trying, and it is impossible not to applaud such efforts, impossible not to cheer and impossible not to commend to the House the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill that is now before us. I recommend it to the House. Mr JACOBI(Hawker)(9.07) —I rise to congratulate the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) on this complex piece of legislation and the two complementary pieces of legislation. I wish to say at the outset that corruption and organised crime in a number of countries have forced governments to intervene in the confidentiality of relationships between the client and his banker, and disclosure of accounts is now required by law. Obviously, banking policies have economic effects, some of them so serious and negative for the individual as to be either criminal now or soon to be recognised as such. It is a sobering thought that with global operations of transnational companies and finance houses, governments can no longer control their economies by the policies of the national banks. Funds slushed from one side of the world to the other can make fortunes in marginal gains on exchange rates and cause devaluations that have impoverished millions on fixed incomes. How long will the majority permit a select minority such awful, self-perpetuating power to transfer wealth more devastatingly than any highwayman? To counter that, it is necessary to have a co-ordinated approach between the various investigative and law enforcement bodies of the Commonwealth, and to minimise the potential for territorial preoccupations to prevail, thus reducing effectiveness. Because of a broad spectrum of techniques by various types of financial institutions they are able to transfer funds to or from foreign countries whose laws, customs and practices operate to place potentially incriminating financial and business records beyond the reach of law enforcement authorities. Such techniques include the use of courier services, electronic funds transfers and the processing of funds through layers of fictitious entries. In recent years increasing numbers of persons have mastered the details of modern technology, international finance, and foreign secrecy laws to create a select fraternity of money laundering professionals. As a result, organised crime today uses banks and other financial institutions as routinely as legitimate businesses use them. The investigation and subsequent prosecution processes can be long, especially in the area of complex fiscal fraud. In the course of investigation, it frequently becomes apparent that the highly material information held by banks has in fact been destroyed in the meantime. This information takes the form of pay-in slips, cheques, telegraphic transfers and bank statements. Those are held by banks on average for four years, after which they are destroyed. However, as we all know, banks are required to maintain their own accounting records for periods of seven years, pursuant to section 267 of the Companies Code. In practice, it is common amongst banks to retain customer bank statements for the period required by statute and to destroy all other documentation. Cheques constitute prime evidence in any commercial investigation, and the ability of customers to recall and destroy paid cheques can and does assist in the concealment of all sorts of crime. A number of solutions to the problems have been adverted to by Costigan, Stewart, investigators McCabe and Lafranchi and special prosecutors Gyles and Redlich. In relation to the period banks should be required to retain customer records, special prosecutor Redlich, and Stewart, considered that seven years was the minimum standard complementary to existing provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act and the Companies Code. I understand that this legislation overcomes that problem. The points that have best stood the passage of some years are as follows: First, beyond question there has been an urgent need for treaty arrangements to be concluded with other countries whereby evidence of transactions which form part of a course of criminal conduct can be gathered from those other countries for the purposes of proof in civil and criminal proceedings in Australia. Secondly, it is plainly untenable for the Commonwealth to leave its Evidence Act unamended on the point of proof of these foreign transactions in its own civil and criminal proceedings. There can be no justification for having different rules applying to Commonwealth civil and criminal proceedings depending on the state in which those proceedings are brought. Thirdly, I have always contended that there should be laws that make it a criminal offence to open and use a bank account in a false name or a company and trading name that is not duly registered under the Companies Code or business names registration legislation. The most effective way of ensuring that this prohibition is observed in practice would be to have an ancillary or supporting provision that makes it an offence for any bank officer to be knowingly concerned in the opening of such accounts. We intend to block that gap. As to the requirement that the private banks retain customer records for a period of seven years, I believe this whole issue needs to be rethought in the light of the growing development of the electronic funds transfer system. The way that the banking system has operated to date has been that all vouchers created by a customer on an account, no matter at which bank they are tendered, are ultimately returned to that customer's branch and stored on that customer's file. It was therefore a simple matter to execute a warrant and obtain all the vouchers relating to a suspect person's banking transactions. Incidentally, that is open to question. However, with EFT the vouchers will not be returned to the customer's branch but rather will be stored as they are submitted at the receiving bank, whether it be a branch of the customer's bank or some entirely different organisation that simply accepts the cheque. Plainly, from the banking point of view, this system will be far more efficient for the banks. It does, however, require a complete rethink of the evidentiary provisions relating to the proof of bank records. This is long overdue. Obviously, it is plainly in the Commonwealth's interest to review its Evidence Act in the light of changes in the banking system. It is time we had a Commonwealth Evidence Act. I ask the Attorney-General to consider that it be made a matter of priority. The Act should be kept up to date with changes in the market-place rather than have a situation develop where change is brought about only after the system has ground to a complete halt. How often are we obliged to do that? Plainly, and no doubt correctly, the Government has decided that it is in the public interest-and, indeed, it is a necessity-that the Australian economy internationalise. Accordingly, much of the thinking in terms of tightening up requirements for the movement of money across Australian borders no longer accords with national priorities. At least this legislation addresses many of these issues. Let me make a number of constructive observations and recommendations that I hope the Attorney-General will take on board. Indeed, I have studied the Redlich 1983-84 report, and it reinforces for me the ineffectiveness of having a tax regime that is substantially based on income tax. Nowadays, because of the internationalisation of the banking systems, it is easy for even moderately small businessmen simply to transfer their income out of countries where there are high income taxes. There can be no hope nowadays of the income tax collectors ever being able equitably to enforce a regime that is practically wholly based on income tax. Indeed, the trend in Australia caused by the overemphasis on income tax has been for the Australian Taxation Office to become a vast bureaucratic detective agency rather than an efficient tax collector. In addition, the reliance on income tax has resulted in a massive waste of national resources committed to commissions of inquiry, prosecutions, investigations and so on that have been required to shore up the current tax regime. After all, any accountant or businessman worth his salt can now, within a day or two, move funds around the world in a manner which it would take years for income tax investigators to try to unravel. In such an equation the income tax investigator can never win. The society that relies entirely on income taxes is inevitably cheated. The answer must lie in having some measure of consumption and/or turnover taxes attaching to individual transactions within an economy. There has been a lot of talk about tax evasion and the black economy. My attention was drawn to an excellent article that appeared in the Bulletin last April entitled `Kiwi black economy pales at consumption tax onslaught'. The article states: Douglas last July estimated some $NZ2.7 billion in a full year from the goods and services tax (GST). Now independent research groups are talking about $NZ1 billion more than that. What is certain is that 275,000 companies have registered for goods and services tax, which is 95,000 more than the department predicted. Therefore, based on income tax returns, the New Zealand taxation authorities estimated a maximum number of 180,000 companies to be trading in New Zealand. They were out by some 53 per cent. Does anyone doubt that the situation in Australia would be similar? Of course, now that those 95,000 extra companies have come to light by virtue of the goods and services tax, income taxes can be collected from them and those involved with them. It is a measure that needs to be examined in depth in this country. In December 1983, the Australian dollar was floated and most of the exchange rate controls were abolished. In June 1984, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced that 40 non-bank financial institutions were to be granted authority to trade in foreign exchange. However, these controls have now been significantly lifted. There remains the necessity to get a tax clearance certificate if the application is to transfer money to a tax haven. It does not require much ingenuity to bypass that requirement. It has been demonstrated overseas, and it is starting to be demonstrated in this country, that the taxation weapon, coupled with confiscation of assets type legislation, is a very powerful weapon in the fight against criminal activity. Unless some steps are taken to correlate the information held by banks, other financial institutions and the Taxation Office in relation to movements of money in and out of this country there will be no accurate overall understanding of the extent of the problem. In these circumstances there is an urgent need to set up an inquiry so that this knowledge can be obtained. I have put this on the Notice Paper repeatedly. Under no circumstances should we go through the same process as we have done, that is, through an interdepartmental committee of inquiry. It should not be part of the Taxation Office; its purpose should be to discover the extent of money laundering involved in overseas transactions. I just want to repeat that I have always supported the Costigan approach on this particular aspect of combating organised crime. I quote from Costigan: It should be constrained by the same kind of secrecy provisions- that is, an outside inquiry- as operate under section 16. It should be required to report to the Government as to the extent of its findings in as short a time as is consistent with the efficiency of its investigation. It should have: (a) a liaison officer in each Corporate Affairs Commission with one person on staff whose task would be to maintain contact with such officer; (b) an officer seconded from the Taxation Office; (c) two persons with expertise in the foreign exchange field; one should be from the Reserve Bank and one with extensive experience in the private sector; (d) an officer from Customs. It may recommend the setting up of appropriate monitoring procedures which, without interfering with the deregulation of the foreign exchange market, would make it less useful to those who wish to use that market for illegitimate purposes. That is long overdue. Such an organisation should be constantly watching these areas and should not merely be set up to report and then be disbanded. I conclude with a few simple observations. Australia is not an island. It is a trading nation operating in the international market and needing the tools provided by the international community to do so. Like other countries, it finds that those tools are on occasions abused, and their abuse is difficult to reference solely to national laws and jurisdictions. Too frequently we are far too out of date before we come to grips with problems. International co-operation is growing and essential. A decision as to the extent and nature of such co-operation should be taken on a proper factual basis. I urge the Government to take the steps of the kind suggested by these facts. In addition, whatever may be the Opposition's view, I believe that the overwhelming majority of Australian people support the requirement for a high integrity identity card system, that is, the Australia Card. Mr Slipper —No way! Mr JACOBI —The majority of the Australian people in poll after poll have shown that. Laws of evidence have to be modernised to take account of modern information handling techniques, be they computer disks or microfiches. Again, I ask the Attorney to make it a matter of priority that we bring in a Commonwealth evidence Act as soon as possible. There should also be a requirement that all outflows of cash must be reported at the point of departure, a breach of which would result in the forfeiture of the cash. This is not an exchange control but merely information collection. There should perhaps also be a lowering of the limit to $1,000. Finally, something that I think we will place on the statute book in subsequent legislation, and something for which I have asked the Attorney time after time, is the very constructive measure in statutes in the United States of America which grants bank officers immunity where they detect crooked transactions. I compliment the Attorney-General. This piece of legislation, the two complementary pieces of legislation and the one that I hope will be brought in by the Government represent a very comprehensive approach. They are what has been needed for a long time. It has been well understood by the Attorney that we need a multifaceted approach if we are to combat this particular aspect of crime. It is with pleasure that I support these measures and, incidentally, the complementary piece of legislation to be introduced into the House. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(9.25) —in reply-I thank all honourable members for their contribution. It has been a wide-ranging but very constructive debate. At times there has been criticism in that there is deemed to be a need to do more. I am very mindful of the obligations on all governments to look at the problems we now face with organised crime. Perhaps I should deal first with the last speaker, my good friend and colleague the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi). As usual, he raised a number of very pointed matters. The issue is very clear in our minds. The fact that Costigan was able to identify bottom of the harbour schemes clearly showed that there was a fair amount of organised crime in Australia. The remarkable thing about the report of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union was that it was not really intended to bring to light what it did. It was aimed to destroy a union, but in the process it uncovered a great deal of white collar organised crime during the 1970s. That sort of crime was also identified in the McCabe-Lafranchi report. I make the point that what was really identified was mass evasion by criminals of their tax liability. This should have been dealt with by the previous Government because it was very clear that the then Commissioner of Taxation knew of massive evasion of tax by what are called straw companies. That was brought to the attention of the previous Government at the time. It was purely coincidental and accidental-and fortunate-that Costigan was able to bring these matters to light. Following his report we have all been addressing our minds to how we might combat this problem. The problem does not relate just to the normal climate as we understand it. We had identified criminals because of some physical activity within a geographical limitation. The present position is that one has to try to find a criminal whom one cannot readily see and who in fact may not be in this country but who may be transiting through a number of countries on behalf of an organisation perhaps operating outside this country but perpetrating a number of criminal activities in this nation. With that in mind, we need tools of trade. We need new concepts. As Attorney-General I say that we were bereft of those tools of trade when I took office. We had no up to date international treaties dealing with extradition. We are still grappling with the question of mutual assistance treaties. They did not exist. I will not sheet home the blame to anyone else, but the issue is that we initiated discussion in Milan in 1985 and in Harare in 1986. I thank the officers of my Department who have spent an enormous amount of time in setting up task forces to go to the various other countries of the world to talk about setting up treaties-and in fact now signing such treaties in relation to extradition-and discussing mutual assistance. Like us, other countries understand that the problem is not one that they can solve alone; they need co-operation. I hope that is understood. It was never realised in former days. Questions have been asked here again about Trimbole. I just make the point that we had no extradition treaty with Ireland, although we should have had one. We had no knowledge of where Trimbole's financial transactions were being carried out; in future we may be able to have such information. Lastly, but by no means least, Trimbole left this country without a passport when the previous Government was in power. It is about time we put that to rest. The issue is that criminal activity and the charges in that respect now give us an opportunity to talk about whether we may be able to pursue, to our benefit, matters of a financial nature relating to him, through the confiscation of assets. This will be covered in the next Bill. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) raised a number of specific matters. I am interested in them. I assure him that I saw some merit in his advocacy for me to look at issues that he raised. He raised issues relating to clause 13 (4) and also clause 26 (1) (d). I can see some merit in his suggestions, but at this stage I have to say that others do not, for reasons that might be more persuasive. In regard to clause 13 (4) he raised whether there should be legal representation. The Bill provides that it is left to the discretion of the magistrate. The honourable member virtually asked why that was so. I am told that the discretion certainly is to allow representation, but it was deliberately left on the basis of a discretion to ensure that the Bill can accommodate different legal systems in two cases, namely, grand jury proceedings and civil law inquisitorial magistrates' proceedings. A person is only charged after these proceedings. Indeed, the identity of the person to be charged in these cases may not be known at the commencement of the proceedings. The requirement that the magistrate must allow representation of the person to whom the foreign proceedings relates would preclude the granting of assistance in the above cases. So that is the reason that the legislation has been framed in that way. The other matter relates to the question of a person who is a prisoner consenting to give evidence in a foreign country. I am told that we tried to do otherwise during discussions with the other countries but they would not accept that position. It is their view that the prisoner must consent. We agreed with that view because otherwise we would not have reacted an agreement. I hope that that satisfied my honourable colleague at this stage. I must tell him that I was somewhat persuaded by what he told us. He raised issues that I think are very important. He made the complaint-I do not think it is justified, but he is entitled to make it-that we have no strategic plan to combat crime; we need intelligence gathering; we need analysis; we need an upgrading of the type of personnel; we need co-ordination; and we ought to talk about outstanding recommendations. We are trying to do those things. I want to say this: The cash transaction reporting legislation that we will be debating soon will require me to set up within the Attorney-General's Department an intelligence agency that can assess, analyse and look at the very things that he talked about. It will require special skills. It will require people other than those who just have the capacity to say that they understand the law or who might have had some police training, which would be beneficial. We will need very good investigative powers. We will need people with an understanding of monetary transactions. We will need some good lawyers to talk about what it might relate to. We will need to identify, in a criminal atmosphere sense, the sort of people who might have been under notice, perhaps not under notice to the extent of a criminal activity, but who were noticed here and there and who would show up in the identification of what is happening in these transactions. The honourable member for Hawker again raised an issue which he has raised with me, that is, his concern as to whether adequate records will be kept that could be the subject of evidentiary acceptance. He talked about computer discs and microfiche records of transactions. I am advised-and I will subject this advice to a further check-that there are no deficiencies in that respect. There is some deficiency in one of the State laws, namely, Victoria. That is a problem for it to try to identify. As far as we are concerned, I am assured as recently as this afternoon that the Director of Public Prosecutions has no difficulty in getting the evidence, and having it admitted, in respect of those matters. Mr Jacobi —The problem in Victoria was the State law. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —There is a problem with the Victorian State law, not with the Commonwealth law. I think that generally what we have been discussing is how we might talk about criminal activity. My colleague the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths) was very concerned about the death penalty being imposed and carried out in respect of somebody who would be dealt with under the mutual assistance legislation. I do not think that that can happen. It certainly cannot, because it would relate basically to extradition. When we deal with extradition matters, we will see a discretion there to the effect that people will not be extradited if there were to be a suggestion of a failure to apply humanitarian concepts. One of those, of course, would be the carrying out of the death penalty. So I think we have adequately covered that. Mr Slipper —Would you extradite someone to Russia? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —If the honourable member looks at the war criminals legislation, he will note that we will deal with the war criminals in Australia. We would not extradite anybody, even though the United States of America, I noticed recently, has acted differently. I make the point that, in the extradition area, which we are not dealing with at the moment, one of the problems in recent hours has been people who are anxious to give vent to their views generally on the issue. The matter we are dealing with relates to mutual assistance, which requires international treaties. As I said before, we have not had those treaties. Nobody in the past has gone out to get them. It is only this Government that has had the obligation to do it, and is doing it. The extradition treaties were also non-existent. We had to get those. It has required enormous effort. Having got them, I think we will be in very good shape to talk about financial assets overseas. We will have an opportunity to get information about those assets. I am assured, for example, by the distinguished Minister of Justice in Switzerland that as long as we know there is a charge that might be pending, we will be able to get the information forthwith if we can identify assets in that country. The Swiss, of course, are quite acute about that matter. If there is confiscation, the assets go to them. That might explain the situation. Nevertheless, we would deprive the criminal of the assets. We must understand that a lot of discussions have taken place. Officers of my Department have built up a great deal of good will with all the appropriate officers in most countries of Europe and certainly in the United States. We will pursue this matter further in the Proceeds of Crime Bill. A Bill relating to cash reporting will be introduced soon. The Americans are the only ones who have introduced this, and they are getting good results. I hope we can bring it forward very quickly and have it passed in this House. Apart from being able to attack criminal activities, there is also a beneficial spinoff in being able to get additional taxation revenue. We are considering a whole package. It is novel, new and innovative. It is attacking the old problem of criminal activity. New techniques are needed because the criminals have adopted new veneers or new aliases. They might be respected business people who do not peddle drugs on the street, but they could be the cause of the problem and reaping the benefits of the activity. I thank honourable members for their help in passing this legislation. I particularly thank the honourable member for North Sydney for his assessment of it. In an impartial way I understand some of the problems he feels we should have dealt with earlier. But I think I have been able to rebut that charge by saying: `How could we have dealt with it earlier if we did not have the necessary treaties in place?'. No government in the past thought it needed to make these appropriate arrangements overseas. We now have that on a correct course. I think that in future governments of all persuasions will have a lot more to act with in respect of the pursuit of criminals and the confiscation of assets. I thank the House for its deliberations. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 30 April, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(9.40) —by leave-I move: (1) Schedule, page 3, proposed subsection 11ab (1) of the Migration Act 1958, omit ``a person'', insert ``an officer of that Department''. (2) Schedule, page 3, proposed subsection 11ab (2) of the Migration Act 1958, insert ``(as defined by subsection 5 (1))'' after ``authorised officer''. (3) Schedule, page 3, proposed subsection 11ab (4) of the Migration Act 1958, omit ``a person''. insert ``an officer of that Department''. These are purely drafting amendments. Their purpose is to indicate clearly that when the legislation refers to `a person'-for example, a person authorised by the Secretary of the Attorney-General's Department-the person will be an officer of that department. A similar situation applies in relation to proposed sub-sections 11ab (1) and 11ab (4). Proposed sub-section 11ab (2) talks about an authorised officer as defined by sub-section 5 (1). The machinery amendments define that `a person' must be an officer of the Department and they are drafted accordingly. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 30 April, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate this Bill cognately with the Proceeds of Crime (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(9.43) —Profit is the driving force behind most serious crime. As Mr Costigan said, if profit is the main motive, the object of any law enforcement should be the destruction of the profit. There can be no possible justification for allowing criminals to keep the profits of crime. Mr George Best said in his work Forfeiture: An Effective Drug Tool: What theory of law, reason or basic common sense justifies the retention by a drug dealer of his profits? Is the armed robber allowed to retain the money obtained at gunpoint from his helpless victim? Does the car thief keep the stolen car simply because he gets sentenced to probation? Of course not. Nor is there any reason founded on logic, common sense or public interest to confine assets confiscation to only some serious offences. Gaol is not a substitute for depriving criminals of the profits of crime. Imprisonment can be viewed as just another cost of doing business, and it is usually the small men who are imprisoned, not the leaders. The better organised a criminal is, the more likely it is that the profits will be waiting for him on his release from gaol. It is not only that logic, common sense and justice demand that criminals be stripped of the proceeds of crime, but also if they keep the proceeds of crime, with the huge profits that organised crime can bring, those profits will be used not simply to finance further crime but for investment in legitimate business activities. This is happening in Australia. The Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union cited one principal as having beneficial interests in at least 38 legitimate companies, and this was thought to be one of the less significant of those identified. Overseas experience, especially of the Mafia and Italy, shows that when major criminals turn their hands to business they have dangerous advantages over their legitimate competitors; in short, advantages of competition in the market-place. In his work Mafia Business, Mr Pino Arlacci, a member of the Italian Government's Anti-Mafia Commission, set out three advantages that the criminal has over the honest businessman. The first is in setting up within the market in which the business operates an umbrella of protection that discourages competition. I quote Mr Arlacci: In making sure of goods and raw materials at favourable prices, and in obtaining orders, contracts and sales markets, the Mafia enterprise achieves its end without being exposed to the competitive pressures other firms must take account of. Mafia methods, with their power to intimidate, actually erect what amounts to a tariff barrier. The second competitive advantage which he identified as enjoyed by the Mafia was: . . . wages are held down within them, while their labour force is more fluid . . . After all, few labour officials are likely to visit Mafia firms to check on their observance of the law. He gave an example of female agricultural workers in Italy. Can anyone suggest why that should not take place in Australia, if the laws do not exist? Thirdly, he pointed out that a criminal entrepreneur has access to financial resources denied to competitors, especially small or medium sized firms. The proceeds of illegal activity play the part that the banking system plays for the honest businessman. The cost of money for the criminal investor is very much less than it is for the honest investor. It is a question of washing it through the system. Not only does he not have to pay interest on borrowed money but also the money required to set up major criminal operations can be a fraction of the great return on those operations, which is then reinvested in what appears to be a legitimate and honest business. The case for comprehensive assets confiscation legislation is overwhelming. It has been made by Royal Commissioners Williams, Stewart and Costigan, by Special Prosecutors Redlich and Gyles and by Mr Athol Moffitt, a former justice of the New South Wales Court of Appeal and the Royal Commissioner on Alleged Organised Crime in Registered Clubs in New South Wales. It was endorsed by the Australian Police Ministers Council as long ago as May 1984, the Premiers Conference in April 1985, and the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. The fundamental point is that we are dealing with a phenomenon which is primarily economic. That is the whole rationale for organised crime. Legislation is already on the statute books in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. Whilst we have reservations about some aspects of this legislation, and in particular the speed with which it has been brought forward, overall we support the legislation which is now before the House. However, we make the point that other States have had legislation before this House has considered it, and it is for the Federal Government to be the leader at all times in the fight against organised crime. I think that we would all agree that it is profoundly wrong that criminals and criminal syndicates should be able to keep the proceeds of crime. Yet, for the most part, Commonwealth law dealing with the forfeiture of assets used in or derived from criminal activity is archaic. Firearms and gaming equipment may be confiscated and equipment interfering with telephone lines may be forfeited. Stolen goods may be repossessed and returned. But these remedies are of peripheral utility. The only modern Commonwealth forfeiture provisions are to be found in the Commonwealth Customs Act. The Customs Act provides for the forfeiture of a broad range of property derived from drug trafficking. Pecuniary penalties assessed in accordance with the value of benefits derived from drug trafficking may be imposed. These provisions were inserted in the Customs Act by the Fraser Government. But since these amendments came about Mr Costigan and others have highlighted the need for far more extensive provisions. For those who might question the utility of assets confiscation legislation, let me cite an example again from Italy. In Italy, in the first two years of implementation of Italy's anti-mafia legislation, illegally accumulated fortunes to the tune of $US500m-a prodigious sum-were confiscated, half of that amount being seized in just two operations. Let me now turn to the Proceeds of Crime Bill and say something about its detail. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in his second reading speech summarised its main provisions. I will refer to the explanatory memorandum of the Bill and then to some of its provisions which give the flavour of the legislation. As the explanatory memorandum points out, the purposes of the Proceeds of Crime Bill 1987 are five. The principal purpose is to permit a court to grant orders for the freezing and confiscation of property used in, or derived directly or indirectly from, the commission of an indictable offence against a law of the Commonwealth or of a Territory, other than the Northern Territory. Provision is made for the registration in Territory courts of orders for the freezing and confiscation of property made under corresponding State laws and which relate to property located in the Northern Territory. Provision is made for the enforcement of foreign freezing and confiscation orders which relate to property in Australia and in respect of which relevant procedures under the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987, the Bill for which has just been passed by this House, have been complied with. Provision is made for the conferral on police of new powers to facilitate the following of the money trail and to require financial institutions to preserve their records to maintain the money trail. Lastly, new offences of money laundering and organised fraud are created. The Bill is a complex and far-reaching piece of legislation, running to 87 pages and 104 clauses. It sets out a complex and sophisticated system for the confiscation of property derived from or used in crime for the monitoring of criminal activities and for the taking of remedies to safeguard the interest the Commonwealth has in the proceeds of crime. Let me quickly go through some of its main provisions. Under clause 14 application may be made for a confiscation order in respect of tainted property. `Tainted property' means property used in connection with crime or the proceeds of a crime. Clause 15 provides for notice of an application to be given to those who may be affected. Clause 17 provides for the making of a confiscation order where a person has absconded. Clause 19 provides for the making of forfeiture orders. Under clauses 25 and 26 pecuniary penalties are provided for. In these clauses we see some ingenious attempts to lay down rules which are to guide courts in assessing pecuniary penalties. Clause 27 (2) provides that, for the purpose of an application for a pecuniary penalty order against a person, the value of the benefits derived by the defendant from the commission of an offence or offences shall be assessed by the court having regard to the evidence before it `concerning all or any of the following'. Certain rules or guides are then laid down. These include that `if the offence or any of the offences consisted of the doing of an act or thing in relation to a narcotic substance, the market value at the time of the offence of similar or substantially similar narcotic substances-in short, the street value-shall be taken into consideration. That is a very sensible approach. The amount that was, or the range of amounts that were, ordinarily paid for the doing of a similar or substantially similar act or thing may also be taken into account. I said this was an ingenious attempt to lay down rules for the courts in the assessment of pecuniary penalties. I look forward with great interest to the first attempt to prove what the going rate is for hiring people for drug running. It is possible that it can be established in courts. It is a sensible sort of reference point which courts should have regard to. After all, if one is looking to what the proceeds of crime are, one needs to understand what the value of the proceeds are when sold on the street. One also needs to understand what the cost of the operation is. Clause 30 provides for the forfeiture of restrained property if a person is convicted of serious offences. Provision is made under the Bill for restraining orders. Under clause 35 powers are given for the search for and seizure of tainted property; that is, property which has been used in connection with the commission of a crime or which is the proceeds of a crime. Under clauses 36 to 38 search warrants are provided for, including search warrants which may be obtained by telephone when there is an emergency. Clauses 43 to 65 contain a complex series of provisions dealing with the making of restraining orders to prevent dealings in property. Under clauses 66 to 69 production orders are provided for. These may be made on application to a judge; for example, for property tracking documents in relation to an indictable offence. Clauses 73 to 75 provide for monetary orders, which are orders by a judge against a financial institution which, once the order is made, shall not disclose to a client the existence of the order. This is a novel and useful provison. It will cause a great deal of concern to those who have guilty consciences about how the money they have has got into the bank accounts they hold. Clauses 76 to 80 impose obligations on financial institutions. This is one of the questions we have about this Bill. Under clause 77 (2), unless an amount is otherwise prescribed by regulation, financial institutions must keep the original or copies of financial transaction documents relating to amounts in excess of $200. I have real doubt as to whether that figure is the right one in the sense that I believe it may be set too low and that the prescribed figure should, in fact, be a larger one. If we concentrate on organised crime and major criminal activities and we are not concerned with petty crime, the odds are that in following the money trail we would not be worrying about transactions involving $200 or so. We would be looking for transactions involving the thousands, the tens of thousands or the hundreds of thousands of dollars. The obligation on the bank to keep that kind of documentation-that is documentation relating to transactions that exceed that very low sum of $200-seems to be very onerous. One of my colleagues has received a letter from the Australian Association of Permanent Building Societies in which, amongst other things, this is said: Unquestionably one of the biggest government induced costs confronting financial institutions will be presented to the House of Representatives in this session in the form of the Proceeds of Crime Bill and associated legislation concerning cash transactions. The requirement upon all financial institutions to generate mountains of paper and hold it for well beyond normal commercial practice, is estimated to cost our industry alone up to $20m each year. To that must be added the costs of all other financial institutions in particular banks. I suspect that the permanent building societies may be more concerned with the cash transactions legislation which is to come into this House shortly, as the Attorney-General has told us. I should also add that the banks do not appear to be troubled by this legislation so far as the maintenance of financial records is concerned. I will move on to the two remaining provisions of interest. An offence of money laundering is created by clause 81. This is an offence which is committed if: (a) the person engages, directly or indirectly, in a transaction that involves money, or other property, that is proceeds of crime; or (b) the person receives, possesses, conceals, disposes of or brings into Australia any money, or other property, that is proceeds of crime; and the person knows, or ought reasonably to know, that the money or other property is derived or realised, directly or indirectly, from some form of unlawful activity. The maximum penalty is imprisonment for 20 years for a natural person or a fine of $200,000 or, if the offender is a body corporate, a fine not exceeding $600,000. These are very heavy penalties. They are far heavier than penalties under the Crimes Act for offences against a person. If I recall correctly, they are heavier than the penalties that apply for offences such as extortion, but those kinds of penalties are merited given the enormity of the problem that we face. They will act as a very great deterrent because one of the things that we learn about those who are engaged in the peripheral but important transactions of money washing is that because they are on the peripheries and because they are frequently people with a respectable patina, even if they are not respectable at all, the prospect of spending some years breaking rocks down at the Iron Hotel has no appeal at all. So that heavy penalty is justified. The other provision to which I wish to refer is that of organised fraud. That offence is created by clause 83 which provides that a person who engages in organised fraud is guilty of an offence punishable by a fine not exceeding $250,000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 25 years, or both or, if the offender is a body corporate, a fine not exceeding $750,000. Organised fraud is defined in a particular way as acts or omissions that constitute three or more public fraud offences and from which the person derives substantial benefit. That is a loose expression, but I do not think it is easy to find a tight expression when one is dealing with this sort of matter. These are extraordinarily heavy penalties but, once again, they are penalties which, in the context of the fight against organised crime, are fully justified. I should like to raise some questions which the Attorney-General may be able to answer for me and, in doing so, move an amendment in my name which has been circulated around the House. I move: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House notes that- (1) it comprises a major and novel legislative package of 104 clauses; (2) it was introduced on Thursday, 30 April 1987, and has been called on for debate on the second reading on 11 May 1987, a period which allows less than adequate time for examination and consultation by the Opposition, and (3) it imposes on financial institutions heavy obligations for the retention of records concerning financial transactions, yet no statement from the Business Regulation Review Unit of the cost of such measures has been provided to the House'. I think that what I have said makes the reasons for that amendment to the motion for the second reading self-evident. It is a major legislative package. It has been available to us for only a very short time. I commend those involved in the draftsmanship of this Bill. Given the inherent complexity of the subject it is extremely well expressed and extremely clear. Nevertheless, it is a Bill of very real complexity and the time that we have had it, given the other pressures of time that are always on members here, has been quite inadequate for the kind of detailed assessment it deserves. As to the burdens that are imposed on financial institutions, I wish to make it perfectly plain that we are not saying that the burdens should not be imposed. What we do say is that we need to know what the costs of those burdens are. If, for example, by removing the figure of $200, to which I referred earlier, and substituting $1,000 the cost burden would be cut in half or cut by 75 per cent, that would provide a very compelling argument for changing that figure. That figure is the trigger which determines whether a record has to be kept. There is one other matter that I would like to refer to the Attorney-General; that is the position of innocent third parties. The overall effect of the operation of the Act will be that orders can be made against property in which others may have interests. The effect of such orders can be extremely damaging to the interests of the other persons. Let us deal with innocent third parties-for example, a co-partner in a business in which one member of the business is a criminal and the other member of the business is a man who has led a blameless life. The innocent person has worked hard and he has, in fact, been the partner who has run the business. Suddenly he is confronted with an application for a restraining order for forfeiture and he sees his life work going up in smoke. We must be extraordinarily careful to safeguard the position of that kind of a person. I am not convinced that that has been done, although I think that a very honest attempt has been made to balance competing interests. I would be glad if the Attorney-General would look again at those provisions. If by the time this Bill gets to the Senate amendments can be put up; I would be equally glad if the Government would accept them. I am sure that the honourable member would not want the Act to operate in a way that was unfair to innocent third parties. By all means let us get the proceeds of organised crime, but at the same time let us ensure that justice is done to those who are not guilty and who are dragged in simply because in some way or another they are involved in the affairs of a person who turns out to be a criminal or their property is bound up in the property of that person. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen)(10.12) —In the very short time available to me tonight, I first point out that the Proceeds of Crime Bill must be seen as part of a broader package of Bills introduced by the Government. These Bills go back to the establishment of the National Crime Authority, the changes to extradition laws, including the new treaties currently being dealt with by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill, which passed through the House tonight, and, of course, there is the Proceeds of Cash Transactions Bill, to be debated next week. Without question, the Attorney-General deserves the name `the Elliot Ness of Australian Crime'. No Attorney in Australia's history has introduced in such a short space of time such a complete and compelling package of legislation which will attack organised crime in Australia. The Attorney-General deserves the appropriate credit and reward for this and the thanks of all Australians who now understand how the tentacles of crime can permeate our society. It is a great pity that it has taken so many years of inquiry, royal commissions, the Beach Inquiry in Victoria, the Mr X inquiries in Victoria, and the abortion inquiries in Victoria, for example. There have been many royal commissions. There was the collapse of the Nugan Hand bank and Cambridge Credit. Australian history is studded with organised fraud and organised crime. It has taken a Labor government to bring forward the most powerful anti-crime package in this country's history. One wonders why it has taken so long. There is nothing new in what we know today about crime. It did not just happen in 1984, 1981 or 1979; it was well organised and running in 1960 when I joined the Victorian Police Force. It was still running and well organised in 1969 when I left that job. It was running for the 14 years that I practised as a lawyer in Victoria. Yet, no-one really seriously tried to bring forward legislation of this kind. Not one State or Federal government bothered to undertake the difficult task that the Attorney-General has undertaken. I appreciate that it is not easy to bring in a package of such complexity; it is not easy offending some powerful organisations in this country which may have to bear some of the cost of cleaning up the system. Perhaps before I go further, I might remind the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) that at present, under the Banking Act and the Income Tax Assessment Act, banks are required to keep and to maintain records. I cannot see that the cost will be any greater than that which is now, rightly, imposed on the banks to maintain those records. Debate interrupted. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(10.15) —Yesterday, together with many other thousands of people, I had the opportunity of being present at a beautiful football ground called Ballymore in Brisbane, Queensland. It was a very significant occasion. The southern Press, not known for their accuracy in predicting what might happen when Queensland challenges New South Wales, indicated that the Queensland rugby XV would be defeated. As I know that you come from the delightful State of Victoria, Madam Speaker, I would just like to advise you that rugby is a game which a few of us on earth play but which is played fulltime in heaven, and so it may be that we will have the opportunity of playing it on the great fields up above! But it is interesting to note that Queensland absolutely annihilated New South Wales and I say that, unless in the future New South Wales can contribute to a more meaningful and significant contest, it might well be that the Australian team will have to be chosen after contest between the Queensland A and the Queensland B teams. I suppose it is unfortunate that we will have to give a few places in the team to New South Wales players when we play in the forthcoming World Cup rugby contest. Fourteen Queenslanders made that team but we had to have 12 from New South Wales. Of course, it was balanced up a little insofar as the coach, Alan Jones, who is regarded very highly worldwide for his many excellent-- Dr Watson —A great footballer. Mr McVEIGH —Well, he worked for the National Party of Australia here in Canberra; we moulded and chiselled him into shape. However, more importantly, he was born on a farm in the Darling Downs and he was educated in that great cradle of rugby union, the Toowoomba Grammar School, a well known school in my electorate. However, getting back to the rugby game at the Ballymore ground in Brisbane; it was beautiful to be there and to witness both the science and the art of rugby. It was magnificent to see a demonstration of the skills involved, and how refreshingly rewarding it was to see that art put forward in such a scientific way. We saw the Queensland team's eight forwards absolutely annihilate the eight forwards from New South Wales. Our forwards took complete control and ground the opposition down through their power, strength and technique, so much so that the smallest man on the ground, Brian Smith, was able to take the ball, have a look around, stroll across and score a very easy four-pointer against, presumably, the best halfback, Farr-Jones from New South Wales, it is claimed that the world has at present. It needs to be said that Queensland had four of its champions out-Lynagh, Campbell, Moon and Miller. Four of our top men were out and yet we got three tries, which in rugby is the supreme effort, while the New South Welshmen were able only to get points on the board through the ability of someone to kick goals. It is interesting to note that, when we had them beaten, ground into the dust, they resorted to cheating. How humiliating it was-and I felt sorry and wept a furtive tear-to see a New South Welshman come back and try to steal a foot of extra space while trying to get closer to the goal line, with the referee saying: `Hey, Joe, come back here; we play it fair'. And I saw one of the New South Welshmen, in sheer frustration, use his fist against the head of a Queenslander-his fist, mind you-when this is supposed to be a gentle and courteous game, a game that is played in heaven. At this, quite fittingly, the referee said: `Look, we play this game according to the rules of rugby, not according to the rules followed in New South Wales'. I want to pay a tribute to Bob Templeton, the Queensland coach, for his last effort in coaching the Queensland team. I salute Bob and say that Queenslanders are proud of him and proud for him. I want to conclude on this note: There is a lesson to be learned. No one should ever take anyone from Queensland for granted. Remember that we are tough, we are loyal. Unfortunately loyalty does not seem to permeate this place. We are not dishonest, we do not tell lies and we play the game according to the rules. If anyone forgets about Queensland, just as New South Wales did yesterday, he is in for a shock. In politics, just take note of what happens in Queensland and take note that we mean what we say. We are going to come down here after the next Federal election and we are going to have the right policies and we are going to implement those policies. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen)(10.20) —I must say that I was not sure whether I was listening to a show known as The Dingo Principle then. Surely the act, the speech or whatever it was would have gone done very well on colour television, and I am sure that an audience would have appreciated it. I am not sure, though, that it would have made much sense. I want to talk about something a bit different tonight. I read in my Hansard last week a speech by the honourable member for Forrest (Mr Drummond) when he was talking about the wine industry. Very early in his speech he suggested that there was not one member on this side of the House who knew anything about the growing of grapes or the making of wine. In fact he said that he did not believe that there was anyone on this side of the House who represented any wine growing districts at all. He had the audacity to suggest that the only thing honourable members on this side of the House knew about wine, was the fact that they pulled the corks out of the bottle and consumed the contents. Well it is certainly true to say that honourable members on this side of the House do have very highly developed palates. We do have a fine appreciation of Australian wines and indeed we do consume with great joy and happiness the very fine products of the Australian producers. I might add that it is a great pity that honourable members on the other side of the House do not also appreciate Australian wines and do not buy and encourage the production and sale of Australian wines. It was very sad to see on television last Friday night the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) and the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown), representing the Liberal Party at a function in Melbourne, proudly consuming foreign wine. Here we have the honourable member for Forrest on the one hand saying that we on this side of the House do not even represent wine growers and that we have not even got them in our electorates, yet on the other hand I find on television the honourable member for Bennelong and the honourable member for Menzies who are too cowardly to back and support their Australian wine producers, who undoubtedly produce the best wines in the world. I will say this: The best wines in Australia come from the electorate of McEwen, because unknown to the honourable member for Forrest, those on this side of the House represent more wine growing districts than anyone on the other side of the House-the Hunter Valley, South Australian and McEwen. I can name the Delatite vineyard, Chateau Tabilk, Mitchleton, Seymour; and Tisdall Wines grows its very fine Chardonnay grape in the Strathbogie Ranges in my electorate. There are vineyards popping up all over the place. I invite the honourable member for Forrest, if he wants to talk about wine, to go down to Victoria and get a copy of the study of the wine industry in Victoria prepared by a Labor government, the Victorian Government. It is without question the most far reaching and detailed study on the wine industry ever prepared, something which we never saw from the Opposition. The members of the Opposition bleat around here like a lot of little baa lambs in a paddock about what should be done, but whenever they are in government, what do they do? Not a thing. They have a fine record of nothingness, an absolutely brilliant record of achieving nothing, but they love to bleat when they are in Opposition. They act, as I said, like a paddock full of lambs and they are about as useful. They come in here and go crook. I just want the honourable member for Forrest to know that in the Hunter Valley, South Australia and Victoria there are more Government members properly and fair dinkumly representing their wine growers. I have great rapport with my wine growers. I do not ignore them. I buy local wines and I do not drink foreign wines. I am proud to support my local growers, and I hope that when the honourable member for Bennelong and the honourable member for Menzies come back into this House they will apologise to the Australian growers, for being seen publicly drinking foreign wines and not supporting our local growers. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(10.25) —From the outset I must say that I believe quite firmly in the freedom of religion, and if anyone wishes to pursue a particular religion that seems to have a seal of approval, of course they should do that. But being politicians quite often people come to see us and quite often we hear alarming stories but quite often we have not got the time nor-and I use this word-ability to be able to pursue those religions as fervently as we would like. Sometimes we come across pseudo-religious groups that we hear about and we hear people talk about, but we have not got time to find out completely about them. About four years ago I moved a notice of motion in this House to ask the then Attorney-General to look into some of these pseudo-religious groups that were developing quite rapidly-I use the word rapidly-in Australia. One in particular that I named at the time was the Church of Scientology, because I happened to read an article about the Church of Scientology in the Readers Digest a long time ago, and I have a copy here in front of me. It was the June 1980 edition and the article was: `Scientology, Anatomy of a Frightening Cult'. I read the article very carefully. Of course we hear things and it is very difficult in this world to believe everything that we read and it is sometimes very difficult to believe everything that we hear, but I thought it was worth pursuing because a family came to see me and told me this incredible story about a happening within a particular cult. Then we heard of the developments of the Moonies, of the Jones cult in America, et cetera, and I think most Australians are worried about the matter. But we never seem to be able to do anything about it. Not so long ago-I think this is fairly prevalent today-the Willesee program, which I do not know much about, was trying to uncover something that happened within the Church of Scientology. So I thought I would pursue it a bit further. I wrote to the Editor of the Readers Digest at that time and he sent me back a little covering note. He was the Editor-in-Chief and Dennis Wallace was his name. The second article that the Readers Digest wrote was dated September 1981. He stated: `This article, published in our September issue, brought such concerned and widespread reaction from our readers that I thought you would be glad to receive a copy. Well, I was. It said in fact: `Eighteen months ago the American based Church of Scientology launched a global and unsuccessful campaign to prevent publication of a Readers Digest report called ``Scientology, Anatomy of a Frightening Cult''. The Church engaged a detective agency to investigate the author-that is the author of the original history of scientology-Eugene Mathine. Digest offices in half a dozen countries were picketed or bombarded with nuisance phone calls in Australia, South Africa, Denmark. The Church took unsuccessful legal action to prevent the publication'. At Christmas time this year I received this tape and this letter from the Church of Scientology: `I am writing to present you with a copy of a musical cassette entitled ``The Road to Freedom''. This is a collection of songs written by the founder of Scientology applied religious philosophy Mr L. Ron Hubbard. The songs are performed by many well known artists including John Travolta, Karen Black. . .' The letter goes on. So it gives a seal of approval. Now what are we to believe? Are we to believe the articles in the Readers Digest or the letter that was written to me or the tape with John Travolta, Karen Black and all these accomplished artists from America? What are we to believe? Here we have the Willesee program which is trying to outline what has happened to a particular family and it is being stopped by the Church of Scientology. We are in a very difficult position. This is another cult, another pseudo-religious cult, that we know very little about, coming into Australia. We know a bit about the Moonies. I do not wish to condemn them, but I only wish to God that we could find out a bit about them. Who is telling the truth? Is it the Reader Digest, this church, or whom? We seem to be pursuing vice and other matters in Australia, such as on Four Corners tonight, but we allow such pseudo religious groups to continue unabated, constantly engulfing people into their fold-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(10.30) —This evening I wish to speak briefly about the constitutional vandalism occurring in Tasmania. We are hearing the beginning of a debate that I am sure will continue for some time. It concerns the blocking of the Australian Labor Party Senate candidate by the Government of Tasmania. That Government is not only a constitutional vandal, it is an environmental vandal. One has only to visit that State to realise that, in certain areas, it has a great deal for which to answer. At the moment there is the possibility of a challenge to the non-appointment by the Tasmanian Government. I wish to read some of the comments made by various pseudo-leaders in this House. The Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), said: The replacement of Senator Grimes is entirely a matter for the Tasmanian Government and the Tasmanian Parliament. What a cop-out that is. That man is the Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia, yet he washes his hands of that disgraceful action. It is a little like Pontius Pilate saying: `It is not up to me; it is up to someone else to decide'. That is not the position that should be taken. He should direct the Tasmanian Government to appoint Mr Devereux, the ALP's nominated candidate for the Senate. The honourable member also said: Comparisons with 1975 are ignorant, as the Constitution has been altered since then. It is simply not possible now for any State parliament to appoint to the Senate somebody not endorsed by the retiring Senator's Party. That is correct, but how long can the Tasmanian Government stall that action? It could go on forever. Who will make the decision and determine when, how and if Tasmania gets the proper representation that it deserves? It does not have the representation in this House; we have only to look at the Opposition front bench to see that. There is not one Tasmanian on it. I doubt whether they were ever considered for the front bench, although I think that a couple of them would make good shadow Ministers. However, they have not been appointed. Why is that? I believe that the Leader of the Opposition dislikes Tasmania; there is something about it that he does not like. I do not know whether he does not like the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), but why has he not appointed a Tasmanian to the Opposition front bench? Who knows? He has no control over the Gray Government at all. The Leader of the National Party of Australia-at least, we think that he is the leader-the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), said: . . . moves by the Tasmanian Premier to block Labor's Senate nominee would backfire. That is quite correct. He also said that the Premier had: . . . failed to follow the spirit of Constitutional changes and this step would in no way assist the conservative forces of Australia. I do not believe that it will either. It is a good opportunity for members of the ALP to show the discriminatory nature of the Opposition and conservative parties. They do not like change; they cannot hack it. It is a simple change, brought about many years ago, to ensure that a senator of the same party would be elected-but when that does not suit them, what do they do? They dream up some excuse so that the proper nominee is not accepted. In Victoria recently there was no problem when Senator Alan Missen died. The ALP Government there elected a Liberal Party senator and he was in Canberra within a couple of weeks. That is the sort of morality that should be shown by the Gray Government; but I am sure that it will not be. I want the Government to think about consulting the Governor-General to determine whether it is possible to dismiss the Gray Government for failing to adhere to the Constitution of Australia. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(10.35) —Last week I raised with the House the problem of computers being supplied to honourable members' and senators' electorate offices. My concerns were the inadequate compatibility of the HRCs with those in our Parliament House offices, complaints by honourable members involved in the pilot project about hardware and software problems and technical difficulties, lack of consultation with honourable members involved in the pilot project, and the fact that petitions to wind up HRC Technologies Ltd had been filed in the Supreme Court of Tasmania on 9 and 26 March this year. Despite those wind-up notices, a purchase contract was entered into and signed on 13 April this year. I call for an investigation of the matter and answers to the following questions: Were the companies properly investigated before contracts were let? Why was no proper evaluation made of the system? Why was the contract entered into when so many complaints had been made by honourable members about the quality of the equipment? The Senate Estimates Committee A report of May this year mentions the computers, the fact that the tendering process began in May 1986, and that the contracts were let at the end of September 1986. However, the Senate Committee was informed at its hearing in September 1986 that the President had advised the Committee that the Special Minister of State tender had been amended so that the mandatory requirement for compatibility with existing senators' and members' systems had been relaxed. I want to know from the Special Minister of State (Senator Tate)-and I have not heard from him yet-why those requirements were relaxed at what appears to be a late stage in the tendering process. I wish also to inform the House that following my speech 10 days ago, the Minister's office contacted my office about the details of the speech, and said that the Minister was unaware of the facts contained in my speech in the House. I have more information about HRC Technologies Ltd. It has not filed any returns in Tasmania since its incorporation on 19 June 1985. One must ask why that company was not properly investigated before the Commonwealth entered into the contract. There is also a New South Wales contract. HRC Technologies Ltd was awarded a contract last year to supply computers to the 99 State members of parliament. There have been the same complaints from those State members as there have been from Federal members. The principal shareholder of HRC Technologies Ltd, HRC Holdings Pty Ltd-formerly Hotel Restaurant Club Holdings Pty Ltd-has not filed any returns in New South Wales since 1982. Therefore, it appears that the New South Wales Government has entered into a contract with a company that has not filed returns since its incorporation, and whose principal shareholder has not filed any returns in New South Wales for four years. That company would appear to be in breach of the New South Wales Companies Act. On 18 March 1986, the Special Minister of State said: Australian industry involvement in the project will be maximised and my Department is preparing plans for the acquisition of appropriate equipment. I inform the Minister that it is my understanding that that equipment is being flown in from Taiwan, completely assembled, and is arriving at honourable members' offices with the brand `Made in Taiwan' on the side of the containers. This matter has become a fiasco and serious questions need to be asked about the tendering process, the contract and the evaluation process, and why the conditions of the contract were varied at a late stage. I am concerned that the New South Wales Government has been involved with this company, and serious questions need to be asked about that Government, the company and its principal shareholder. Problems are still being encountered with the machines being supplied to honourable members and senators. The product that has been provided is not entirely Australian-indeed, it appears to have minimal Australian content. I believe that all honourable members deserve assurances from the Government that this matter will be fully and expeditiously investigated. I do not like the way that things have been done. It must raise serious problems for the administration of the contract and supply of computers for members' and senators' offices. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(10.40) —I have noticed in the course of adjournment debates that we hear a lot of knockers and people being critical of the world around us, but I want to inject a positive note in the debate tonight. I have in my electorate of Hughes a group of people who work extremely hard to improve the community in which they live, not motivated by greed and the pursuit of profit but because of a deep commitment to a cause and to educating the people of Sydney about an important part of Sydney's past-the trams of Sydney. I am privileged to have in my electorate the Loftus Tramway Museum, which is conducted by the South Pacific Electric Railway Co-operative, an organisation that has been in existence since the 1950s. It is run by a group of people who are absolutely committed to the restoration and preservation of Sydney's trams and giving to young children and families the opportunity to ride in these trams, not just in some abstract environment but in a recreated environment of old Sydney town. I want to take this opportunity to let the people of Australia and members of the House who share my enthusiasm for trams know a little about the great work of the South Pacific Electric Railway Co-operative in my electorate. I am pleased to say that this is not an issue over which the Australian Labor Party has a monopoly. I know that the former Liberal Minister for Transport in the Askin Government-and I emphasise that-Mr Milton Morris, now retired, is and always has been a strong supporter of this musuem. Indeed, Mr Morris's constructive work as Minister made possible a great deal of the development of the Loftus Tramway Museum site. I have had the opportunity not only to be a close supporter of the museum and its work but also to contribute very positively to the development of the museum by pushing for the allocation of Federal Government community employment program money for this important local project. Only last Friday I had the opportunity to inspect the tramway museum on one of the many occasions on which I have been able to attend the site. However, this time I took with me the Federal Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) personally to inspect the site and meet the local tramway enthusiasts. He was very impressed by all the work done on the site but more than that, as a member who has had a great experience in the world of business, he saw at first hand the tremendous commercial opportunities that this site presented. All that will hold back this project are the knockers. I hope that all honourable members will get behind the project and support the local community and my constituents in the work they do. I want to refer to two particular parts of the future development of the project. First, I refer to the idea of extending the tramway track, which is already partially completed with CEP funds, to the Sutherland railway station and also extend the track further into the Royal National Park to the visitors centre. That would mean that people could come by tram to southern Sydney in my electorate to one of the greatest national parks of the world-in fact, it was the second ever created in the history of the world. At that site they can join me in riding the trams, bringing their families and friends to experience the delight of riding on one of Sydney's trams. As I have indicated, the project is not some abstract idea. The idea is to recreate old Sydney town so that people can really get the feel of what it was like to ride on one of these trams. I have stressed how important it is that this local project is not some shortsighted, quick quid, profit making project. It is all about community involvement and participation by people from all walks of life. Honourable members would be truly amazed at the diverse range of people who have contributed throughout its history to making this project a success. I hope that the good work done over the past decades will not be lost and that I can convince other honourable members-such as the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), who is trying to interject, and who I can see is a tramway enthusiast as I am-to back me in giving the strongest possible support in the national Parliament to the Loftus Tramway Museum. Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee)(10.45) —In November of 1985 I visited South Africa. During that time I met and freely discussed issues and policies in that beautiful and harsh but divided country with 45 diverse individuals and groups ranging from representatives of the United Democratic Front; radical black groups such as AZAPO; church leaders; Inkatha, led by Chief Buthelezi; representatives of industry, and a diversity of the media, union and sporting bodies. My visit took me to Soweto, to the East Cape, to the mines and to the outstanding wildlife parks and efficient farms. Two weeks in any country, even with intense discussions with the wide range of interest groups that I met, does not make one an expert. This is particularly so in South Africa with the complexity of its multiracial society, its conglomeration of people with different features and cultures and its mixture of races that are proudly individualistic and seek to retain their own identity. However, I believe such a visit provided a better understanding of the difficulties of the reforming process and a capacity to debate with less ignorance and prejudice and at least to separate fact from fiction and emotion from the practical. The most important issue, of course, was to ensure that South Africa becomes a stable, vital democracy and that it contributes not just to the well-being of the African continent but realises its rightful place in the economic and cultural life of the world. So that there will be no misunderstanding, let me state that apartheid is a fundamental denial of human rights and an affront to the dignity of all people, but let me also clarify some comments that I made on my return. First, the great majority of all races in that country were in favour of reform, and reform by non-violent means, and there is the belief that reform in South Africa will be determined by the National Party Government and that it will move at a pace that is satisfactory only to its electorate. Not to move in such a way would see the attempt to move away from apartheid abandoned. There was a general view that economic sanctions and disinvestment were hindering and not helping the process of reform and that sanctions simply encouraged unreal expectations, increased the level of violence and ultimately destroyed the best paid black industrial jobs in the whole continent of Africa. We recognised that the circumstances in South Africa were sensitive and delicate but, for the first time in history, they seemed to offer a genuine solution to satisfy the majority of the people. It was therefore my view that international action must encourage this process by negotiation, dialogue and communication. Australia's role at that time was, unfortunately, seen to be negative and quite irrelevant. But politicians and governments continued to posture and yell from abroad while issuing threats that could not be fulfilled, and damaged any chance of meaningful reform. So, Madam Speaker, the world and particularly Australia have reaped their tragic reward for hypocrisy and blatant posturing on the world stage. South Africans, through fear, have swung to the right. The reforms, the crumbling of apartheid, may now well stop. I am ashamed of the Government's role in this issue. Richard Carleton, of course, cries censorship, despite the fact that he was provided with the use of South African broadcasting and television facilities. He abused the laws-a good story by a professional, but one that does nothing to assist in the difficulties of that violence-torn country. As I say, he cried censorship and yet our country provides visas for Archbishop Tutu and Oliver Tambo while denying visas to ordinary South African citizens seeking to visit relations, and sometimes sick relations, in Australia and, of course, denying visas to sporting teams-to anyone, in fact, with a different point of view. The Labor Government has even pressured our newspapers not to report the results of the tour of South Africa by the Australian rebel cricket teams. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) even endeavoured to pressure me to censor my South African visit, which I undertook only in an attempt to understand a complex issue. The African National Congress seeks through violent means a short cut to power. Why has not this Government seen, as it does with every other nation and many dictatorships, that negotiation and dialogue can be profitable? The change in direction in South African politics is not just regrettable; it may well destroy the opportunity for dialogue across lines of colour, politics and religion with a view to establishing a non-racial and representative government. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(10.50) —I would like to join my colleague the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) in recommending the Loftus Tramway Museum to members of this House. An interesting fact about that museum, which I know quite well, is that the tram that used to take prisoners to Long Bay Prison is there, although for obvious reasons it is not now used. The point I want to mention tonight is that, when honourable members raise questions in this chamber about certain groups, those groups usually try to discredit the member. Such a group is the Queensland Association for Sri Lanka Unity, which has produced yet another booklet in which I feature quite prominently. I wonder why it is that everyone is wrong, yet this group, which will not even identify its members, is correct. In criticising the Sri Lankan Government, I join a distinguished group which includes Law Asia, Amnesty International and the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. I do not mind criticism of me. What I object to is the selective quoting of my speeches and sloppy research. As members of this group are associated with Griffith University, and in the past have used its postal facilities, I would have thought they could have got their research correct. Let me give just a few examples. They quote from a speech in which I mentioned receiving anonymous telephone calls-I am not the only person who has received such calls-and they add `which unfortunately the police have not been able to trace'. But I never mentioned the police in my speech. They talk about an index and say that they are not aware of the index. Well, I cannot answer for their stupidity if they cannot use an index. They claim that I said that the Sri Lankan Government placed a bomb on an Air Lankan jet. That is simply not true. I raised questions not only about the bombing of the Sri Lankan jet but also about the recent bombing outrage at a bus station in Colombo. I repeat that there are questions about these events which have not been answered. Recently I received correspondence from an affiliated organisation in Sydney which claims that I have links with terrorists. I believe that this is a matter of privilege, but I will pursue the matter through the courts. I will not repeat the arguments that I have put before the House on many occasions, but I recommend that honourable members read an article on page 6 of last Thursday's Canberra Times which looks at parallel cases between the French Canadians and the Tamils-parallel cases with very different outcomes. The potential for catastrophe was present in both countries 20 years ago, but in Sri Lanka it happened whereas in Canada it did not. Although we tend to regard everything that has already happened as inevitable, it is not. Canada went one way and Sri Lanka went another, because of the choices their people made. The real issue in both countries back in the 1960s was the rights of a minority group. In both cases the minority population is geographically concentrated and comprises a large majority in its own area. The ethnic tensions in both Canada and Sri Lanka were rising 20 years ago, and yet the outcomes have been entirely different. Alas, the situation in Sri Lanka is quite different. The Sinhalese represent a large majority of the island's population, but they behave with the unyielding defensiveness of a threatened minority. Perhaps even now it is not too late to seek a political solution. In the minute or so that is left to me, I would like to take up a couple of points that the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher) raised when he seemed to be accusing the Australian Government of somehow being responsible for the unfortunate result in the South African election last week. What utter rubbish! The result of the South African election, which was a tragedy, shows that the South Africans are moving further and further into their bunker and are not prepared to talk or to allow even a gradual form of progress towards an accommodation of the majority population in that country. Of course that will bring tensions into that country. The honourable member criticised the African National Congress, which has peacefully tried for years and years to have dialogue with the South African Government. Who can blame the ANC if tensions arise and violence is the result. I think that violence will be the result of that election result in South Africa last week. The white South Africans will have only their stupidity and intransigence to blame. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.55) —Madam Speaker, the five Tasmanian members of this House again wish to associate ourselves with the mark of respect shown by honourable members earlier today following the tragic and unexpected death of the Governor of Tasmania, Sir James Plimsoll, at 3.30 last Friday afternoon at Government House. I particularly acknowledge the presence in the chamber of the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) and the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles). There will be opportunities in the days and weeks ahead for further tribute to be paid to Sir James but suffice it to say that he was a very great Australian. Without doubt he was the finest diplomat this country has ever produced, a man who represented our nation with very great distinction right around the world. I simply say on behalf of my Tasmanian colleagues that we were indeed fortunate to have him as Governor of our State from 1982 until his tragic and untimely death last Friday. He was appointed Governor of Tasmania by Premier Doug Lowe and served our State under governments of both political persuasions with absolute impartiality and integrity. He was a man very deeply loved by all Tasmanians and he will never be forgotten. I regret that it is necessary on behalf of my Tasmanian colleagues to advert to some remarks that were made today in the Parliament, including in this debate, and to some remarks that were made outside the Parliament in relation to the current constitutional situation that has developed in my State. I regret very much that the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), the honourable member for Wills (Mr Hawke) and tonight the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) have apparently misunderstood exactly what the Constitution provides or have not taken the trouble to look at the precise words of section 15. When one considers that section 15 was amended as recently as 1977 by referendum put to the people of Australia, it staggers me that leaders of the nation in various political parties-particularly the right honourable member for New England and the honourable member for Wills-can state the position to be other than it is. I ask honourable members to have a very good look at what section 15 of the Constitution says, not what some people are saying it should say or what they think it means. The operative part of section 15 states: If a place of a senator becomes vacant before the expiration of his term of service, the Houses of Parliament of the State for which he was chosen, sitting and voting together, or, if there is only one House of that Parliament, that House, shall choose a person- I emphasise the words `choose a person'- to hold the place until the expiration of the term. The situation is that in Tasmania there are two Houses of the Parliament-the House of Assembly and the Legislative Council. Contrary to the statements of some people who should know better, it is not the Government of Tasmania which chooses the replacement senator; it is the Parliament of the State of Tasmania. The plain fact is that the person who was nominated by the Australian Labor Party could not get the support of a majority of members of both Houses of the Tasmanian Parliament. The Premier warned the Australian Labor Party 3 1/2 months ago, when the resignation of Senator Grimes was anticipated, that the person it proposed to nominate would not be acceptable and would not be likely to be elected. Why not? He is opposed to the policies of the ALP in Tasmania; he is opposed to the policies of the Government; and he is opposed to the policies of the people of Tasmania. If his name were put to the people of Tasmania in a referendum tomorrow and they were asked `Do you want Mr Devereux to be the new senator for Tasmania?', the question would be passed in the negative. He would be defeated. There is no point in crying over spilt milk. The Labor Party was warned; it was told clearly. The Labor Party in Tasmania decided to be arrogant and pigheaded and it put forward the man's name. It was almost like asking the State of Victoria to elect Mr Norm Gallagher a senator for that State. The plain fact is that on an open vote in the joint sitting last Friday, the nominee-Mr Devereux-failed to gain majority support in exactly the same way as we predicted. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Hawke to move- That this House- (1) noting the- (a) failure of the Joint Sitting of the Tasmanian Parliament on 8 May 1987 to choose the duly nominated ALP candidate, Mr John Devereux, to fill the casual vacancy consequent on the resignation of Dr Don Grimes; (b) resolution of the Senate of 19 March 1987 endorsing the constitutional convention, established in 13 successive instances since the 1977 Referendum, that ``a person chosen to fill the vacant place in accordance with s. 15 of the Constitution should be the member of the political party duly nominated by that party to fill that place'', and (c) statement by the Leader of the Opposition, the Honourable John Howard, on 8 May 1987 that ``I believe that the person appointed to fill casual vacancies of this kind ought to be the person nominated by the retiring Senator's political party'', and the statements in support of the established convention made by the leaders of all other parties in the Commonwealth Parties; (2) calls on the Presiding Officers of the Tasmanian Parliament to immediately take such action as is necessary to reconvene the Joint Sitting of the Houses in the Tasmanian Parliament to fill the vacancy in order that representation of the people of Tasmania in this place be in accordance with their constitutional entitlements, and (3) calls on the members of the Tasmanian House of Assembly and Legislative Council, including members of the Gray Government, who have to date acted contrary to the established convention, to vote at such a Joint Sitting to accept the nominated ALP candidate, Mr John Devereux. Mr Young to move- That this House authorises- (1) the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to film all or part of the ministerial statement concerning economic measures to be made by the Treasurer on 13 May 1987, and all or part of the reply to that statement by the Leader of the Opposition; (2) the direct, live telecast of all or part of that film and the accompanying sound of the proceedings by any television station provided that a station telecasts both speeches live and gives approximately equal time to both speeches, and (3) the use by any television station of any part of the film proceedings and accompanying sound in subsequent news, current affairs and documentary programs. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 11 may 1987: Excise Act-Declaration pursuant to section 78b, dated 6 April 1987. National Health Act-Notice for the purposes of subsection 47 (2b), dated 23 April 1987. Navigation Act-Navigation (Orders) Regulations-Orders-1987- No. 1-Marine, Part 49. No. 2-Marine, Part 50. Nursing Homes Assistance Act-Notice for the purposes of subsection 13 (1a), dated 23 April 1987. Proclamation by His Excellency the Governor- General fixing the date on which the following Acts and sections of Acts shall into operation-Migration Act 1958-Repeal and re-enactment of section 5a by the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 2) 1986-11 May 1987. Public Service Act-Determination-1987-No. 18.