Tuesday, 2 June 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask a question of the Minister for Defence. In view of the announcement this morning by the honourable member for Newcastle and chairman of the Caucus sub-committee on defence manufacturing, and the release in London this week of Australian eyes only information in Jane's Defence Weekly relating to the vital specifications of the new submarine project, can the Minister assure the House of the absolute sanctity of the project definition study and the tendering process in order that the Australian public can be satisfied on the basis of the new submarine contract being let? Mr BEAZLEY —I thank the right honourable gentleman for his question. The release of the document related to comments by the honour-able member for Newcastle is not new. I understand that that document was circulating around the Cabinet before the Cabinet decision. Matters contained in it raised questions that were amply covered by Cabinet consideration. I understand too that it was released some weeks ago and run in the Australian Financial Review, so I do not know what has provoked the Canberra Times to pick it up three weeks later. All of the matters raised in it were amply covered in Cabinet consideration. In many areas the detail of it is based on incorrect assumptions about judgments that the Royal Australian Navy and others were making in the evaluation process or is slightly distorted-but distorted in important ways. There is no reason to be concerned about any information released from that or any information which has been released in the course of the submarine project evaluation. Naturally enough, we would prefer that that had not happened, as I have indicated in this House on a number of occasions. But it is virtually unavoidable in a contest such as this with a project of close to $4 billion at stake and where the contenders for that project will see their situation materially advanced or damaged by a decision taken by an intelligent buyer such as the Royal Australian Navy. We have to live with that. It is not often that we have projects of that size. They may come along every 5, 6 or 10 years. When we do have such projects, as happened in the case of the purchase of the F18 aircraft under the previous Government, that type of detail of capability does get discussed-again, in ways that we would probably prefer did not happen. The fact is that from this pro-ject we will have the best conventional submarine in the Western world when its construction is completed. That judgment is based on very sound analysis by the Navy. We are in the position where we could happily at any time sign a contract to that effect. Mr CAMPBELL —Can the Minister for Health inform the House as to the protection offered to the Australian family by the Medicare program in light of recent claims about the dismantling of Medicare? Dr BLEWETT —In response to the question from the honourable member for Kalgoorlie, it gives me very great pleasure to tell the House of the very real advantages that accrue to the Australian population from the Medicare program. The first of those is the fact that it is universal, that it covers every Australian, providing him or her with basic medical and hospital care. I would remind the House that only four years ago that was not so; some two million Australians were without health cover. It is true that the Opposition has said that it will maintain the universality of the program, but I must point out that Mr Fraser said exactly the same in 1975 and within seven years there were two million people without cover. The second great advantage of the Medicare program is that it provides access to our public hospitals without means tests, without the need to have poor cards, without the need for a person to prove that he or she is a charitable case. In fact, despite what is said by many members of the Opposition, the public hospital system in this country treats some 60,000 new patients on average every week. But of course the Opposition says that people will have to present cards to entitle them to those kinds of free services in our public hospital system and the rest of the population will have to pay much more in health contribution rates in order to cover that. The third and most important achievement of the Medicare program is that it is basically funded by payment according to people's means; that is, people pay the Medicare levy according to their income. There are generous threshold provisions which protect low income families, and they will be maintained under this Government. The remaining members of the population pay a levy according to their means. We have already been told that that fair system is to be undermined. I notice that Senator Michael Baume has already confessed that five million Australians will be worse off under the Opposition's scheme. Mr Hand —How many? Dr BLEWETT —He has said that five million people may be worse off under the Opposition's plan, and that is an underestimate. The kinds of levels under which the Liberal scheme will work will mean that unless a family is earning something like $1,250 a week-- Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, I raise a point or order. The Minister has been asked a question about government policies and the effect that they will have. He should not, in my submission, in answer to that question, seek to tell the public at large his interpretation of the policies of the Opposition and, Madam Speaker, I respectfully suggest that you should tell him to be relevant to the question and to discontinue his-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is now going against what the Chair has said to him. I will make the decisions, not him. I find the Minister in order, and he may continue. Dr BLEWETT —It is evident from the way the Opposition treats these five million people-and I heard the interjection that they all vote Labor-that that is the kind of attitude it takes to the less well off in the community who will be handicapped by the kinds of proposals that it is making. As I pointed out, under these vague Liberal proposals, and they are admittedly vague, a family now with basic private insurance will need an income of $1,250 a week to be better off, and if the Opposition gets rid of all its savings, with a tax rebate that family will need $700 a week to be better off-- Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, I raise a point or order. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Is the honourable member for North Sydney again raising a point of order under standing order 145? Mr Spender —That is so, under relevance, Madam Speaker, and I ask you to request the speaker to be relevant. Madam SPEAKER —I tell the honourable member that I have ruled the Minister in order, and that is the honourable member's second point of order after the Chair's ruling. I call the Minister. Dr BLEWETT —I confess that the proposals of members of the Opposition are vague. They have had four years to produce a health scheme and they have failed to do so. All they are prepared to do is simply to undermine a scheme which provides universal cover, open access to our hospital systems and fair and income-related levy payment. Mr Porter addressing a question to the Prime Minister- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The question is quite out of order. Mr Howard-What a stacked deck that is. Mr Hawke-Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. I ask that you take note of, and make a ruling on, the interjection just made by the Leader of the Opposition: `What a stacked deck that is'. Madam SPEAKER —I appreciate the intervention by the Prime Minister. Things are often said in this House in the heat of the moment that the Chair chooses to ignore. I remind those on my left that my hearing is quite acute and if I hear any further comments to that effect, I will take action. I also remind all members, including the honourable member for Mackellar, that interjections are out of order and those who are constantly bringing points of order before the Chair might do well to look at all the Standing Orders instead of selectively using them. Mr WRIGHT —I direct my question to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. In view of the Government's decision not to proceed with its Industrial Relations Bill until the next session of Parliament, can the Minister advise the House whether the Government is able to take any action in the interim to counteract the draconian Queensland industrial relations legislation? If so, what action can be taken and how quickly can it be instituted? Mr WILLIS —I am able to inform the honourable member for Capricornia that the Government is able to take alternative action, and it will do so within the next couple of weeks. I remind the House that the Queensland legislation to which the honourable member referred as draconian is, indeed, draconian. It provides for the virtual outlawing of industrial action in many Queensland industries, making industrial action in those industries, in effect, a criminal offence; it contains outrageous evidentiary and notice requirements; it is in breach of up to half a dozen international treaties to which Australia is a signatory; it seeks to apply not just to State registered unions but also to federally registered unions operating under Federal awards and it is additional to remedies which are available under the Federal law, including the Trade Practices Act and the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. It qualifies for the term `draconian'. The Government, in its Industrial Relations Bill, sought to override the Queensland legislation by providing that Federal law formed a code which excluded remedies under State legislation. When we deferred debate on the Bill to undertake further consultation with employer organisations and unions, we made it clear that the Government did not resile in any way from the need for the Bill to contain a code to exclude State legislation. Nevertheless, the fact remains that there will be necessarily an interregnum of a few months before that Bill can be passed by this Parliament. The Government has therefore considered what other action it could take to ensure that Queensland workers are protected and that the Queensland legislation does not become the focus of disruptive and damaging protest action. Accordingly, today, with my ministerial colleague, the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, I am announcing that the Commonwealth Government will initiate a High Court of Australia constitutional challenge to the Queensland Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act 1984-87. The proceedings will be commenced as soon as possible-within the next two or three weeks-seeking a declaration by the High Court that the Queensland Act is constitutionally invalid to the extent of its inconsistency with the relevant provisions of existing Commonwealth legislation, including the Trade Practices Act 1974 and the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904. Madam Speaker, I am sure that all those who are concerned to minimise the level of industrial disputation in this country and who are concerned with fairness and equity will applaud that decision to take this constitutional challenge to override the Queensland legislation. But, of course in doing so they should recognise that the Federal Opposition has come out totally in favour of that legislation. The Leader of the Opposition, when asked on Brisbane radio a week or so ago whether he supported that legislation, said yes, he supported it. So, the Federal Opposition-at least, the Liberal Party part of it and presumably the National Party as well-supports this legislation, which is in breach of at least half a dozen international treaties to which Australia is a signatory and which applied right through the period for which they were in office under the Fraser Government. So they have no standards in this matter. They simply seek to support anything that will provoke industrial action, hoping that it will benefit their political position in this country. They will be deprived of that because I am quite sure that, as a result of the action taken by the Government, there will not be any damaging protest action by unions in relation to the Queensland legislation. My Mr HOWARD-My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I refer him to remarks made about the Government's Medicare system by Mr John Singleton in April of last year. I ask whether the Prime Minister is aware that Mr Singleton said: Medicare is, and will continue to be, a disaster-- Mr Young —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. Obviously the Prime Minister is not responsible for the statements of people made outside this House. This is nothing to do with the Prime Minister at all. Secondly, I do not believe the Government has any objection to taking the question because there may be some other questions about the white-shoe brigade who support the Liberal Party. They are a nice bunch, are they not? Have a good look at them, the white-shoe brigade! And John Valder-we might get some questions about John Valder; all these sorts of things. Mr Howard —That is not even a point of order, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —The Leader of the House is now out of order. I call the Leader of the Opposition. Mr HOWARD —I will start the question again. Madam SPEAKER —Order! There is no need to. The Chair will be listening to the finish of the question because there is a standing order that could apply to it. Mr HOWARD —I ask whether the Prime Minister is aware that on 2 April last year Mr John Singleton made the following comments regarding the Government's Medicare system: Medicare is, and will continue to be, a disaster. You only have to look at the waiting lists-- Madam SPEAKER —I am loath to interrupt the Leader of the Opposition but I direct his attention to standing order 153. The standing order states: Questions shall not be asked which reflect on or are critical of the character or conduct of those persons whose conduct may only be challenged on a substantive motion, . . . That portion of the standing order does not apply but the second part of the standing order does apply. It states: and notice must be given of questions critical of the character or conduct of other persons. Mr Howard —Madam Speaker, may I take a point of order? Honourable members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —I ask the Leader of the Opposition to wait until the House comes to order. There is not much point in taking a point of order when we do not have any order. Mr Howard —I take a point of order. My question is not a criticism of a man; it is a criticism of a government policy. I find it unbelievable that you, Madam Speaker, should rule that what I have asked of the Prime Minister so far is in any way critical of a man rather than a policy. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will be careful not to reflect upon the Chair. Mr Shack —Further to the point of order, under the standing order, Madam Speaker: We are not critical of Mr Singleton. We think that he is spot on. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member has no point of order. The Leader of the Opposition may rephrase his question if he so desires. Mr HOWARD —I ask the Prime Minister whether it is a fact that on 2 April last year Mr John Singleton said: Medicare is, and will continue to be, a disaster. You only have to look at the waiting lists at hospitals to see that. It is reported that he went on to say: If you can't afford or don't have private insurance, all you can do is hope for the best. Hope you don't have to wait in casualty for four hours. Hope there is a doctor there . . . Is this good enough for your family? I ask the Prime Minister: Is that an accurate, truthful and believable description by Mr John Singleton of Medicare? If not, why not? Mr HAWKE —The Leader of the Opposition finally got to the end of the question. The answer is no, it is not. Mr Singleton has made a number of comments during his career with which I would find it difficult to agree. However, he is not always wrong. In the past week, as I recall, he said that Mr Howard `is not a bad bloke; the only problem is that he is not bright'. That is a statement by Mr Singleton with which I have no trouble agreeing. The simple fact of life is that in the professional world people such as barristers and advertising consultants accept briefs. I would imagine that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has had to accept briefs at times. That does not mean that I would assume that the honourable gentleman would necessarily agree with the points of view of his client or necessarily with everything he regarded as necessary to say in the prosecution or defence of the interests of his client. That is manifestly obvious. The situation is that, over the years, private health funds in this country have engaged in advertising campaigns for the purpose of trying to attract clients. That is a perfectly appropriate thing for them to do. In the case of the present electoral situation-- Mr Porter —I take a point of order. Madam Speaker, the point of the question is that Mr Singleton said certain things. He did not quote from a brief; they were his own words. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is out of order. The Prime Minister is answering the question. Mr HAWKE —As I was saying, the private health funds have engaged in advertising campaigns for the purpose of trying to attract clients. That is perfectly understandable. Those taking a brief would express points of view which they regarded as appropriate to the circumstances. Turning to the most relevant situation-that is, the election which is about to take place-the Government Party took a decision about a particular person and an organisation in the field. We regarded it as an appropriate decision. I am comforted by the fact that those associated with the agency, including Mr Rene Rivkin, also made some comments. If we are to have comments made by such people thrown into the ring, let us remember what Mr Rivkin said. Mr Rivkin is a leading financial figure, a leading stockbroker, who observed that he had never voted Labor in his life; he had always supported the Liberal Party. He said he had agonised about the matter. He had considered it and had come to the very sensible conclusion that the appropriate decision for any sensible person in this election was that he should not have a bar of the Liberal Party. He expressed the view, rightly, that those opposite are hopeless. Why would he vote for hopeless people? We are perfectly content that, in this election, the Australian Labor Party will have the services of an excellent agency that is led by people who have made the judgment that the right way to vote on 11 July is for the Australian Labor Party and not for the collection of incompetents on the other side of the House. CanMr GRIFFITHS-Can the Treasurer inform the House of ways in which $3,000m can be cut from Commonwealth outlays, and, having regard to today's theme of the Opposition, with specific reference to the health system? Mr Spender —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The latter part of the question, in my submission, is clearly out of order. Mr Keating —On the point of order, Madam Speaker-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I did not hear the first point of order. Mr Spender —The question concluded with a reference, that was hard to hear, having regard to Opposition statements. That part of the question, in my submission, is out of order. Madam SPEAKER —Order! That part of the question is out of order. Mr Keating —On the point of order, Madam Speaker: The previous question was directed to the Prime Minister, on two attempts by the Opposition Leader and one of his shadow spokesmen. It was about remarks by a person and was totally outside the Prime Minister's portfolio responsibilities. If the Opposition wishes to put questions that are blatantly out of order, the Government will not be responding to the kinds of intonations by the honourable member about answers being in or out of order. Madam SPEAKER —The previous question has nothing to do with the question before the Chair. The Treasurer is out of order. The second part of the question of the honourable member for Maribyrnong is out of order. I ask him to repeat the first part of his question. Mr GRIFFITHS —The substantive part of the question, of course, was as follows: Can the Treasurer inform the House of the ways in which $3,000m could be cut from Commonwealth outlays with specific reference to the health system? Mr KEATING —It is not possible to cut $3 billion out of the health system without smashing it. The fact is that any proposal to transfer $1.3 billion of Medicare medical benefits to health funds will reflect in the health fund rate, and any proposal to transfer $1.7 billion in Commonwealth payments to the State health system, to total $3 billion, must reflect in payments for health. As I indicated in the House yesterday, such a proposal would mean that someone now on an income of about $20,000 and paying $5 a week under the levy system for his health protection would pay about $27 a week under such a proposal. If levy payers are forced out of the system, the Commonwealth loses its Medicare levy receipts to about the same tune-$1.6 billion. So $1.7 billion savings, so called, in payments by the Commonwealth to the States would offset $1.6 billion of losses in Commonwealth levy payments. That means that people with families, taxpayers with families and with children, and people in the low and middle income areas would be driven to about an extra $20 a week for health cover. It would mean, as the Opposition Leader said yesterday in commenting about such a proposal, that out-patient care in public hospitals would no longer be free. If some child had his leg broken at sport or received an injury to his eye or something else, he would be denied outpatient services in the hospital system. A person who had an accident at work would have to immediately pay to procure any services from the hospital and would lose out-patient support at that hospital. Such is the basis of the Opposition's tax policy. After all this time what we have come down to is a con trick and mirrors operation of a supposed $3 billion saving from the health system which would only transfer tax cuts to high income earners by lifting the health insurance payments of low and middle income earners by about $20 a week. But someone cynically remarked from the Opposition benches when the Minister for Health was speaking: `That will come from your voters anyway'. In other words, the cynical view from the honourable member for Wannon is that if people happen to be on low or middle incomes they can pay $20 a week because it does not matter. He says: `They do not vote for the coalition parties anyway. We will procure a 35 per cent tax rate for the people we truly represent, that is the people in the wealthy suburbs of the cities, and we will do it at the expense of the poor, the people with families and the people with low incomes'. One would not mind if the Opposition said what it was doing. The Leader of the Opposition said that within 10 days he would bring his tax policy down. The truth is that the Opposition is still cobbling it together. It still does not have a tax policy. Last week the Leader of the Opposition said $3 billion would be cut from health; yesterday it was to be $2 billion; last night the shadow Minister for Health, Senator Michael Baume, was back to $3 billion. There is all this stress. The Leader of the Opposition takes the view that this cynical game with the Press Gallery and with the public, about ripping money off the health system to pay for a supposed tax policy that he has not been able to cobble together in the 18 months or two years that he has been the Leader of the Opposition, is a charade which should continue without the Opposition saying with any specificity where the money will be coming from for the irresponsible grab bag of election promises which the Opposition is putting. I conclude on this point: It is impossible to take $3 billion from the Medicare system without forcing low and middle income families into an extra $20 a week for health cover. That will be way beyond any tax promise that even the Leader of the Opposition may irresponsibly make in the course of an election campaign. There are no savings to the Budget. It is a Budget deficit neutral proposition, and with a Budget deficit neutral proposition all that would happen is that the Budget deficit would be blown out, interest rates would rise and we would find those same people paying more for health cover, paying more in interest rates across the country as the financial market tightens up Australia in the face of such a policy. Mr LLOYD —The Minister for Aviation will be aware that the Chief Executive of the Federal Airports Corporation, Mr Bill Swingler, has indicated that the staff level necessary for the efficient operation of the Airports Corporation will be about 1,200 employees. Will the Minister confirm that the Federal Airports Corporation will be forced to accommodate some 1,600 staff transferred from the Department of Aviation once the FAC commences operations on 1 July? Further, will the Minister confirm that the Government plans to support those additional 400 staff with receipts from increased landing fees even though the Minister is yet to inform the Chief Executive of the FAC of the debt it is to inherit, of the assets it will actually control, and whether there will be any retrenchments of staff as a result of this Government's intention to sell the international terminal leases which were to be controlled by the FAC after 1 July? Mr PETER MORRIS —The question asked by the honourable member for Murray is testimony to the shambles, the lack of organisation, in which the aviation arrangements were left by those who now sit opposite. Let me just refer to the two-airline agreement, which was agreed to in a private deal and signed by those who now sit opposite. That locked this country into a set of aviation arrangements about which the public of this nation was never consulted. Now, in an act of expediency, those opposite find it popular to say that we should dispense with it. The Opposition locked this country into those arrangements and did not consult the people. Unlike those who now sit opposite, this Government embarked upon a public review, the first comprehensive public analysis, of that system of arrangements to determine what type of arrangements best suit the needs of this country; and what people think about the arrangements. I find it rather interesting that, having done that, the Opposition has now suddenly taken upon itself a concern about the arrangements at airports in respect of domestic aviation. So I welcome this new-found interest from the Opposition-it is long overdue. In respect of airport arrangements and the questions raised by the honourable member for Murray, who is usually a fairly studious reader-and we provide him with as much briefing and access as we can-he would know that the Commonwealth Public Service employment arrangements for those people who will transfer to the Federal Airports Corporation have been covered in previous statements made to this House; and he would know that people concerned are protected under the conditions of Commonwealth Public Service employment. The honourable member for Murray would also know that those people who may transfer to the Federal Airports Corporation are being given that option and, if they do not take up that option, they will remain with the Public Service and be subject to offers of other employment or whatever other arrangements or entitlements they may care to take up under the terms of public sector employment. All of that is public knowledge. As to the valuation of assets at airports and their transfer to the Federal Airports Corporation, the Government will deal with that matter in the normal course of events. I thank the honourable member for his question, but I wish that the Opposition had exercised the same interest in the past in respect of domestic aviation arrangements as it is now doing in respect of airports. Mr CLEELAND —Can the Minister for Primary Industry advise the House on the implications for farmers and country Australia in general of a flat tax and reduced fuel taxes paid for by the abolition of Medicare? Mr KERIN —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. The President of the National Farmers Federation, Mr Ian McLachlan, after many overtures, has now decided that the conservatives are too hopeless for him to run for them but he has dropped the pretence about non-political politics and is co-ordinating an anti-Government campaign with the anti-democratic Queensland Premier. In a classic example of political blackmail, Mr McLachlan has indicated that, if the honourable members for Ballarat, Bendigo, McEwen, Rankin and Eden-Monaro do not support New Right policies, they will face an expensive advertising campaign against them. No one else has to do this-not the Sinclair Nationals, the Joh Nationals or the Howard Liberals. Only the Labor Party is targeted. Mr McLachlan wants a Howard-Bjelke-Petersen government. Is that not marvellous! That should put the fear of God into everyone. If Mr McLachlan is to campaign with the Queensland Premier, he must accept his policies. We know that the Queensland Premier has quite a few policies-cars which run on water and that sort of thing-but the only thing that he has consistently promised for a while is a flat tax. At least he has a tax policy-the Liberals do not even have one yet. As I have said over and over again, a flat tax would cost farmers money. A taxpayer on average farm income this year would pay $1,200 per year more under a 25 per cent flat tax than under the Government's tax scales. As well as this, tax averaging would also go with a flat tax, and that would result in a total loss to farmers of almost $300m-just to reduce taxes for the rich such as Mr McLachlan and a handful of rich farmers and the corrupt Queensland Premier's corrupt white-shoe brigade. The same point applies much more broadly than just to farmers in the five electorates that Mr McLachlan is targeting. A 25 per cent flat tax in 1984-85 would have cost all residents of Eden-Monaro an average of $495 each. That would be a total of $19.8m for the electorate as a whole. In the electorate of Ballarat, it would have cost every taxpayer $520 more; in Bendigo it would have cost $586; in McEwen $367; and wait for it, in Rankin it would have cost $764 more. That is what the Queensland Premier wants to impose on his people in Queensland. The New Right wants wages of $171.30 a week, while Mr Bjelke-Petersen wants his flat tax. The Opposition is selling the nonsense that families somehow do not receive wages-we have to be tougher on wages, but we have to be pro-family. As I said yesterday, most families that I know depend on wages and salaries. Mr McLachlan also wants to pay for the abolition of the fuel excise by abolishing all Commonwealth health benefits. That is supposed to reduce inflation-but it would not. Abolition of fuel excises would reduce the consumer price index by less than 2 per cent immediately, and by about 4 per cent over a period of time, while abolishing the Commonwealth health benefits would increase the CPI by some 6 per cent immediately. Therefore, Mr McLachlan's logic is to increase the CPI and interest rates by 4 per cent this year and by 2 per cent over a slightly longer period, and also to have an inequitable and expensive health system available only to the wealthy. That is a sort of nonsense, muddled thinking, double-talk and double-think that will be rejected by the Australian people on 11 July. Mr FIFE —I direct my question to the Treasurer. I refer him to the answer that he gave yesterday to a question from the honourable member for Forde in which he claimed that someone earning $350 a week has received tax cuts under Labor totalling $12.61, resulting in an increase in take-home income of 4.65 per cent. Is he aware that inflation, as measured by the consumer price index, increased by about 36 per cent over that period? How can he claim that tax reform has been completed when tax cuts have increased take-home pay by only 4.65 per cent for those people while inflation has increased by 36 per cent? Mr KEATING —I am sure that the honourable member did not even notice that the Government was supporting wage increases of certain dimensions which the Opposition was opposing. Does the honourable member remember that the Opposition opposed every wage increase since 1978? Members of the Opposition talk about living standards but we know what they say. The honourable member must have had his ear glued to the British Broadcasting Corporation for 20 years. The Opposition talks about living standards but it opposed every wage increase for years. It said: `Give them nothing'. It would smash awards and have people back to the Manchester conditions of the late nineteenth century. It is not talking about tax cuts. When it left office it had left a 60 per cent tax rate in place for all the years that it was in government. Let me remind Opposition members that their Government had $3 billion of real new money from Bass Strait oil production. That $3 billion rolled in because of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries oil increases. Did we see J. W. Howard, the then Treasurer, cut the tax rates? Government members-No! Mr KEATING —Did we see J. W. Howard, Treasurer, lift the tax thresholds? Government members-No! Mr KEATING —Did he do anything about the criminal evasion schemes to make the tax any fairer? Government members-No! Mr KEATING —Was there any fairness? Government members-No! Mr KEATING —Was there any tax relief for decent people? Government members-No! Mr KEATING —The Opposition should not talk to the Government about living standards because this Government has faced up to that question. I say to members opposite that they should go and ask the people they rammed into the unemployment queues-the half a million families they sent on to unemployment benefit-about living standards. Go and talk to the pensioners, whose savings they ripped apart with 10 years of double digit inflation, about living standards. Any self-respecting party would not lift its head again about economic policy if it had the Opposition's record. As I said today on a radio program, regarding executive service in the American system, anybody who gave Australia its first negative growth in 30 years, double digit inflation and double digit unemployment, would never be employed in an executive position by any American President or any American Administration. In our system the duds bounce back like rubber balls. Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, on a point of order: We have heard a great deal about rubber balls and many other things, but we have not heard anything that has anything to do with the question. Perhaps he could be driven back to the question. Madam SPEAKER —Is the honourable member referring to standing order 145 and the matter of relevancy? Mr Spender —Relevancy, Madam Speaker. I believe he can spell that word. Madam SPEAKER —The Treasurer is in order. The honourable member for North Sydney will cease speaking when the Chair is speaking. Mr KEATING —Anybody proposing himself to lead a government in this country who destroyed the fabric of the economy, gave us sustained double digit inflation-- Mr Carlton —Rubbish! Mr KEATING —It takes a special feat of competence actually to make an economy contract-not grow slower, but get smaller-and at a time when there were much better terms of trade than we ever had. That takes a very special effort. Guess whose work it was? It was all the work of the honourable member for Bennelong. Mr Spender —What about the living standards? Madam SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for North Sydney that if he interjects again I will deal with him. Mr KEATING —With a hide as thick as an elephant's, he pops up and says: `Give us another go; let us see if we can wreck it twice in 10 years'. That is his platform; he knows that. Those opposite know what a weak side they are and what the record of their leader is, but they must stand behind him; we understand that. But talking to us about living standards and the fabric of the economy-- Mr Carlton —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. The question asked of the Treasurer-- Mr Young —Any more questions about John Singleton? They are irrelevant, aren't they? Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr Carlton —The honourable member said quite a few things about Singleton in 1974 and we will dig them up. Madam SPEAKER —I believe that the honourable member for Mackellar is raising a point of order and should not be having a slanging match with the Leader of the House. Mr Carlton —Yes, Madam Speaker. The question asked of the Treasurer was about the tax paid by low income families. What he is talking about now has absolutely nothing to do with that. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. The Treasurer will continue and will bring his answer to a conclusion. Mr KEATING —The honourable member for Mackellar is supposed to be the ideological toff on the other side. All I can say, for these sorts of policies-- Mr Carlton —Madam Speaker, I find that offensive and I ask that it be withdrawn. Madam SPEAKER —It is certainly not unparliamentary. The Treasurer will withdraw if the honourable member finds it offensive. Mr KEATING —If he is not a toff, I will withdraw. I was going to make this point: How can anyone with an intellectual self-respect support these policies? How could anyone who prides himself on knowing about fiscal policy's relationship to the external accounts and the process of adjustment in conscience support the grab bag of policies proposed by our friend here from Ash Street? How could anybody support that? I conclude on this point: This Government has taken Australia through the most important post-war transition in the economy. It will continue that work. It will do so with the broad support of the work force and the support of the trade unions. We will not defend the lurk merchants and the bludgers who rip the tax system apart with criminal schemes. We will not support the free lunches, the free cars or letting people keep their capital gains without a capital gains tax. We will be about fairness, equity, and reasonable wage rises when the economy can pay them. Ms MAYER —My question is directed to the Minister for Science in his capacity as Minister Assisting the Attorney-General on Consumer Affairs. Is the Government in a position to indicate how costs in the food industry will be reduced through the adoption of a uniform food standards code? Mr BARRY JONES —The adoption of the uniform food standards code throughout Australia will be of great benefit both to the industry and to families because it will lead to a reduction in the price of many food products. It means that now for the first time Commonwealth, States and Territories have substantially uniform food legislation, regulations and standards. The appropriate Ministers endorsed this in April of this year and it will provide for uniformity for food other than items such as bread which fall under specific product laws. It is the latest in a series of reforms of Australia's excessively complex food regulations and standards and is another good example of the way in which this Government is approaching the question of trying to reorganise the economy so that we move away from all the historic colonial trappings-- Mr Hayden —The credit for this belongs to you. Mr BARRY JONES —Absolutely! Actually I am a usurper in a way because the great credit at the Commonwealth level lies in the hands of the Minister for Health, who has, with his customary grace and foresight, handed the area over to me in my enlarged area of consumer affairs. We now have to look at the basis of the regulations. There are clearly absurdities such as the famous difference from State to State between the square tubs and the round tubs for margarine, which may have had some historic significance years ago but not now. On 13 March the Prime Minister announced the establishment of a Federal Bureau of Consumer Affairs. That Bureau will be responsible for Commonwealth policy on domestic food and beverage standards, packaging and labelling, product safety and information, including recalls. I think we can say that in the areas of consumer quality and price standards we are doing very well. Before concluding I want to pay tribute to the work of the honourable member for Canning, and his Price Watch Network, which in its most recent figures indicates that since the first survey a month ago 34 per cent of supermarkets surveyed have reduced their prices on basic grocery, meat and vegetable items. So the strategy laid down by the Prime Minister on 13 March is working and it is another example of how effective this Government has been. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I present the report of the Auditor-General dated 1 June 1987 upon an efficiency audit of the Parliament House Construction Authority construction project management. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That- (1) This House in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the report of the Auditor-General dated 1 June 1987 upon an efficiency audit of the Parliament House Construction Authority construction project management; and (2) The report be printed. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Chamberlain Convictions. The report was also tabled in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly today. I also present the text of a statement made by the Northern Territory Attorney-General in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly this day concerning the report. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Chamberlain Convictions. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the Australian delegation to the 1986 session of the Conference on Disarmament held in Geneva from 4 February to 25 April and from 10 June to 29 August 1986. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Industries Assistance Commission report on medical and scientific equipment. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —Pursuant to sub-section 63m (3) of the Audit Act 1901, I present the annual report and financial statements of the Canberra Theatre Trust, together with the Auditor-General's report, for 1985-86. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Nominal Defendant for the year ended 31 December 1986. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands for 1985-86. Mr SIMMONS(Calare) —Madam Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr SIMMONS —I do. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr SIMMONS —In the Senate yesterday, during a debate on taxation legislation, Liberal Senator Puplick accused me of resorting: . . . to the courts to prevent full public discussion of the significant issues taking place. Those comments were made in relation to an allegation that I was not prepared to allow public debate about the Australia Card in my electorate. I regard Senator Puplick's personal attack as completely misleading, because he omitted to quote fully an offensive phrase that was used in a letter published in the Western Advocate newspaper on 28 January 1987, which is the basis for my legal proceedings for defamation. I make it clear to the House that I have no intention of suppressing debate on the Australia Card, and I give notice that it will be a vigorous feature of my re-election campaign. Mr HAWKER(Wannon) —Madam Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HAWKER —I do. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr HAWKER —During an answer the Treasurer (Mr Keating) accused me of interjecting during a reply from his colleague the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) to the effect that I was not concerned about those who could be worse off without Medicare because they were Labor voters. That is incorrect. During his reply the Minister also said that, according to Senator Michael Baume, five million people would be worse off without Medicare, and my interjection was that he would be worried that some of them may have been Labor voters. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —by leave-I wish to report to the House on the eighteenth meeting of the South Pacific Forum which I attended in Apia, Western Samoa on 29 and 30 May and hereby table the communique of the meeting. Honourable members will find in the communique an account of the various significant decisions taken, all of them by consensus, at the Apia meeting. I would like in this statement to highlight the matters of principal interest from Australia's perspective. The Chairman of the Forum, the Prime Minister of Western Samoa, correctly observed in his opening statement that the circumstances under which this Forum took place were unprecedented and unusually testing. He did not mean by this-nor do I-solely the challenges posed by recent events in Fiji. There of course remain other major issues in the region, both political issues such as New Caledonia and economic challenges arising in large part from the vulnerability of the region to international economic fluctuations and changes. This was not, therefore, a `one issue' meeting for any of the members, Australia included. Accordingly, while the matter of Fiji has tended understandably enough to dominate perceptions of the Apia forum, I took on behalf of the Australian Government a keen interest in the opportunities for promoting co-operation with our Pacific friends and neighbours across the whole range of shared concerns. Given the particular significance of the Apia forum I wish to say how especially valu- able it was to have the active support and involvement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden). Bill Hayden played an invaluable role both within the Forum proper and in bi- lateral discussions with heads of government, other foreign Ministers and senior figures present in Apia and I pay full tribute to him. Although not, as I said, by any means the only item, developments in Fiji were clearly the major item at our meeting. Many hours were spent in serious and constructive consultation and deliberation on the matter, and appropriately so. What happened in Fiji a few weeks ago was a shattering event precisely because of its uniqueness in our region. The spectre of the military invasion of a free parliament and the overturning of a government by force is something tragically familiar in some other parts of the world. But it has been, before the Fiji coup, most happily unfamiliar to the South Pacific. The events in Fiji led to the unprecedented situation where Fiji was not present at the Forum. Both the manner in which the Forum handled discussion of Fiji and the outcome of that discussion reflected great credit on the maturity of the Forum. It demonstrated once again the value of the Forum as the major voice for the expression of collective South Pacific opinion. Different emphases in the individual policies and interpretations of Forum countries regarding the situation in Fiji in no way prevented a full consensus and total unity on many essential propositions, as set out in the communique. All members of the Forum expressed their concern and anguish about the overthrow of the elected Government in Fiji. We all expressed the hope for a peaceful and satisfactory solution. The Forum expressed willingness to provide whatever help it might be able to lend. It was decided that the Chairman of the Forum would request the Governor-General of Fiji to indicate to the Forum the forms of assistance he considered most appropriate. Specifically we decided that, should the Governor-General of Fiji indicate that such a Forum initiative would be constructive and of assistance, the Forum would send a mission to Fiji. Such a mission would be led by me and comprise the Prime Minister of the Solomon Islands and the Director of the South Pacific Bureau for Economic Co-operation, the Secretariat of the Forum. The mission would hold discussions with all parties in Fiji with a view to attempting to facilitate processes leading to a resolution of current problems. It was further decided that should the Governor-General of Fiji respond with a request for assistance additional to this, or assistance of a different kind, then the Chairman of the Forum would communicate such a request to Forum Heads of Government. The Director of the SPEC would co-ordinate a response. What we had here then was an effort to reach out to Fiji, to indicate clearly not only concern but willingness to help. Once these ideas, including the idea of a mission, were put forward by others, Australia was a very active participant in the development of the initiative, as of course we should be given our considerable interests and our regional role. There has been a message from the Governor-General of Fiji to the Chairman of the Forum which politely declines the idea of a mission. As we understand it, however, this was in response to informal soundings at a very preliminary stage of thinking about the idea of a mission. Now that the Forum has taken its final decisions, as described in the communique, a further exchange of a more definitive kind should take place. It may be that further contact between the Forum Chairman and the Governor-General will confirm, contrary to our hopes, the initial reaction of the Governor-General. In that case there are two points I would want to emphasise. First, for Australia's part, we would wish Fiji to regard the offer of assistance as being on the table, there to be picked up if and when Fiji considers this would be useful. Second, such a reaction from Fiji would obviously in no way negate the credit properly due to the Forum in forging an approach which, in my view, constitutes a very creative regional initiative. I am pleased that the Secretary General of the Commonwealth, in remarks reported today, sees the initiative in the same light. His support, as the Secretary General of an association of 49 nations throughout the world, is most useful. There are several points about the character of this initiative which I wish to make absolutely clear. First, the proposed mission to Fiji was always of a contingent nature. No country in the Forum sought to impose such a mission. It was recognised by all of us from the very outset that it would be both inappropriate and utterly impractical for a mission to take place in the absence of agreement from the Governor-General of Fiji. This remains the case. Second, the spirit behind the Forum's offer to assist, through the mission or in other ways, was and remains to look to the future rather than to the past. This in no way means that Australia or any other Forum country which felt deeply disturbed by the military coup in Fiji now changes its reaction to that event. But we wish to facilitate solutions, not just condemn the events which have precipitated the current problem in Fiji. This is clearly in the interests of Australia, of Fiji and of the region. Australia and other Forum members have been well served over the years by harmonious social and political circumstances in Fiji. The system of constitutional democracy existing hitherto in Fiji has been central to that harmony. Just as turning away from that principle would adversely affect our interests, so a return to democratic principle would serve them. Third, the mission would seek to impose no particular solution. In leading such a mission to Fiji I would carry no pre-set formula. It would be a matter of talking and listening to all the parties, seeking to understand their positions and concerns and trying to see whether, out of such processes of discussion, there may be the possibility of some common ground. This is entirely consistent with previously stated Australian policy. We have said that the exact means of restoring democratic processes in Fiji must be principally a matter for the people of Fiji themselves. We have said that Australia is flexible about precise solutions, within a framework of consistency with basic democratic principle. Fiji should therefore understand that Australia seeks to lay down no blueprint, that we will not interfere or coerce, and that we are more than ready to help in the context of the Forum intiative. But it should also understand that it is simply inevitable that the quality of Australia-Fiji relations will be profoundly influenced by whether there is or is not a return to basic democratic principle. May I further suggest that this question will profoundly affect Fiji's own interests, in terms of both its domestic well-being and its international acceptance. In all respects Fiji should, I believe, perceive its interests to be served by the opening and the opportunity which the Forum has provided. There is one final comment on the issue of Fiji which I wish to make. It was helpful for Mr Hayden and me to be able to speak to our regional colleagues from a position of broad national consensus in Australia on this issue, which is so important to Australia's national interest. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the support which the Government has received from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) on the central issues of the Fiji crisis. I turn now to other important matters which were discussed at the Forum. Again at Apia, New Caledonia was a matter of considerable significance. It was thoroughly discussed. The decisions reached by the Forum were both principled and relevant to the current situation. I noted at the Forum that Australia had been consistent in support for an early transition to independence in New Caledonia, which would properly recognise the multi-racial nature of its community. I said that we believed that Apia should build upon the results of the Forum in Suva last year, which centred upon the decision to seek re-inscription of New Caledonia on the UN list of non-self-governing territories, as well as the helpful meeting in Auckland in March of this year of Forum Foreign Ministers. I noted that the referendum to be held in New Caledonia later this year, in French terms, would clearly be boycotted by the FLNKS. In those circumstances France must address itself to a simple question: What steps does it propose to take following a referendum which will clearly lack validity and credibility, in an environment then more conducive to internal and external forces dedicated to the instruments of violence? It is the Government's view that France should, instead, involve itself fully in the well-established United Nations decolonisation processes. I re-affirmed at the Forum the Government's total commitment to non-violent means of bringing about political change. Notwithstanding French reluctance thus far to enter into dialogue with the Forum, it continues to be actively interested in entering into such dialogue. Honourable members will find that each of these points is embodied in the Forum position described in the communique. South Pacific opinion is united around a position which is firm, realistic and responsible. I am sure that the Forum will continue to be united in the management of this issue internationally, including at the United Nations. It is my Government's very strong hope that France will think again about the course on which it is embarked and pay the closest attention to the clearly expressed views of the countries of the region. I now come to another matter of special importance to the Government, namely, external developments affecting regional security. The subject of regional security was raised by the Chairman of the Forum when heads of government gathered at Apia. We were able to have a full and fruitful discussion. One aspect was the interest which had been expressed by some Forum countries to a senior Australian official, during a recent and extensive visit to the region, in receiving more information on international developments which impact on regional security. This was a valuable suggestion and one which was given concrete form, at Australia's initiative, in the Apia meeting. The Forum has agreed to establish a system designed to improve the volume, the relevance and the timeliness of information exchanges in the area of security, broadly defined. A range of developments in the outside world clearly impact on the security of South Pacific countries, in terms of both national security and defence, and economic security. Libyan behaviour provides a recent example, and this particular matter was fully aired in the discussions in Apia. But the new system is not confined to any single security issue and will, I hope, be wide-ranging in scope. The system will include several elements. There will be a meeting of officials in late 1987 to exchange information and to discuss relevant international developments, and also to establish a list of subjects on which Forum countries consider that improved information exchange would be of value. This can be refined and updated at later meetings. Countries with more extensive diplomatic representation outside the region should set up procedures to share the reporting they receive on relevant subjects, to the extent practicable. My Government, for its part, will now move to set up such a procedure. There could be value in ad hoc meetings when it is considered that a particular international development has occurred on which Forum countries would benefit from a quick pooling of information and exchange of assessments. Another element has as its starting point the fact that some Forum countries, because of their greater resources, have a greater capability to analyse international developments and trends than do others. I said to colleagues at the Forum that we would be happy to try to assist by producing assessments of developments of special interest in response to requests. Another part of the system will be visits by analysts to exchange and discuss information with colleagues from other Forum countries. I believe this has excellent potential to develop over time into a useful new dimension of the already wide-ranging co-operation that exists on a day to day basis between Forum countries. The Forum will review the system of information exchange at its 1988 meeting. I noted at the beginning of my statement the vital importance to Forum countries of economic issues. That is true for all member countries, no matter their size; but it is particularly the case for the smaller island countries whose economies are narrowly based and fragile. The difficulties of Forum countries are, for example, dramatically evident from an examination of the drastic decline in international commodity prices in the 1980s. An example of that may be gained from the fact that, for the two major commodities, from an index figure of 100 for 1980 the index figure for the third quarter of 1986 was down to about 33. That gives some indication of the massive decline in the prices they receive for their major export commodities. We are all aware of the profound impact of this situation on the Australian economy. On smaller economies, as I think can be appreciated, it can be absolutely disastrous. I explained to Forum colleagues the strenuous efforts made by Australia to combat protectionism in international agricultural trade, including through the establishment of the Cairns Group. The Forum communique, it will be noted, lends welcome support to our efforts. I cannot emphasise too strongly that it is absolutely incumbent on the major trading countries to heed the impact which their decisions have on the smaller countries in our regional neighbourhood, and elsewhere. As the communique frankly notes, the ramifications can be highly dangerous politically as well as economically. Other concerns of the Pacific Island countries noted in the communique, for example illegal fishing by outside powers, are entirely legitimate and shared by Australia. I assured the Forum that Australia continued to recognise its own obligations towards the region, as one of the developed Forum countries, in terms of development assistance and market access as well as other contributions such as our enhanced defence co-operation program. Regional countries very much appreciated Australia's Pacific patrol boat program, which is now well advanced, and the measures we are taking in a co-operative way to enhance fisheries surveillance. The positive attention now being given to the potential for Pacific closer economic relations, a concept I first raised at the 1985 Forum, is particularly pleasing. A study is under way which will permit a wide range of options to be evaluated. It will be possible at the 1988 Forum to consider means of achieving closer economic relations on the basis of this detailed work. The Forum considered a number of other matters and took decisions, as described in the communique. I draw attention to the important and most welcome widening of the Forum membership through acceptance of the Federated States of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands as full members; the references to strengthening the Forum as the paramount political institution in the South Pacific and increasing international recognition of it as such; the decision to establish a working group on terrorism and hijacking; and the developments which have taken place on three important multilateral agreements: The South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty-the Treaty of Rarotonga-the South Pacific Regional Environmental Protection Convention and the Fisheries Treaty with the United States. It is with particular pleasure-pleasure that I am sure will be welcomed by members of the House-that I welcome the signature by the Solomon Islands during the Forum of the Treaty of Rarotonga. That signature brings support for the Treaty close to unanimity in the region. Only two countries have not to date signed the Treaty. I invite the attention of states outside the region, notably those eligible to sign the protocols to the Treaty, to the circumstance of near regional unanimity. I draw attention also to the renewal of my invitations to our South Pacific friends to participate in the Australian Bicentennial. I began this statement by referring to the particular challenges facing the Forum meeting in Apia. I wish to close by saying that this was, in my judgment, the most constructive Forum I have attended. I judge it so because it faced those challenges, addressed them without division or acrimony and achieved consensus. Our relations with countries of the region have been further enhanced. Australia neither needs to nor should adopt a regional posture which is overbearing or condescending. The posture of my Government will continue to be one which combines the active defence and promotion of Australian interests with attentiveness and sensitivity to the views of our neighbours and willing acceptance of our obligations towards them. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-There is substantial common ground between the Government and the Opposition regarding the events which have occurred in Fiji in recent weeks. I state at the outset that the Opposition shares the broad reaction of the Government to the overthrow of a democratically elected regime in Fiji. It shares the importance attached by the Government to exploring every possible method of having that properly elected government restored to its rightful position. As the Opposition in this Parliament, we welcome the opportunity for Australia to play a prominent role in the deliberations of the South Pacific Forum over the past few days. That will not be an occasion for any political point scoring about visits to the South Pacific. The Government correctly expresses the views of the Australian public that the removal of any democratically elected government, wherever it may occur in the world, is something that people who believe in liberal democracy cannot possibly support. I hope, as does the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), that when the more formal communication of the Forum proposal for a mission to go to Fiji is communicated to the Governor-General of Fiji, there will be a change of heart on the part of the Fijian Governor-General and that the mission to come from the Forum will be received. Hopefully, it will play a role in the restoration of a proper democratic government structure in that country. It is appropriate that the Forum be used as the principal vehicle for trying to bring some form of international pressure on Fiji. The Opposition proposed that the Government at one stage give consideration to a mission comprising the foreign Ministers of four of the Commonwealth countries in the region. Although that was a proposal different in kind from the use of the Forum, our proposal had it in mind that if that mission had been received in Fiji it may well have reported to the meeting of the Forum which the Prime Minister has just visited. Therefore, on behalf of the Opposition I say that on a matter which is so important to the region it has been possible for a degree of bipartisanship to be adopted in this Parliament and in the nation regarding the response. Our bipartisan bounty does not extend retrospectively to the lack of priority that the Government has given to the South Pacific over the last four years in its foreign policy. We note that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) took three years to visit the South Pacific; we note that the Foreign Minister stayed away for the duration of the immediate response of the Government to what was occurring in Fiji; and we also note with considerable interest the finger-waving exercise of the Foreign Minister when he returned home, making it perfectly clear for all and sundry that he was told to stay away by his Prime Minister. Everybody knows that that was the situation. What the events in Fiji have brought home to the Australian public-I hope that they have brought this home to the Government; they have certainly brought it home to the Opposition-is that never again must any government in this country neglect the region immediately adjacent to it in its foreign policy and defence policy. One of the great foreign policy strikes against this Government is that it has accorded a greater priority to moralising about what might happen in South Africa and South America than it has to what is happening in our own backyard. That is something which must and should be held against this Government. It simply is not good enough for the Government, 18 months after the evidence was there, to discover suddenly that Libya is a problem. The Prime Minister, in the middle of the Fijian dispute, quite properly announced on behalf of the Australian Government that we would expel the Libyan People's Bureau from this country. It is a decision that the Opposition asked the Government to make more than a year ago. It is a decision, on the available evidence, that should have been taken a year ago. It is a decision that the Foreign Minister did not want to take a month ago. It is a decision which the Prime Minister took belatedly about 10 days ago. We support that decision. I want to say only three other things. Firstly, our clout, our acceptability, and the likelihood of the Prime Minister's mission being received in Fiji would be greatly improved if the Government were to tell the Australian Council of Trade Unions in no uncertain terms to lift the bans from trade with Fiji. If the Prime Minister wants to go to Fiji pleading the cause-he would go with our support and good wishes-of elected governments and the need to restore elected governments, he would go there with greater authority if he could say on behalf of the Government of this country that as the elected government it is determining this country's foreign policy and no other section of the Australian community. I think the second thing that the Government should do is to call off the diplomatic efforts it has used around the world to isolate the present regime in Fiji because, as much as we do not like it and as much as we have demonstrated our credentials of distaste, the situation now is that while we would like the restoration of the elected Fijian Government I think that, if the Prime Minister and the Government want to win diplomatic acceptance of the Prime Minister's mission, they must change and adapt their diplomatic strategy. They must recognise and deal with the reality of who is in charge in Fiji and try to come to terms with, and recognise that, notwithstanding our shared distaste for what has occurred, they must deal with the situation that presently exists in that country. The final thing that I will say on behalf of the Opposition is that the Prime Minister's address to this House included reference to a nuclear free South Pacific. On behalf of the Opposition I point out that while we share to the full the Government's stated position on nuclear testing in the South Pacific-a position established by the Fraser Government, in turn copying the position taken by the Whitlam Government, and in turn that position has been taken by the Hawke Government and the same position will be taken by the next coalition government in this country-we do not share the naive faith of the Government and members of the Australian Labor Party in the value of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. We believe that while it has some commendable things to say-- Mr Hand —Are you going to renege on the treaty? Mr HOWARD —I say to the honourable member for Melbourne and to all other honourable members of the Labor Party that, while it has some commendable things to say about the disposal of nuclear waste, which we support, and it has commendable things to say about nuclear testing, which we support, it can in its terms and provisions interfere with the proper discharge of the treaty obligations of our major defence partners. In those circumstances, the Liberal Party and the National Party in this Parliament will never support a treaty that could in any way interfere with the discharge of the United States of America's obligations under the ANZUS Treaty. That is why we remain against that treaty. 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 adjustments 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 1986 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 Adermann,Mr Donald Cameron,Mr Cobb,Mr Cowan,Mr Hawker,Mr Barry Jones,Mr Kerin,Mr Peacock and Mr Simmons. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Mr Beale,Mr Kent,Mr Milton,Mr Scott and Mr Shipton. 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 is duty bound will ever pray the Government grant this request now. by Mr Braithwaite,Mr Donald Cameron and Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that many Post Office agencies are to be closed. They provide a network of offices with postal and agency services to residential areas and small communities. They serve a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced if forced to travel further to purchase postal items or collect parcels. It would be an unnecessary expense particularly for pensioners without their own transport. We maintain that the purpose of Post Offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer. They are a community centre particularly in country areas and if necessary they should be subsidised to retain them. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of Post Office agencies and that the network should be extended, with the Agency services they offer expanded. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards and Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia 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 Halverson and Mr Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That, as a consequence of the Hawke Government's decision to introduce a two dollar coin in 1988, Whereas the introduction of a one dollar coin was only a twofold increase in the maximum value of coinage, the elimination of the two dollar note represents a five-fold increase before a note can be used. It will have taken eighteen years from decimalisation to go from the fifty cent piece as the highest value coin to a one dollar coin, but only a further four years to replace the two dollar note with a coin. The lowest value paper note will be five dollars, forcing a dramatic increase in the weight of coinage carried and dislocation of the retail industry. Many people, particularly the elderly, will mistake the value of the coin for that of another lower value coin just as many now confuse a one dollar coin with the ten cent piece. That the addition of two new coins in four years creates the biggest number of coins in circulation at any time in Australia's history and will lead to the removal of the one cent and two cent coins; this will accelerate the cost of living, particularly the cost of food where numerous items are involved and future price rises would need to be five cent increases on every item on every occasion. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the proposed two dollar coin not be proceeded with by the Hawke Government, and no future Government proceed with this proposal for several years. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we oppose plans by Telecom Australia to close many of the Telecom Business Offices (TBO's) and replace them with a reduced service to be co-located with the District Customer Services Office. We believe the public should be able to make telephone bill payments, applications for new services, selection of telephone and complaints, in person at a convenient and easily accessible location. Telecom Business Offices provide this service, and therefore it is wrong that their contribution and performance will only be assessed on their sales revenue. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: instruct the management of Telecom Australia to immediately cease all action to close any Telecom Business Offices. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Duncan. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That they are totally opposed to any change in the present Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act 1953. Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change in any way the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and the honourable members of the House of Representatives in parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth that whereas: They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will give a speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a Referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. 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. 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 Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned shows: We are gravely concerned by the threat to social morality and the welfare of children, posed by the unrestricted importation, distribution and sale of X-rated pornographic video material in and from the Australian Capital Territory. Your Petitioners request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should recognise our concern and reverse its amendments to ACT legislation and Customs regulations which have resulted in Australia wide distribution of material restricted under State censorship laws. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mrs Kelly. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows: That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we strongly oppose the introduction of the ``Australian Card'' or any other form of National Identification Numbering System. We believe that the introduction of a National Identification Numbering System is not only totally unnecessary but is a severe threat to our civil liberties and privacy. We condemn the Government's actions on this matter, particularly as no reasonable nor responsible justifications for the proposal have been forthcoming from the Government. We humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should reject any proposal for a National Identification Numbering System. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, wish to register our opposition to the recent introduction of the administrative charge for higher education students because: 1. the annual administration charge will inevitably restrict access to higher education for a range of disadvantaged groups, particularly women, rural dwellers and some low income earners. 2. students will be deterred from study because of the probable escalation in the charge in future Budgets, prohibiting students ability to plan the long term costs of their education. 3. the charge is ill-conceived and unfairly penalises part-time students, age pensioners and Austudy/Abstudy beneficiaries who, in many cases, have to wait for months for reimbursement of the charge-amongst others. 4. the imposition of the charge is contrary to the education provisions of the ALP/ACTU Accord and ALP policy which states that the party ``will maintain the provision of free tertiary education''. Your petitioners therefore pray that the annual administrative charge for higher education students be immediately withdrawn and that subsequent funding shortfalls be met from general Government revenue. by Mr Kerin. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That the North Coast section of the Pacific Highway, from a point just south of Port Macquarie and just north of Woolgoolga, is in urgent need of major road improvement works in order to bring it up to road safety standards. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government immediately divert national highway funds or make available other funds towards the improvement of this section of the Pacific Highway. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will humbly pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: Any proposals to abolish the Department of Veterans' Affairs gravely concern ex-servicemen, ex-servicewomen and their families, because they renege on clear and unequivocal commitments from various Commonwealth Governments to properly care for Australia's Veterans. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Parliament to ensure that the Department of Veterans' Affairs continues to exist as a separate and distinct Department of State servicing the needs of veterans and their families. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. 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: 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 the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: 1. That we the undersigned are totally opposed to the introduction by the Hawke Labor Government of a $2.00 fee on prescription drugs for pensioners; 2. The impact of such fee will be particularly felt by the chronically ill elderly who will be faced with a $2.00 burden with the purchase of each Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme drug. Your petitioners therefore urge the House of Representatives and the Hawke Labor 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 Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain electors of Dawson respectfully shows that the proposed capital gains tax penalises small business and farming enterprises, discourages long-term investment, hinders capital formation, will freeze existing investment patterns, and limits the investors' ability to adjust to changed market conditions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government will abandon its ill-considered capital gains tax proposal. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher respectfully showeth that: The proposed capital gains tax penalises small business, discourages long-term investment, hinders capital formation and will freeze existing investment patterns and limits the investors' ability to adjust to changed market conditions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to immediately abandon its ill-considered capital gains tax proposal. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain members of the Glen Waverley Parish of the Uniting Church in Australia showeth: That we believe the people of Australia continue to be concerned about the plight of the world's poor and the root causes of poverty and have demonstrated their concern by supporting public appeals for both crisis aid and development projects, and That all major political parties in Australia have accepted the United Nations proposition that Australia's official overseas aid program should be maintained at 0.7 per cent of Gross Domestic Product, and That the 1986 Commonwealth Budget reduced official overseas aid to 0.39 per cent of Gross Domestic Product. Your petitioners humbly pray that the 1987 Commonwealth Budget should increase Australia's overseas aid program to the level proposed by the United Nations. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Aldred. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled, we the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher call upon all Members to pay due respect to pensioners and concessional card holders and cease the constant erosion of our entitlements by the Hawke Government. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth: That we strenuously object to the Government's decision to delete 45 commonly prescribed drugs (including analgesics, anti-histamines, cough mixtures and expectorants) from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme; That we strenuously object to the Federal Health Minister's assertion that the health problems for which these medications are prescribed (e.g. arthritis and alergic 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 Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher respectfully showeth: That taxpayers with dependent children have been gravely disadvantaged by a serious decline in the level of recognition provided in the taxation system for the costs of maintaining a family, in particular. the failure to index family allowances which has resulted in an erosion of more than 50% in their real value since May 1976; the abolition of family allowances for dependents who have turned 18, even those still at school; the abolition of concessional tax rebates for education and other expenses. That this erosion in tax equity has placed an intolerable financial burden on many large families, particularly those on middle incomes who fail to qualify for means-tested benefits such as TEAS but whose living standards are now well below average due to heavy expenses on necessities such as education, housing, food and clothing. Our petitioners humbly pray that: family allowances be restored to the 1976 value (in real terms), and indexed according to the C.P.I.; the dependent spouse rebate be retained; the Federal Government take urgent measures to restore equitable provisions in the taxation system through the introduction of family income splitting. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 will endanger the Federal system of Australia, the State and Federal criminal justice systems, the State and Federal criminal justice systems, the State and Federal Police Forces, the State and Federal education systems, the independence of the churches and religious associations, marriage and the family, children, the unborn, the handicapped, the aged and the infirm, employer and employee relationships and Australian society generally. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to repeal the Bill of Rights legislation forthwith. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the current policy pursued by the Hawke Government is causing an intolerable increase in home loan interest rates beyond the capacity of families to pay. That consequently this policy is causing grave hardship throughout Australia and is contributing to social problems and the breakup of the family unit. That unless the Government act urgently the Australian dream of home ownership is fast becoming shattered for many of our citizens. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government make home loan interest rates tax deductible therefore alleviating the present crippling burden of current high interest rates on home owners and home buyers. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Socialist Government be called upon to remove the unjust and cruel Assets Test; That the Assets Test discriminates grossly against those people living on acreage blocks or in rural areas; That the introduction of the Government's grab for the assets of senior citizens is condemned as un-Australian; That the Government is requested to reconsider the Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher respectfully showeth that: The Government's actions in changing levels of pharmaceutical benefits will adversely affect the infirm and elderly and that it will cause further unnecessary economic hardship and suffering among all people who are currently dependant on existing benefits. The Government's actions are little more than yet another burden placed upon our Australian citizens. Your Petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Restore pharmaceutical benefits to their former level, therefore lifting this inequitable burden now being placed squarely on the infirm throughout Australia. Give a firm undertaking not to further desert those citizens in need of medical support. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the electorate of Fisher respectfully showeth that: Whereas the present Government of the Commonwealth of Australia has purported to present the Title Deeds to Ayers Rock in Central Australia, in reality the joint property of the people of the Commonwealth to an Aboriginal Land Council on 26 October 1985, Whereas opinion polls and statements of representative groups, Members of Parliament and respected individuals show clearly that the Commonwealth Government had no mandate from the citizens of the Commonwealth to act in such a disgraceful manner, Whereas the present Government claims to be totally opposed to apartheid (separate development) in South Africa but purported to hand over Ayers Rock to an Aboriginal Council in support of a policy of apartheid (separate development) which has been shown to be detrimental to the Aboriginal people of Australia, Whereas it is pursuing this policy making it a crime for most white Australians and many Aboriginals to enter, without permit, large areas of the Commonwealth designated apartheid (i.e., set aside for separate development), contrary to our democratic traditions and experience of freedom of movement for citizens of all racial origins within Australia, Whereas Australian citizens have no present means available to them to prevent this violation of their natural rights to unfettered common ownership of, and access to, a treasured natural asset. Your Petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to seek means available for the protection of the people's interests to reverse this outrage and preserve the democratic traditions of Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: 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, of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your Petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To The Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Shire of Caboolture in the Federal Division of Fisher respectfully showeth that: The requirement for people receiving unemployment benefits to present their claim forms personally every two weeks to the Department of Social Security is causing considerable hardship for those people in the Caboolture CES District. The distance from the Caboolture Shire to the Redcliffe Department of Social Security office imposes an unnecessary financial burden in the form of travel expenses on the unemployed. The time involved in the process reduces the time available for the unemployed to seek work actively. We the undersigned call on the Federal Government to implement measures that would allow unemployed people in the Caboolture CES District to leave completed forms at the Caboolture Job Centre for collection by the Department of Social Security. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To The Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, we the undersigned citizens of Queensland call upon all Members to pay due respect to returned Service personnel and cease the constant erosion of entitlements by the Hawke Government. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government does not proceed with its intention to further means test Veterans' disability pensions in order to cut Government spending on Australia's Ex-servicemen and Ex-servicewomen. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Queensland respectfully showeth: That the actions of trade unions have gone beyond their traditional goals of protecting workers conditions and rates of pay and have reached the point where they are seriously affecting the economic health of the nation and the people. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That all Governments throughout Australia acknowledge and protect the Right of Work on behalf of all Australians. 2. That the total sovereignty of individual governments be recognised as a fundamental requirement of a workable, balanced Federal system of government. 3. That all necessary steps be taken to protect the citizens of Australia from any inducement, compulsion, threat or intimidation to join any trade union. 4. That there should be no preference in employment for people who are members of trade unions. 5. That the supremacy of elected governments over the sectional interests of trade unions be recognised, and 6. That the provision of essential services be maintained, free from industrial disruption. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Queensland respectfully showeth that: The legislation to tax fringe benefits is iniquitous, inequitable and unfair; It will severely disadvantage both employees and employers; Employees will clearly lose any fringe benefits as a direct result of the additional heavy taxation burden being imposed upon employers; Employers will be forced to pay even higher levels of taxation to provide fringe benefits for employees. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to immediately abandon the Fringe Benefits Tax. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. Petitions received. Motion (by Mr Beazley) agreed to: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the House discussing a definite matter of public importance proposed to Madam Speaker by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). Discussion of Matter of Public Importance Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Leo McLeay) -Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The devastating effect of the Hawke Government's high interest rate and taxation policies as evidenced by the record rate of bankruptcies among small businesses and farmers. 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 TUCKEY(O'Connor)(3.32) —I thank the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). I will never say another bad word about him-how is that? I thank the Government. I recognise the mistake that was made in my office today, and I thank the Government for its accommodation. May we now call off all bets? This year, 8,000 Australians will become bankrupt-the highest figure in Australia's history, both numerically and per capita. Bankruptcy statistics are a phenomenon of wage earners and small family businesses. The big companies, which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) so frequently quote to support their economic policies, do not go bankrupt; they have receivers appointed or they are liquidated. Therefore, bankruptcy figures are a direct indicator of the welfare of our vital small business sector-in which, I might add, some 650,000 businesses employ fewer than five people. I say that the figures are an indicator only because not all small business failures result in bankruptcy. The figure for failure is much larger than that record 8,000 bankruptcies. The President of the National Farmers Federation, Mr Ian McLachlan, said just this morning that the failures are of `unbelievable numbers'. In many cases, the people concerned simply sell their assets and pay whatever debts they can. The big guys usually get in first; the small business creditors know that sending someone bankrupt will not get them anything anyway, so they simply leave the matter lie. These people for the rest of their lives have debts which they cannot pay. Of course, it is a great human tragedy. One of the more notable big guys is the Commissioner of Taxation. I am advised by the accountancy profession that approximately 70 per cent of current small business bankruptcy is brought about either on the petition of the Commissioner of Taxation or because he is the principal creditor. In other words, the Treasurer has spread the virus and his grim reaper is prepared to preside over the post-mortem to collect the pound of flesh. The viruses that are destroying small business and farmers are taxation and interest rates. Both are the result of excessive government spending and borrowing. We heard the Treasurer today tell us about his wonderful economic management. He reverses the facts. If we look at the graphs we see that Mr Gough Whitlam was the person who first blew out government expenditure and put burdens on the Australian economy from which it has never recovered. We see that by a careful step by step approach the Fraser Government gradually hauled back that blowout and was starting to get this country in some sort of shape. In one year alone, to give an example, the entire Australian wheat crop was taken away. There was no production of real dollars in that area. That is what the Treasurer is referring to, of course, when he claims that the Australian people have bad economic management. One cannot manage money if it is not placed in the till. The only time during which there was negative growth in the Australian economy was when the crops did not grow. It was not the result of problems existing in the Parliament or in the Administration at the time. When the crops did grow, when the international recession ended, what did the Hawke Administration do? It acted like we were still in a recession. It borrowed $17,000m in two years so that it could have a big splurge. The result was the same as for any small businessman who followed that practice. We had the party, now we are trying to pay the debts when the opportunities are not as good as they were before. There is no need to blame the foreigners. The reality is that people were brought to this position by the decisions of government. As an aside, I refer to the fraudulent advertising with which the Australian Labor Party and its gung ho advertising agent have commenced the Labor campaign. I refer in particular to the notorious Westpac Banking Corporation advertisement, which quoted the `Westpac New York Chief'. Of course, the person referred to in that ad, Garry Egan, is not a chief; in fact, he is barely an Indian. The Labor Party has been publicly rebuked by Westpac management. If I were a specialist money market dealer, without the concerns for more ordinary Australians that the institution of Westpac obviously has, I would like the Hawke-Keating Government. What other government of a developed country is presently forcing its citizens to pay 20 per cent interest rates? What other government instructs its Reserve Bank to operate in such a fashion as to guarantee the market for these money dealers? What other government in Australia's history has borrowed $24,000m in four years from those money markets and has paid out $8,000m per annum in interest? That figure of $8,000m represents 11.3 per cent of Budget revenue. It is the second largest direct government expenditure item. It was the fifth largest item under the Fraser Government. There is little doubt about the massive paper shuffling profits of the money dealers or the stock dealer with the big cigar who is the partner in the Labor Party's advertising agency. There is little doubt about their profit or their love. They are the paper shufflers. But there is now compelling evidence of the hardship and the failure amongst small businesses and their customers. The customers, of course, are ordinary Australian families. The problem is interrelated. One cannot shift an additional $152 of family income per month, via home interest rates, into the hands of the financial institutions without a corresponding reduction in spending at the corner store. One cannot shift an additional $50 of family income per month to the Tax Commissioner without a corresponding reduction in turnover at the clothing or shoe store. One cannot destroy the value of our currency by irresponsible economic management without rapid increases in prices of imported goods and the consequent destruction of thousands of small businesses selling applicances, motor vehicles and farm machinery. Under the Hawke Government the price of a Holden Commodore manual has increased from $10,500 to $16,500-60 per cent higher than the price when the Fraser Government left office. The cost of televisions, fridges and washing machines has increased by huge amounts. The results are easy to find. Nobody is making any sales. Last month the car industry recorded its lowest sales for 20 years. It is quite easy to see why. People have less spending power and prices are high. It is no wonder that the Australian Labor Party's big spending advertising man has been told to rethink his advertising strategy of `the worst is behind us'. It is no wonder that the Labor Government does not want people to contemplate for too long on that thought and make the obvious judgment that under this Labor Government there is no light at the end of the tunnel. That is not to say that under Labor there is not a promise of a light at the end of the tunnel. With Hawke and Keating there is a promise about everything. But all of those promises carry a use-by date. I do not think that the Labor Party would wish to concentrate the public's mind on the value of its promises for too long during the election campaign. If it did, the public might be caused to remember Labor's promises of falling interest rates, lower taxes, and the lulu of all times-`there will be no capital gains tax'. Elections are times for a new deal. Let us look briefly at the mandate that the Australian Labor Party seeks for small business. It seeks a mandate to introduce its mini-Budget and thus increase Federal Government charges via Telecom Australia and Australia Post by $400m; to increase State government charges by up to $1,000m because it has reduced Federal government grants to the States; and to borrow a further $3,000m to fund the next deficit, with the consequent pressure on domestic interest rates. Of course, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) is constantly telling us that the next deficit will be only one per cent of gross domestic product. That is a nice interesting figure. No one understands it but it does not sound much. In fact it is $3,000m of additional borrowing. But, worst of all, the Prime Minister has promised us no new taxes. If ever I have seen a sign for the future, that promise worries me most. That is because every time the Prime Minister promises no new taxes, we get more taxes. Every time the Prime Minister promises that interest rates will go down, they go up. Every time the Prime Minister promises no early election, we have an early election. It is no wonder that the Governor-General of Fiji does not want him over there. He just might promise them peace and prosperity, and that would be the end of that. The Prime Minister also wants a mandate to introduce his industrial relations legislation. In simple terms, this legislation will deny small businesses, which are subject to illegal action by union bosses, the right to redress in ordinary courts in Australia. Instead of being able to put their case before judges appointed for their experience and skills in the legal profession, they will be placed before judges selected for their skills in industrial bargaining. There is only one source of such people-the trade union movement. Caesar will sit in judgment on Caesar. But, of course, small businesses will be the losers. All that a trade union needs to impose its will on a small business is time. Today small businesses meet their financial commitments on a monthly basis, whether they be lease payments or other forms of payments to their banks. Small businesses cannot afford interruptions of more than a couple of weeks to their cash flow. The Industrial Relations Bill, for which the Government requests a mandate at the coming election, guarantees a trade union the time to bludgeon a small business into submission before a matter can be taken to court. It is ridiculous to suggest that a small business could sue for damages when it is already broke. Small businesses such as owner-driver truckies and subcontractors will continue to buy a union ticket or a union superannuation agreement as a licence to work. But, without the protection of our now common law courts, small businesses will continue to suffer unfairly. It was not long ago that the Prime Minister in this House referred to someone in Queensland as a fascist. Nobody on our side of politics approves of extremists, whether they be fascists or communists. But the reality of totalitarian regimes is that they cannot exist where there is a common law. The best defence we can have from totalitarianism is a common law and proper legally trained people with the traditions of the law behind them. Let me tell the House of the other mandate which the Labor Party seeks. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) is sitting in the chamber. The Labor Party seeks a mandate to introduce an identity card and tells people that honest taxpayers have nothing to fear. Clauses 40 to 50 of the legislation impose higher fines on honest people than on anybody else. For example, clause 49 of the Australia Card Bill provides that an honest and decent Australian employer, including a householder, who has never committed an act to defraud the Australian Taxation Office or the welfare system, faces a fine of between $20,000 and $100,000 for simply failing to request the production of an identity card from a new employee and/or failing to pass on that information to the Commissioner of Taxation. There is no obligation in the legislation that it be passed on to the Department of Social Security, which, of course, might be very interested in the activities of that employee, particularly if he or she were still on the dole. I wonder why such honest and decent Australians warrant fines under this legislation which are between four and 20 times higher than the fines applicable under clause 166 for direct action to defraud by giving false information to obtain a card. In other words, the real crook is fined about $5,000 and the person who makes a mistake and fails to ask a new employee for the identity card gets fined $20,000 to $100,000. The same provisions apply to honest and decent real estate agents, stockbrokers, stock and station agents, produce merchants and banks. All these people will be fined for failing to report on their clients. They will not be charged with any act on their part of tax dodging or welfare fraud, but they will be fined the highest penalties under the legislation for their failure to report to the Commissioner of Taxation, and the Commissioner of Taxation alone, on the activities of their business clients, big or small. In the last minute available to me, let me put down the record of this Labor Government and why small business is in such terrible shape. The last Fraser Government raised $44,000m in taxation. Just four years later the Budget now being concluded will raise $71,000m in taxation. During that four-year period the Government has been forced to borrow $24,000m, using our children as security, to fund the difference between its expenditure and the revenue it has raised through tax. It has increased the interest bill to $8,000m to do that. It has seen the international indebtedness of Australia grow from $35 billion to $105 billion-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GEAR(Canning)(3.47) —It really is the time of the afternoon when the House just about goes to sleep. We have just heard another uninspiring speech from the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) who went through the motions of trying to whip up a bit of enthusiasm on his side. But I can tell the honourable member that, if he had looked behind him, he would have seen some of the most bored people one has ever seen in the House of Representatives. They did not believe what he was saying, and neither did he. I was surprised to hear the honourable member for O'Connor allude, at least in part, to the time when the Liberal Party of Australia was in government. But I will tell honourable members what he did not say. He did not say that when the previous Government was thrown out of office, Australia had the highest interest rates on record and the highest inflation rate. The previous Government said it was elected on a promise to beat inflation but when it was kicked out of office the rate of inflation was higher than when it went into office. So, even by its own criteria, it was a failure. During the previous Government, there was falling employment and a shrinking economy. In fact, the only growth industry in the economy in 1983 was the tax evasion industry. We all remember how the great old Liberal Party had to be dragged screaming in here to pass legislation to put a little bit of decency back into the system. But, in opposition, its members have time and again thrown out in the Senate legislation aimed at putting some decency back into the system. Just to show how incompetent members of the Opposition are, the honourable member for O'Connor could not even get the matter of public importance to the Speaker's office by 11 o'clock. The Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) had to move the suspension of Standing Orders so that the matter could be brought on for debate. That just shows the Australian people how incompetent the Opposition is. There are three or four Opposition parties over there and they cannot get together. They hate each other, and even the simple task of bringing on a matter of public importance is too much for them. How can the people of Australia trust an opposition that cannot even get a piece of paper up to the Speaker's office by 11 o'clock? What a hopeless mob. The honourable member for O'Connor talked about business. I would like to draw to the attention of honourable members the difference between the business of today and the business of yesterday. The good old days, when we had rising demand and rising prices and we did not really have to try hard to make a quid in this country, are gone. It is a different environment nowadays. It is very much more competitive, because all our competitors today used to be our customers yesterday. The fall in our commodity prices is doubly hazardous for Australia because we never equipped ourselves for the business environment of today. The Liberal Party and the National Party were happy just to send wheat, wool and rocks overseas, and they never bent their minds to the hard task of establishing a manufacturing and productive investment base in this country. In many ways the Liberals are like old businessmen. They are in a time warp and they cannot really see that times have changed. They cannot see that we cannot send rocks, wheat and wool overseas and hope to sustain a high standard of living. As I say, the honourable member for O'Connor talked about business. Let us quote back to him from the Business Review Weekly of 22 May, just 10 days ago. What did it say about the Government and the Opposition and about their policies? It opened up the article by stating: A BRW-Hyatt poll is further bad news for John Howard, little comfort to Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, and a triumph for Bob Hawke. I ask honourable members to remember that this is the businessmen talking, not the Government. In the article the businessmen were asked how they rated the performance of the Opposition on business issues in the past three months. We are talking about the Opposition now and this is up to date. How does it perform? This is what the businessmen said: . . . nearly 94 per cent said it was either `bad' or `indifferent'. Ninety-four per cent of business says that the Opposition has not got a policy, that it does not want the Opposition in government and that it does not think the Opposition is any good. On the other side of the coin it states: Nearly 56 per cent described the Government's performance as `quite good' or `very good'. How damning! That comes from the Business Review Weekly, the journal of business in this country, talking about the Opposition and about the Government. The Opposition, as we all know, is very incompetent. Let us turn from the business sector to the agricultural sector about which we see crocodile tears from the Opposition. In the debate on the matter of public importance that the Opposition has had to rush in here, it talks about farmers. What do farmers think of the Opposition. Here it is: . . . 57 per cent of respondents in the agricultural sector rated this Government's- that is, Mr Hawke's Government's- performance in the past three months as `quite good' on business-related issues. So over half the farmers say that this Government is doing a good job. I tell honourable members opposite that they will reject them because they know the Opposition does not have a policy. Further on in the same issue of the Business Review Weekly, respondents were asked to rate the Opposition on its performance ` ``in challenging the Government on economic management and business policy'' over the past three months, . . .' This is what the business people are saying about the Opposition's performance in the last three months in challenging this Government. I ask the honourable members who are in the chamber to remember the performance of the honourable member for O'Connor. The article stated: . . . over the past three months, respondents said: good, 5.6 per cent, bad, 44.6 per cent, and indifferent, 49.2 per cent. There could not be a more damning indictment of the Opposition's total lack of credibility in the business community than that contained in the latest Business Review Weekly poll findings, because there for all to see is the damning indictment of the Opposition's hopelessness, of the fact that it does not have a policy. The honourable member for O'Connor spoke about Gerry Egan in New York as though he was some orphan over there. Mr Tuckey —I said that he is not an Indian. Mr GEAR —He said that he was not an Indian, but he also alluded to the fact that he thought that he was an orphan and that he was the only one saying what he has been saying. Let us look at what Mr Peter Chan, a very respected money trader, said. He used to work for the Westpac Banking Corporation, but now he is working for the Bank of New Zealand. The interviewer said: There was a comment from Westpac representative in New York- that is Gerry Egan, to whom the honourable member for O'Connor alluded- saying that if the Liberal Party or the National Party gained Government, that would be a disaster for the Australian Money Market. What did Mr Peter Chan say? He said: That comment is very much a representation from the dealing . . . Money Market, Foreign exchange dealing communities . . . So there we have it-Mr Peter Chan saying the same things. If the Opposition ever look like getting into government the dollar would drop out of sight. The people overseas do not have any confidence in the Opposition. Those in Australia also do not have any confidence in the Opposition. Yet it gets up here and attacks this Government. I can tell honourable members opposite something: We are held in a lot more respect not only in the business community in Australia and in the business community overseas but also with the average Australian out there, because he knows that this Government has made the hard decisions. We have tackled all the rorts in the system and we have got rid of them. We have been opposed, at every turn, by the three or four incompetent mobs opposite. Let us take this a little further, and refer to this morning's AM program. If we did not take any notice of Peter Chan or Gerry Egan, should we take notice of Mr David Hale, the Senior Economist for the Kemper Financial Group in Chicago? Do members of the Opposition think that he would tell a lie? Do they honestly think that he would say that the Hawke Labor Government is the best government that this country has ever had if he did not think it was the case? That is what he said. Yet the Opposition tries to hide behind the excuses put up by the Westpac Bank. The Opposition talked about taxation. Let us look at some of the things that this Government has done. As we all know, it has made the most sweeping reforms and the most fundamental reforms ever brought in by any government in Australia. Those opposite sat on this side for seven years with a top rate of 60c in the dollar and we took it down to 49c. They sat over here for seven years and left the bottom tax rate at 30c and we brought it down to 24c; and they are tax cuts that are paid for; they are not the old fistful of dollars cuts that the Opposition will be racing out with whenever it can find someone to come up with a policy for it. I would like to point to two of these reforms as an example that this Government has taken the hard and correct decisions, and to the response from the Opposition. The first, of course, is the capital gains tax. The Opposition always opposed it, and it still does, because it knows that it puts a bit of decency into the system. It also promotes productive investment, which is something that this country has never had. The lack of a capital gains tax allowed the speculators on the Gold Coast always to make big capital gains. But they never stuck them into capital investment or into productive enterprise, because they could always make a bigger quid out of the lack of a capital gains tax in this country. When this Government brought in the capital gains tax, we could see the effect. It was reported on the front page of the Business Review Weekly last week that $1,000m was coming in. The payment of all of that money, which before had been evaded under the Opposition when it was in government, has been picked up by us. But what would the Opposition do if it got back into government? It would get rid of the capital gains tax straight away. In doing that it would allow a small percentage of people in this country, the most affluent, to skate around the taxation system, as they always have done. And the Opposition talks about fairness! Really, the good old Liberal Party has not learnt. As I have said, it is caught in a time warp. It cannot see that the times have changed and that without a capital gains tax in this country it will not get productive investment. Let us take the fringe benefits tax. Here is another little rort that was stuck in the taxation laws almost forever until we took it out. The lack of a fringe benefits tax allowed a small percentage of people to take some of their income in kind, and not pay tax on it, and to take a smaller percentage of it in cash and pay tax on it. What a great old rort it is when some people pay a small percentage in tax, some of them with a free company car, the overseas trips and the business lunches, all booked to the taxpayer. Then we wondered why the pay as you earn taxpayers out there, the old blokes who used to take their vegemite sandwiches to work, had to pick up the tax burden. All the cheats that the Opposition supported, and still does, were passing their taxation obligations on to the PAYE taxpayers. Yet the Opposition talks about fairness! I tell honourable members that the Opposition does not know the first thing about it. The honourable member talked about small business and the effect of taxation on it. Let us see what small business says. Here is the latest Small Business Review, commenting on the Government's tax reforms. It makes very interesting reading. I suggest that the honourable member for O'Connor go down to the Parliamentary Library and drag out a copy, because it features: `Government procurement and small firms'. It is from the Bureau of Industry Economics Small Business Research Unit. Here is what small business says under the heading: `Impact of the taxation package'. This is the impact of the taxation package because the unit has gone out and talked to the blokes the Opposition reckons it represents, but does not. The article states: From the discussion in this section, it seems extremely unlikely that the net impact of the taxation package will be adverse for the small business sector as a whole. Indeed, the market valuations of many small businesses should be improved. That is what small business says. If honourable members do not believe that one, they should have a look at the annual review of the Bureau of Industry Economics. What did it say? It said the same thing. Small business, talking about our tax reform package, stated: Small companies will benefit overall from changes announced last year in the Federal Government's tax package. That is what small business says about our taxes. It never got into the rorts that the big businesses got into-the ones those opposite support. Mr Tuckey —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member has read two documents originating with government bureaucracies and has said that they are the speeches of small business. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! There is no point of order. Mr Tuckey —He is misleading the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will not continue to interject when the Chair has asked him to resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Canning. Mr GEAR —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. That just shows how incompetent those opposite are. The fact is that the point of order the honourable member took was not even a point of order. He could not get the matter of public importance in here, but we will allow him a few indulgences. Let us go from the subject of tax to what the Opposition is up to. In 1982 members of the Opposition brought in a Budget. Remember the good old family Budget? Members of the Opposition were going to give us everything such as tax deductions for medical payments and tax allowances for housing. There was everything for the family in this package. It blew out the deficit to just about $10,000m, but it did not really matter because they were just giving the people's money back to them. That was very irresponsible. It never got those opposite elected. They were thrown out because they were seen as irresponsible. But what happens today? The mirror image of that, the fact that they are in opposition today, has not changed a thing. We know that when John Howard pops up with a tax policy he will be promising everyone the earth, but this time he will be promising tax cuts. Because he is not in government and cannot deliver all those things that he gave in the 1982 irresponsible family Budget, he is going to pop up and try to buy his way back into power with a fistful of dollars. He will say: `We will give tax cuts to everyone'. The truth will be brought out by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and has already been brought out. The fact is that most people will be worse off under John Howard's policy. Members of the Opposition, instead of bending their minds to the hard things-the things they should do if they were in government, such as coming up with a tax policy-have set up a rorts committee. The rorts committee is supposed to expose all these terrible rorts in the workplace. We all know where the rorts came from-they came from the good old policy those opposite used to have of protecting Australian industry. Because it was protected from competition, outrageous demands were made and allowed. These terrible, outmoded practices grew up under the previous Government, and we are getting rid of them. Those opposite never did anything about it when they were in government. It took them four years in opposition to start identifying these rorts. But the worst part is that they will put the tax rorts back into the system. They will put the boots into the so-called rorts for the workers, but they will give their good old mates back the tax rorts. What a fraud they are! Incentivation says it all. Incentivation was a-- Mr Brumby —A one day wonder. Mr GEAR —It was a one day wonder. Not only that, it was a fraud; so was the bloke who was sitting underneath it and so are the people opposite. They are a fraud. The fact is that they do not have a policy that addresses any of the major problems in the Australian economy. They were thrashed in 1983 and in 1984 and they will be thrashed again in 1987. They are the most incompetent collection of those in opposition that this country has ever had. If they think they can fool the Australian people, they are wrong. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The debate is concluded. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests: Taxation Laws Amendment (Company Distributions) Bill 1987 Income Tax (Franking Deficit) Bill 1987 Income Tax Rates Amendment Bill 1987 Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 Bank Account Debits Tax Amendment Bill 1987 States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1987 States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill 1987 States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill 1987 Income Tax Amendment Bill 1986 Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo) —I present the nineteenth report from the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. I understand that copies of the report have been circulated in the chamber. Report-by leave-adopted. Mr TICKNER(Hughes) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the 277th report of the Committee, relating to four efficiency audits. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr TICKNER —by leave-This report covers four early efficiency audits of the Auditor-General. The audits ranged from a limited scope audit of the administration of the Export Market Development Grants Act 1974 to the prolonged audit of the administration of the disability and service pensions schemes by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. A significant period has elapsed since the Auditor-General tabled his findings in these reports. A number of events occurred in that period which have meant that the Australian Audit Office findings are of less ongoing relevance. However, it must be noted that, in the case of the special youth employment training program, Audit's findings and recommendations regarding the deficiencies of that program appear to have had considerable impact on the revised Jobstart program. The Committee considers that, given the above events and the Committee's conclusions in the report, it will not be necessary for the departments and authority concerned to respond to this report via the Department of Finance minute. I commend the report to honourable members. I would like to take this opportunity very briefly to pay tribute to Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, given the fact that this is the last opportunity as Chairman of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts that I will be able to do that. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle is retiring from the Parliament on its dissolution. Senator Guilfoyle was elected to the Senate in 1970 and her term began in 1971. She held ministerial office in the Fraser Government from 1975 as Minister for Education, Minister for Social Security, Minister for Finance and also Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Child Care Matters. Importantly, the Public Accounts Committee has ascertained that for the period that she was in the Parliament, excluding the period when she was a Minister, she was an extremely active and effective member of the Public Accounts Committee and recently chaired the automatic data processing sub-committee of the Public Accounts Committee. She is a woman of outstanding personal achievement, having been the head office accountant with a large public company and an accountant in private practice and the National Treasurer of the Young Women's Christian Association of Australia from 1970 through to 1977. In 1980 she was appointed Dame Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire. Those are the formal matters. I think I can say on behalf of all members of the Committee-I particularly stress those on the Labor side-that, above all else, we consider Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle a most gracious and charming lady. Those words are not meant in any sexist sense but are made as a mark of the highest respect for the grace and style that she brings to her office. Her position on the Public Accounts Committee was particularly effective because of her experience in holding ministerial office. I believe she was so effective that on many occasions she left some senior public servants perhaps somewhat in awe. We hold her in the highest regard. She has made an outstanding contribution to the Parliament and to her country. On behalf of the members of the Public Accounts Committee, we wish her well in her retirement. Mr CONQUEST(Hinkler) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the 279th report of the Committee, the response to report 253 on proposed computer acquisition by the Australian Audit Office. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr CONQUEST —by leave-The Committee presented its 253rd report, on a proposed computer acquisition by the Australian Audit Office, on 11 June 1986. The report was the first to be presented by the Committee under the terms of its standing reference to investigate and report on proposed acquisitions of automatic data processing facilities by Commonwealth departments or authorities staffed under the Public Service Act. This report, the 279th from the Committee, documents the Finance minute which was submitted in response to the Committee's 253rd report. While the Committee concluded that the proposed acquisition was justified, the recommendations of the 253rd report emphasised the need for greater scrutiny of automatic data processing acquisition proposals both by the senior management of the proponent agency and by the co-ordinating agencies involved in the approval and acquisition process. The report also stressed the responsibilities of the heads of acquiring organisations and of the Department of Finance to ensure that the performance and benefits of these facilities were monitored and periodically reviewed. The Committee is generally satisfied with the response to its 253rd report. The Department of Finance has agreed to the recommendations on the general issues of benefits and post-implementation review. However, the Committee is concerned that the Department of Finance does not see a greater role for itself in monitoring the performance of ADP projects once funding has been approved. The Committee also felt that the measures outlined by the Australian Audit Office for post-implementation review were insufficiently detailed and expects the Department of Finance to pay close attention to the conduct of this review when further funding is requested. Report 253 also contained recommendations concerning the `Guidelines for ADP Acquisition' promulgated by the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services. These are still being revised and the Committee will consider them at a later date. I commend the report to honourable members. I also endorse the remarks of the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) regarding the contribution to this Parliament made by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle. Ms MAYER(Chisholm) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the 280th report of the Committee, relating to the Defence Science and Technology Organisation task cost management. Ordered that the report be printed. Ms MAYER —by leave-The Committee's 280th report outlines the findings of the Committee's review of an efficiency audit by the Auditor-General on task cost management in the Defence Science and Technology Organisation. The Auditor-General's report, tabled on 19 March 1986, revealed inadequacies in procedures for estimating, allocating and controlling the use of resources within DSTO. The inadequacies, combined with the absence of an effective management information system at DSTO's central office, reduced management's ability to monitor and control the deployment of resources effectively at laboratory level. DSTO has been the subject of several reviews since 1979 with the result that at the time of the audit DSTO was addressing a number of shortcomings identified by the Auditor-General. The Committee notes that the Department of Defence has taken action, or is taking action, on the eight recommendations the Auditor-General made in his report. To gain a better appreciation of DSTO's administration and facilities, the Committee inspected the five major DSTO research laboratories in Melbourne and in Salisbury, near Adelaide. During the inspections several matters were raised with the Committee including the commercialisation of DSTO's research and development, recruitment and retention of staff, and the provision of advice by DSTO to the armed services, a matter which had arisen during our previous inquiry into defence project management. All DSTO laboratories raised the issue of the gap between the research and development conducted by DSTO and the marketing of the results of that research and development. The Department of Defence does not have the entrepreneurial expertise or overall cohesion between its marketing areas to maximise the commercial potential of DSTO's research and development. There are several options which would assist in closing this marketing gap. One is a proposal suggested by the Aeronautical Research Laboratory-ARL-that a private company, to be called Aerotech, be set up to act as an agent for ARL. Aerotech would seek contracts with national and international aerospace industry and would have the skills in marketing and in legal and financial administration that ARL lacks. Aerotech would retain a percentage of the gross revenue generated by the contracts it obtained and the balance would provide the resources for the Aerotech programs undertaken by ARL and other subcontractors. The Committee is impressed with the Aerotech proposal; however, the Committee believes that it is essential that Aerotech be self-sufficient. Accordingly, the Committee has recommended the implementation of the Aerotech proposal with the proviso that Aerotech must be commercially successful-that is, able to cover its own costs and provide income for ARL. The Committee believes companies similar to Aerotech could lead to greater commercialisation of the research and development efforts of the other DSTO laboratories. However, the Committee does not think it should be mandatory for the other laboratories to set up their own technology transfer companies. Without motivation and commitment on the part of the laboratories' staff such companies would fail. The second solution suggested to the Committee during its inspections was the introduction of a `ferret' system similar to that adopted by the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence. Under this system representatives of private companies would be installed in DSTO laboratories to search for research and development tasks which have commercial potential. The companies would then make arrangements with industry to develop and manufacture the technology with a percentage of the resulting profit going to the investing laboratory. The Committee sees merit in the `ferret' system and considers that the success of the United States system and its applicability to Australian conditions should be investigated. The Committee believes that the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce would be the most suitable organisation to examine the `ferret' system and has made a recommendation to this effect in its report. The Committee believes the commercialisation of DSTO's research and development would be increased if there were a single marketing body involved instead of the present fragmented structure within the Department of Defence. Since the main concern of the Department of Defence is not the export of goods and in view of its lack of expertise in this field, the Committee thinks the marketing body should be within Austrade rather than Defence. I commend the report to honourable members. I also wish to add my tribute to Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle. Working with Senator Guilfoyle on the Joint Committee of Public Accounts has been a pleasure for all of us who have worked with her. She is not only an extremely talented and intellectually able lady but also a very pleasant and happy person with whom to work. I am sure that everybody in Parliament will be sorry to see Senator Guilfoyle retire. I think all of us who have worked with her and all of us who have benefited from her work regret that she is not returning to the Parliament. I have very rarely met anybody for whom I have greater respect or of whom I have had greater pleasure in being a colleague. Mr PRICE(Chifley) —by leave-On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I wish to make a brief statement in relation to the Committee's review of the Australian Taxation Office's proposed computer redevelopment and re-equipment program. This review has been conducted under the terms of the Committee's standing reference from Parliament to review proposals by Commonwealth departments and agencies to acquire major computer facilities-that is, facilities valued at more than $5m. The Taxation Office's proposed program is estimated to cost $693m over the next 10 years. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) wrote to the Committee on 18 February 1987 advising that Cabinet had granted in-principle approval to a major staged computer systems redevelopment and re-equipment project by the Australian Taxation Office. The Treasurer requested that the Committee consider the matter in sufficient time to enable a request for tender to be issued in June 1987. A submission dealing with the Taxation Office's computer system redevelopment and re-equipment program was forwarded to the Committee by the Commissioner of Taxation on 27 February 1987. The Committee's review is involving a detailed examination of the Taxation Office's proposed program. The Committee has a number of concerns which relate to lease-purchase arrangements the Taxation Office entered into in 1985 to acquire additional mainframe computers. The Committee notes that the Government is desirous of issuing a request for tender as soon as possible. The Committee had intended to present a report to Parliament on this review by the end of this sitting period; however, the calling of an election now prevents this from happening. A report should be presented to the Parliament by the Sixteenth Committee of Public Accounts. Mr PRICE(Chifley) —by leave-On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I wish to make a brief statement in relation to the Committee's review of the implementation of the computer re-equipment program of the Department of Social Security, which is known as Stratplan. The Minister for Social Security announced his Department's major computer re-equipment program in June 1983 and also announced that in view of the costly and complex nature of the program the Government had decided to refer it to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts for monitoring and report. Since that time the Committee has presented two reports on the implementation of Stratplan to the Parliament. The first report, report 225, was tabled in October 1984 and the second report, report 237, was tabled in August 1985. The Committee believes that these reports have been helpful not only to the Department of Social Security but also to all Commonwealth departments and agencies in alerting them to the difficulties associated with the implementation of major computer systems. More recently the Committee has been working towards the preparation of a third and final report. It is the view of the Committee that it has now completed the monitoring task given to it in 1983. Due to the calling of the election this report will not be tabled during the current sitting period. The Sixteenth Committee of Public Accounts will have responsibility for this report. However, I anticipate that it will be tabled during the Budget sitting. I also wish to endorse the remarks of the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner), concerning Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle which were endorsed by other Committee members. It was my privilege to serve with her on the then ADP sub-committee, which she chaired and subsequently relinquished, which coincided with the change of name to the information and technology sub-committee. However, I must say that Dame Margaret has left me with the dubious distinction of having chaired three inquiries, the reports of which will not be tabled in this Parliament but in the next. It was a pleasure to work with Dame Margaret. She gave very generously of her unbounded knowledge. As has been mentioned, at all times she had great style, composure and a great ability to get to the heart of a matter very quickly and directly. I am sure that not only honourable senators but also honourable members would want to wish Dame Margaret all the best in her retirement and enjoyment of her family which she holds dearly. Mr MILTON(La Trobe) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, I present a report, being a report that the Committee has been unable to complete its inquiry into the use of ionizing radiation. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr MOUNTFORD(Banks) —by leave-In December 1984 Australian businessman, Mr Dick Smith, produced a book with the title Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom in which he strongly condemned the nature and extent of the regulatory activities of the Department of Aviation. I commend him on his forthrightness. In view of extensive public and media interest created by the book, the Committee resolved on 28 February 1985 to conduct an inquiry into the matters raised by Mr Smith and into the operational regulatory decisions of the Department of Aviation. The Committee's invitation for public comment met with a substantial response with some 800 submissions, over 1,000 letters and many telephone calls. The submissions canvassed a comprehensive range of issues, generally critical of the Department of Aviation and its approach to these issues. The Committee was impressed by the volume and intensity of the criticisms of the Department of Aviation. It was clear that all was not well in the Australian aviation industry and in the relationship between the Department and the industry. The Sub-Committee concentrated on one particular case study detailed in Mr Smith's book. This case study centred on the Darling Harbour helicopter landing site in Sydney and generated particular public controversy in the months following the receipt of submissions. The Sub- Committee inspected the Darling Harbour environment and held public hearings in Canberra and Sydney. The Committee presented a report about this particular matter in November 1985 entitled `No Port in a Storm'. It contained evidence of deficiencies and inconsistencies in the Department's decision-making procedures. The Sub-Committee also undertook a review of an Auditor-General's efficiency audit report into the installation and maintenance of airways facilities by the Department of Aviation. The inquiry involved the inspection of airways facilities in Victoria, New South Wales and the Northern Territory and was reported to the House in May 1986. The Government's response to both these reports is awaited. The Sub-Committee was naturally anxious to pursue the many other matters raised by Mr Smith and in the submissions, and indicated in the interim report that it intended to pursue an extensive program of hearings in all State capitals in 1986. The Committee engaged a consultant to examine the submissions prior to public hearings. Another consultant was asked to provide a review of progress in the Sydney helicopter industry a year after the Committee's report. Copies of both consultants' reports are appended to this statement. The Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) also recognised the problems the industry was encountering with his Department, and he moved to introduce remedial measures. On 22 October 1986 he announced five major decisions, as follows: Firstly, an in-principle decision to set up a civil aviation corporation to provide and operate the civil airways system in Australia; secondly, an in-principle decision to set up a review panel to consider proposed regulatory changes; thirdly, a complete review of the air navigation regulations and other subordinate orders and instructions; fourthly, a review of criteria for establishing and maintaining airways facilities; and fifthly, an efficiency audit of air space usage. The Committee informally sought the views of a number of aviation industry spokesmen about their perceptions of the adequacy of the Minister's announcements and found that they met with support, qualified only by a certain cynicism that such dramatic positive changes would ever come to pass given the past track record of the Department. The Committee has given consideration to the continuing conduct of its inquiry in the context of these developments. On the one hand, the Committee is conscious that the aviation industry and many individuals have high expectations of its inquiry. A lot of effort was expended by many people in putting comprehensive submissions to the Committee for its consideration. In fact, analysis of submissions by the Committee's consultant indicated that some 142 warranted further examination at public hearings in all States and the Northern Territory. On the other hand, the Committee recognises that such a heavy program of hearings could involve the Committee in duplication of the reviews already proposed by the Minister, and accordingly may not be the best use of committee resources. The Committee believes that its most appropriate course of conduct in this regard is to encourage the Minister to implement his proposals promptly and for the Committee to closely monitor the success of the various measures in bringing about the type of changed environment in the aviation industry so strongly argued for in submissions. To those who provided submissions to the Committee we wish to say that we are not complacent about the problems drawn to our attention, nor the apparent need for radical change. The Committee has not terminated its inquiry but merely postponed it. We will be particularly wary of an `old wine in new bottles' situation arising under the guise of progress. Dick Smith saw his book as a catalyst for change. That change is now being achieved. The Committee will monitor developments to ensure that Australian aviation, and not the bureaucracy, is the beneficiary. I seek leave to present a copy of the statement together with the attachments. Leave granted. Mr MOUNTFORD —I present the statement and attachments. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the whole House at the next sitting. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) agreed to: That consideration of the report relating to the matter of printed references to the proceedings and prospective recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception be postponed until 5 June 1987. Debate resumed from 1 June, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Spender had moved by way of amendment: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `while not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for- (1) its delay in introducing the legislation, and (2) its failure to fully implement the recommendations contained in Mr Justice Stewart's Royal Commission report of April 1986 into Alleged Telephone Interceptions'. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.32) —I want to thank all honourable members who have participated in the debate so far. This matter has caused a fair amount of discussion for a number of years and I can well understand honourable members feeling that there needs to be a balance when we are looking at legislation that allows interception in certain circumstances, but certainly prohibits it in all other circumstances. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) has moved a second reading amendment which objects to the delay in introducing the legislation and also refers to the report of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Alleged Telephone Interceptions, which is now known as the Stewart Royal Commission. I will again mention some of the matters that the honourable gentleman himself mentioned regarding time. I would say that the honourable gentleman felt he was entitled to say that the Government was tardy in looking at the issue that arose from what was known as the Age tapes. It would be far more accurate to call them the Age transcripts because there were virtually no tapes. The fascinating thing about this matter is that all the information was obtained by illegal intercepts, from tapes that were known, were in existence and were shown to the Australian Federal Police. The Stewart Royal Commission report indicates that they were in existence for 15 years from 1967 onwards. I invite the honourable gentleman to address his mind to that position. Mr Justice Stewart found that, for 15 years, the New South Wales police, and perhaps police in other States, were illegally intercepting and obtaining information. He further found that the information was very valuable, that it related to a number of prosecutions and that it gave a fair amount of criminal intelligence; nevertheless, it was illegal and the taping should not have happened. Mr Justice Stewart felt, with some justification, that the police were obliged to carry out those illegal intercepts because of the frustrations they felt in being unable to get access to the telephone communications system. I ask the honourable member for North Sydney what applications were made to the Fraser Government from 1977 to 1983. That is a very relevant period. The Age transcripts relate to tapes that were illegally obtained and used in that period. I only say that because it is not fair to suggest that the delay in introducing this legislation has suddenly come about because the tapes brought to light evidence that could have otherwise been obtained legally. There was a 15-year cycle. There were at least over 200 intercepts, all illegal. A massive organisation was going on in New South Wales with apparently no one knowing about it, except when it came to Mr Justice Stewart. There was also a question of indemnities being granted. Mr Justice Stewart identified the problem. He made his report in April 1986. I will again refer to what governments are obliged to do and what police forces are expected to do. The report of the Special Prosecutor, Mr Ian Temby, dated July 1984, into what is called the Age materials-and that is a more appropriate description-went into a lot of detail about what was known at the time. If one looks at that report-and I will not delay the House for any length of time-one sees quite clearly that he obtained evidence from a large number of Federal Police officers in the period about which he is talking, 1979 to 1981, who had access to the tapes. They heard the tapes; they paid money for the tapes to a person called Irish, who happened to be a Sergeant Hawthorn, a police officer of New South Wales, who had the tapes. Is it not a bit late to suggest that the Government is a bit slow in this matter? I wonder what happened in the period when Police Commissioner Woods, Deputy Commissioner Farmer and Detective Sergeant Lewington all acknowledged that they had the tapes-the real evidence. We cannot find them now. What we found, at the end of some political scurrying, was what were called the Age tapes, which are a compilation, apparently, of the illegitimate tapes given to the Federal Police in the period I mentioned. I do not accept that this Government should be impugned on the basis of delay. The most senior police officers in the Federal Police were listening to those tapes, paying money for them and getting permission to do so from the Commissioner at the time. That was not known to any member of the Government at the time. That is the problem we face on this issue. The matter should have been dealt with at that time. Mr Spender —It was not known then. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member for North Sydney said it was not known. He was not here. I cannot for the life of me accept that it was not known when a cash book showed a number of entries and the amounts of money that were paid from time to time. I do not accept that any legitimate organisation, such as a police force, would not be able to indicate the sort of intelligence it was using. From what Mr Justice Stewart said, the tapes that the Federal Police had have not yet been found. We cannot get them from the New South Wales police. They do not exist. We got a bastardised arrangement from the transcript of the so-called Age tapes, which was a compilation of them. The honourable member for North Sydney is well aware of the problems. When Mr Justice Stewart looked at this particular document, he said: Even in cases where a transcript appears to have been translated verbatim, there is no way, except in the few cases where tapes still exist, by which the Commission can ascertain whether the whole of the conversation has been transcribed . . . He goes on to talk about all of the problems. He said that something had been omitted that may well change the whole meaning of the conversation. He said: The Commission is not satisfied that the transcript material in summary form has been prepared with sufficient care to be affirmed as wholly accurate. In other words, it would not be admissible as evidence. That is the sad story of a period when there was the opportunity, even though the information was illegally obtained, for the government of the time to be alerted to the fact that there was something dramatically wrong with what was happening in the New South Wales police force. It is no excuse for senior police officers to suggest that they thought the interceptions were carried out in a legal way. In what legal way could those interceptions have been carried out in that period? The police were on notice as to the position. They were paying money for the information. It is a sorry period, but I am citing it on the basis that it is not much good honourable members opposite coming in here berating a government which is having a fair bit of difficulty trying to convince those who are now interested in the matter, namely the State governments, that they ought to have access to interceptions on certain terms and on a certain basis. That is the reason for the delay. The honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) effectively put the point of view that when the Committee met it invited the State governments to come before it because the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) had asked them so to do to give their views, particularly on narcotics, and so that we might give them the opportunity to use interceptions. We received the most luke-warm and weak response that anybody could possibly imagine. The honourable member serialised the events. There was no answer from the Victorian Government or from the Tasmanian Government. The South Australian Government did not wish to avail itself of that position. The Northern Territory Government made no formal submission. The New South Wales Government wrote a letter; the Queensland Government did not really want to get involved in it, nor did the Western Australian Government. They are pretty bleak old responses. A political issue is involved in this. I suppose that those who run governments are worried about the fact that they might get some political flak if it is thought that people's telephones can be intercepted-and so we all would. At the same time, the police forces are adamant that phone tapping is a very effective tool of trade in the pursuit of criminal activity. Stewart confirms that; so we have to get a balance. The police associations, I am pleased to note, support us. The Australian Police Ministers supported the Bill in a resolution passed as recently as 22 May. I can understand that, but the point of the history of the delay certainly should not be sheeted home to us. It comes back to the factors that should have been brought to notice in the period between 1979 and 1982. I reject that suggestion. A number of other criticisms were raised about the Bill. These issues were based on the fact that perhaps an issue of a warrant might require judges to be caught up in determining whether an offence is a class 1 or a class 2 offence. The report of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking suggested that there would be adequate protection for the citizen from the point of view of the gravity of the offence. I am very satisfied that the judiciary, both Federal and State, has the capacity to understand those problems. I do not see any particular difficulties there. I think we would overcome a lot of criticism that we might get if it were realised that there cannot be interceptions-unless there is an emergency-without a judicial survey of what is intended. The question, of course, was: What happens if there is an emergency? The Bill allows the Australian Federal Police to conduct interceptions without using Telecom Australia where a judge so orders. The circumstances in which this may happen are set out in proposed new section 48 of the Bill. The Federal Police may do this with the execution of warrants issued to any law enforcement agency. There was also the argument that the State police should be able to intercept independently, but the Joint Select Committee recommended that all interceptions be conducted through the Australian Federal Police. Procedures are now in place that will guarantee an immediate facility. Once the connection is made the State police will have the opportunity to use that facility immediately, even though it would have been a Federal connection which is the appropriate thing to do. Another question was: Should it be an offence to sell interception devices and should they be prohibited imports. We have not rejected the recommendation, but we have to draw the distinction between what is an interception device and what is a listening device. We can deal only with interception devices. We cannot deal with listening devices. We cannot deal with transmitters and things of that nature. Mr Spender —You can deal with anything coming in or out. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —We were talking about the capacity of interception of the telecommunications system. That is where I think the difficulty is-whether we would not allow some, what we call, normal transmitters to come in-as happens now and whether we would allow what we call interception material to come in. So we do place the Customs people in some difficulty. The matter is not closed. We are saying that as we are dealing with interception material we cannot quickly identify we should not prohibit all devices from the point of view of transmission. That is the difficulty the Government has been advised of. There was the question of the admissibility of illegally intercepted material. We make it very clear that the problems that we have faced in the past should not be faced in the future. From here on-and I make the caveat of course that current proceedings are excepted, and that relates to an amendment that the honourable gentleman wishes to move at the Committee stage-we will not have admitted into evidence illegally obtained material. The reason for that is that if we have legislation which says that there has to be a proper format, that there has to be a warrant, it would be counter-productive to use it if the evidence could be obtained in some other way. It would be counter-productive because we would still have to prosecute the person under the Telecommunications (Interception) Act for breaking that particular law even though, it may be argued, it might be of some significance in criminal detection. We have to get the law right. If we have law enforcement officers we expect them to carry out the law. I do not see any particular burden here. This legislation is effective legislation. The States will find it relatively easy to use the facility. The arrangements are in place and they seem to be very practical. On that basis I see no reason why everybody would not, in the appropriate circumstances, follow the course in this legislation, seek the appropriate warrant and then be given the opportunity to have such a connection. As I understand it, the circumstances in which warrants will be granted are not so numerous. They are somewhat expensive from a point of view of labour. It may well be that the average would be not more than one a month, at most. It is a necessary mechanism whereby law enforcement agencies can have intelligence and use that intelligence in the detection of crime and in the prevention of crime. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, the offences are outlined in the legislation. They relate not only to narcotics but also to very serious offences such as murder, kidnapping and other such offences which might carry a penalty of seven years or more. We will need to move some amendments which have been circulated. They relate to the fact that there needs to be some tidying up, particularly from the point of view of the gazettal of judges who might be eligible. The honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) also proposed an amendment, which we will accept, about the police commissioner only or anybody authorised by him to deal with the question of warrants. I will be explaining the Government's position at the Committee stage. This legislation is certainly not before its time but there has been a fair amount of discussion. If there has been some difficulty in getting it accepted, basically it has been because of the hesitancy and the reluctance of the State governments to take up the offer made to them by the Prime Minister in 1985. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 20-by leave-taken together. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(4.49) —I propose to move an amendment to clause 5 of the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill which will have the effect of making offences which can be the subject of interception surveillance offences which are punishable by not less than three years imprisonment. It would therefore substitute for the present structure in the Bill which sets up class 1 and class 2 offences and effectively puts a floor under the offences which can be examined save for one exception, to which I will refer in a minute, of seven years. If an offence is punishable by less than seven years imprisonment, it cannot be the subject of surveillance. Yet inconsistently enough, an offence which has been examined by the National Crime Authority under its special investigation powers and which may be punishable by three, four, five or six years can be the subject of surveillance. We see no reason to deal with the National Crime Authority in one way and then deal with all other offences in another way. We think it is better to approach things more in the spirit of Mr Justice Stewart's approach to matters, that is, to have broad criteria of what might be described as serious offences. Whenever one seeks to arrive at a cut-off point one must make an arbitrary judgment in the sense that one looks to a period of time which is the basis for the cut-off in dealing with criminal offences. Here we say that it should be three years in place of the Government's proposal. It is for that reason, therefore, that we will move this amendment. Let me refer some offences punishable by more than three years but less than seven years imprisonment which, unless the subject of examination by the National Crime Authority, would not be caught; that is, they would not be subject to telephone interceptions. I refer to offences under the Crimes Act of the Commonwealth: False pretences, dealt with under section 29a of that Act and punishable by five years imprisonment; section 35, false testimony, punishable by five years imprisonment; section 36a, intimidation of witnesses, including the use of violence against witnesses, punishable by five years imprisonment; section 37, corruption of witnesses, punishable by five years imprisonment; and section 42, conspiracy to defeat justice, five years imprisonment. These are pretty important matters. Other offences include section 44, compounding or concealing indictable offences, punishable by three years imprisonment; section 69, making special paper, that is, for purposes preparatory to forgery, punishable by four years imprisonment; and, of course, those who aid and abet the commission of those offences are punishable by the same maximum periods of imprisonment as the principal offenders. Therefore, we believe that an amendment is required and we will propose the amendment which has been circulated in my name. As we are dealing with clauses 1 to 20, I will also touch on other comments. During the second reading debate the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee)-and I am glad to see that he is present in the chamber-referred to something I said about interceptions in New York. He said: . . . to suggest that the police force in New York can carry out intercepts on the majority of telephones in New York within 30 seconds is baloney. There is no way that that could be common practice in New York. I know that carrying out intercepts within 30 seconds is simply not on in Australia with the Telecom equipment that is installed. That is a most telling admission because, if the honourable member for Dobell had listened carefully to what I had said, he would have heard that I was referring to emergency intercepts conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. If the honourable member wants to check on the accuracy of what I said, I suggest that he go to New York and see the head of counter-terrorism there and ask him about intercepts and how quickly they can be put on in emergency situations; and he will be told that they can get them on in under 30 seconds. Of course, we now understand that Telecom Australia cannot do that and, of course, it is that agency which will be required to put on the intercepts. Of course, we know that difficulties have been experienced in the past in the use of Telecom. I quote again from the comments of the honourable member for Dobell: I know that carrying out intercepts within 30 seconds is simply not on in Australia with the Telecom equipment that is installed. As a member of the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception, I suppose he knows what he is talking about. I will now move on and pick up something said by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) when he referred to time and went back to the Age material, and I agreed that it should properly be called the Age material. He said that these illegal intercepts had been taking place over many years. Well, of course, so they had. Mr Lionel Bowen —Stewart said that? Mr SPENDER —Stewart said that. The CHAIRMAN —Order! I do not want honourable members interjecting across the table on this matter. I do not think that the honourable member for North Sydney should repeat other honourable members' speeches at the second reading stage. The matter before the Committee is the honourable member's proposed amendment to clause 5 and debate on clauses 1 to 20 and not the second reading stage speeches of the Attorney- General, the honourable member for Dobell or even the honourable member for North Sydney. Mr SPENDER —I understand that; thank you, Mr Chairman. When one sees that this legislation contains 109 clauses of which we are now dealing with 20, it can be seen that it is a fairly complex Bill. However, as I have said before, there has been great delay. I point to only one other thing: The intercepts to which the Attorney-General referred and which I believe to be relevant to the point I am now making were done illegally and covertly. I see no reason to think that the New South Wales Government under Mr Neville Wran was told what was going on any more than the then Government under Mr Fraser was told what was going on. These were illegal intercepts mainly being carried out by the New South Wales Police Force, one member of which apparently sold them to the Commonwealth. Of course, the very fact that we learnt that illegal intercepts had taken place for such a long period only when Mr Justice Stewart conducted his inquiry gave greater impetus to the need for speed because, abuses on a wide scale having been discovered, it was then necessary for the Government to act-and act urgently. That most certainly has not been done. I will now formally move the amendment circulated in my name. I move: Clause 5, page 3, lines 43 and 44, and page 4, lines 1-12, omit paragraph (a) of the definition of `class 2 offence', substitute the following paragraph: `(a) an offence punishable by not less than 3 years imprisonment;'. Mr LEE(Dobell)(4.58) —I will try to keep my comments as brief as possible. I oppose the amendment moved by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). It seeks to allow telephone intercepts to be carried out by the police if the judge who signs the warrant believes that the relevant offence is such that the maximum penalty is at least three years. I believe that there are problems with that definition because there are some offences which have a maximum penalty of more than three years but which I do not believe warrant intercepting someone's telephone. Without wishing to go into a lot of detail, I think there is a danger that warrants could be issued by judges which would allow the police to intercept telephones for crimes which do not warrant telephones being intercepted. Some people could argue: `Well, if someone is doing something wrong, no matter how trivial it is, why should this Parliament object to someone's telephone being intercepted to obtain evidence to prove in court that that person has done something which is against the law?' The simple reason why that statement is silly is that the police do not have the resources to carry out widespread telephone interceptions. Even if the honourable member for North Sydney's amendment is carried, the police would be limited, by the number of tape recorders and the number of trained expert staff available to the Australian Federal Police, to interceptions involving only very serious crimes such as murder, kidnapping and organised crime. Therefore, I oppose the amendment. The honourable member dismissed the remarks that I made last night about the time involved in carrying out intercepts. I simply make the point that members of the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception were shown around Telecom's central exchange in one of the capital cities, and also around the Australian Federal Police high security centre where the interceptions are carried out. Those who visited both locations were made aware that it was physically impossible for an intercept to be carried out within 30 seconds. Yes, it can be carried out quickly and at short notice, but I do not believe that it is proper for us to seek to alert criminals about the minimum time required. That would not serve a useful purpose. However, if a judge has granted a warrant by telephone, as is provided for in this legislation, Telecom and the Federal Police can ensure that an intercept is put in place in a short time. That could ensure that the police receive vital information. The honourable member for North Sydney insists that the anti-terrorism group in New York has the capacity to intercept a telephone call in 30 seconds. I repeat that I do not believe that to be technically possible. It might be possible if someone had already hooked up a telephone intercept, as it might then take the police 30 seconds to turn on the tape recorder. However, to suggest that someone can route an intercept from the local exchange to the central headquarters-where the New York police carry out the intercepts-within 30 seconds is in the realms of fantasy. I shall certainly take up the honourable member's challenge to investigate his point. Perhaps the easiest way would be to write to the Federal Bureau of Investigation liaison officer at the American Embassy. I shall certainly follow that through, but I do not believe it to be technically possible for an intercept to be carried out in 30 seconds. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(5.02) —I wish to repeat a point that I made during last night's debate, namely, that this area was one of considerable conjecture among the members of the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception. There was a wide range of views about the nature of the offences for which the facility of telephone tapping should be extended to aid in the detection of crime. Undoubtedly, the divisions essentially crossed political boundaries as we constructively worked together to try to find ways and means to address the matter. I noted in the debate yesterday that the Government had moved somewhat from the position determined by the majority group in the Committee. However, the minority group constructively suggested that there could be very good reason for greater flexibility in the way in which these matters are examined. The nature of criminal activity we might wish to investigate from time to time requires that those involved in its apprehension have the flexibility to move quickly. If the law limits the range of circumstances in which these facilities might be used, we might well find that in cases where evidence might otherwise be available it is simply not available to law enforcement agencies. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) has proposed an amendment that widens the class of offences that might be considered. In that context, I must mention that that does not mean that telephone taps can be used in every circumstance. There is the protection of having to go before a judicial officer to seek a warrant. That procedure in itself contains protection as considerable inquiry is undertaken. For class 2 offences, the judge must be satisfied about a wider range of circumstances than for the more serious class 7 offences. In view of that further protection, I think the amendment deserves greater support than might otherwise be the case. If the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) is not mindful to adopt the approach of the honourable member for North Sydney, I wish again to remind him that the minority view was that the regulation power was another matter of which the Government might well have availed itself in giving this flexibility. I mentioned in the debate yesterday, by quoting from the annual report of the National Crime Authority, the range of criminal activity that the NCA was investigating and the ranges of offences likely to be involved where this important facility might well be needed. In the changing area in which we are operating, I think the law enforcement agencies need as much flexibility as possible. The amendment suggests that, but if that is not acceptable the Attorney-General could well examine the regulating power with great profit. That was the view of those who dissented, and it is a view that we offer to try to assist the Government to put in place the best possible legislation. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(5.07) —The question of serious offences needs some comment because we tend to labour somewhat over definitions. I am specifically reminded of some of the instances mentioned by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), when he said that the three-year offences covered certain crimes punishable by three years imprisonment. On the surface, the words used made them sound serious offences. However, being a layman and not a lawyer, I have to ask whether, when an appropriate period of penal servitude is imposed under the Crimes Act or whatever, the three years imprisonment really reflects something particularly serious. As the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) suggested-- Mr Spender —You do three years inside and you will find out just how serious it is. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for North Sydney will cease interjecting. We will not continue the debate with interjections going back and forth across the chamber. Mr Spender —Heaven forbid. The CHAIRMAN —And I do not need any further assistance from the honourable member. Mr MARTIN —As the honourable member for Dundas rightly said, flexibility is needed. During the deliberations of the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interceptions, it was one of the most contentious points. Indeed, it was an area of our investigation that caused us a great deal of heartache, and our deliberations ensued for quite some time. I am still of the mind that what was decided and then recommended in the majority report did pick up on the seriousness of offences. However, I am mindful now that what has been proposed in the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill goes some way towards resolving the question of flexibility by introducing the two classes of offence and imposing the seven-year imprisonment regime. That picks up many of the issues that the Committee, in a broad sense, wanted to address. I am, of course, talking about organised crime, white collar crime and corporate crime, as well as those more serious crimes of murder, kidnapping and so on that are encapsulated in the Bill. I believe that defining the classes of offences that have been included in clause 5 goes towards redressing the issue and adopts flexibility and a path between what the minority report was seeking and what the majority report ultimately recommended. It was a difficult area to come to terms with, but I believe that the legislation proposed by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) takes the middle ground and proposes the correct course of action. With respect to the final issue that we have been discussing-that is, the time period in which an intercept can be put in place-I can only agree with the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee) and say that if it is a matter of flicking a switch to get the intercepts working that could take less than 30 seconds. What is really being said is that somebody has preknowledge of an intercept being needed to be put in place on a particular telephone line. As I said in my speech on the second reading last night, that is a possibility, I guess, within the police forces, if they are targeting certain criminal elements that they regularly tap. What we are suggesting, of course, is that if a new case comes along and a telecommunications intercept needs to be put in place, certainly, as was put in evidence to the Committee, by picking up the telephone the police forces can alert Telecom that the intercept may be put in place and that a warrant is being sought. Of course, the appropriate mechanisms can be put in place. Once the warrant is obtained and notification is therefore made available to Telecom, it is a simple matter of switching through and away we go. That certainly takes 30 seconds. But the process comes back to a definition of what is meant by putting the intercept in place. Certainly, on the face of it, in regard to this being done in New York in 30 seconds-again, I agree with my colleague the honourable member for Dobell-that is not physically possible. I believe that the safeguards that have been included in the legislation go some of the way to redressing the problem. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(5.11) —The Government cannot accept the amendment, despite the sincerity of those who have supported it. I note that those who have participated in the Committee deliberations were divided on the issue. I am advised, and I accept the fact, that if we were to make offences with a three-year penalty the yardstick to allow interception, we would be dealing with many hundreds of offences. Some of them may be serious, but many would not be so serious. The Australian Law Reform Commission recommended a seven-year penalty period in respect of the interception timeframe. I draw a distinction between the National Crime Authority's jurisdiction and function and what one calls the normal police function. The real issue is this: The National Crime Authority always deals with a specific reference. It does not deal with any one crime. It deals with organised crime. That is where the distinction can be drawn. It would look at a whole chapter and series of events. That is its function. That is why the context is different and its function is different from what is called the normal work of police forces. For that reason we want to see interception only in relation to a particular serious offence. I am advised that it would be a reasonable procedure to suggest a seven-year timeframe. As I have the support of the Law Reform Commission, I think the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) would agree that we are not just doing this from the point of view of wanting to limit the number of interceptions. I am told that if we were to widen this to offences with a three-year penalty the number of offences would run into many hundreds. The honourable member made a couple of observations when he adverted to something I had said. He ought to be corrected. Mr Justice Stewart, when he spoke about interceptions in New South Wales, mentioned the period from 1967 to 1968. Of course, Sir Robert Askin was Premier at that time. He was followed by Mr Willis and Mr Lewis, both Liberal members. It will be noticed that Mr Wran did not assume the title of Premier until 1976. The point which is of interest, though, is that the position was so serious that over 200 interceptions were actually conducted, some over a considerable time. All police commissioners knew about the arrangement. It is quite surprising to think that governments, irrespective of their political persuasion, were not aware of it. We cannot allow too much interception unless there are adequate safeguards. The other point is the question of speed. I am advised that arrangements are now in place so that as soon as the Australian Federal Police make the connection, at the same instant the information will be available to the State police. There will be no delay. I am not prepared to accept the amendment. Amendment negatived. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(5.15) —I move: (1) Clause 8, page 12, line 22, omit ``, by notice published in the Gazette,'', substitute ``by writing''. This amendment relates to proposed section 6d in clause 8. Proposed sub-section 6d (3) provides for a declaration by the Minister, by notice in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette, of judges to be eligible judges for the purposes of the legislation. Since the Bill was introduced it has been put to me that the requirement that the declaration be by notice published in the Gazette may result in harassment of the eligible judges so gazetted. Accordingly, the first of the Government's amendments removes this requirement and substitutes the requirement that the Minister, by writing, declare judges to be eligible judges. I think the amendment is self-explanatory. It relates to the welfare of members of the judiciary and it is because of their concern-and I agree with their concern-that I have moved this amendment. Amendment agreed to. Clauses, as amended, agreed to. Clause 21 (Addition of new Parts). Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(5.17) —by leave-I move: (2) Clause 21, page 31, lines 1 to 6, omit proposed section 54, substitute the following section: When certain warrants come into force ``54 A warrant issued to an agency other than the Australian Federal Police does not come into force until: (a) in any case-the warrant; or (b) if the warrant was issued on a telephone application-a notification under paragraph 53 (1) (b) of the issue of the warrant; is received by or on behalf of the Commissioner of Police.''. (3) Clause 21, page 32, lines 20 and 21, omit ``Commissioner of Police receives the instrument of revocation'', substitute ``instrument of revocation is received by or on behalf of the Commissioner of Police''. Proposed section 54 deals with cases when a warrant, other than a warrant issued to the Australian Federal Police, comes into force. Under the proposed section, warrants or notification would have to be received by the Commissioner of Police. The amendments change this so that warrants will come into force when the warrant, or in the case of a warrant issued on a telephone application, a notification under paragraph 53 (1) (b), is received by or on behalf of the Commissioner of Police. The other amendment deals with clause 21, proposed section 59. In line with the amendment to proposed section 54, proposed section 59 is the subject of amendment so that a warrant does not cease to be in force until the instrument of revocation is received by or on behalf of the Commissioner of Police. Amendments agreed to. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(5.18) —by leave-I move: (2) Clause 21, page 33, lines 37 and 38, omit ``; or (b) give in evidence in a proceeding;''. (3) Clause 21, page 34, omit proposed section 64. (4) Clause 21, page 37, proposed section 74, lines 33 and 34, omit ``64 or''. (5) Clause 21, pages 37 and 38, omit proposed sub-section 75(2). (6) Clause 21, page 38, omit proposed section 76. (7) Clause 21, pages 38 and 39, omit proposed section 78. There are two purposes for moving these amendments. Before I refer to those purposes, I remind the Committee of the present state of the law in this country as to the use of intercept evidence which has been illegally obtained. The High Court of Australia, in the case of Hilton v. Wells, which was decided in 1985, decided by a majority of three to two that the Telecommunications (Interception) Act does not impliedly forbid the tender in evidence of information obtained in breach of its terms. The minority, the present Chief Justice and Mr Justice Deane, did not agree. In their view evidence could be given only on information obtained as a result of interception of a communication passing over a telecommunications system if that information was obtained by an authorised interception and if the proceedings in question were otherwise proceedings which fell within the Act. So we had two different views. On the one hand, we had the majority saying that there is no implied exclusion of evidence by virtue of the way in which the Act is presently structured and, on the other hand, the minority view that that evidence is to be rejected, that illegal evidence should not by this Act be admitted in court. There is a case presently pending before the High Court of Australia which is to come on for hearing in one or two weeks but will not come on for hearing if clause 64 goes through, as I understand it from inquiries I have made. That case will be heard by a seven-member High Court, a full High Court, and effectively it will re-argue the decision in Hilton and Wells. That decision will be reopened so that the Court as a Full Bench can determine whether it should stand or whether the minority view should prevail. What is so important is that clause 64-this is the first of two points I want to raise-has the effect of making admissible, despite illegality, any evidence which has been obtained thus far in proceedings which have been commenced. Clause 64 states: A person may: (a) for a purpose connected with a proceeding begun before the commencement of this Part- I miss out certain words- (b) give in evidence in such a proceeding; information: (c) obtained by intercepting a communication before that commencement,- that is, the commencement of this Part of the Bill- whether or not in contravention of subsection 7 (1). The effect of that is to reverse in advance or to prevent in advance the High Court's reconsidering the question because, if clause 64 goes through as it presently stands, it has these effects: In the first place, evidence illegally obtained in the past will be admissible for the purposes of proceedings begun before the commencement of this Bill, that is, admissible despite blatant illegality, and it will exclude any discretion in the Court to exclude evidence on the basis of illegality. It anticipates the High Court and effectively says to the Court: `We are not interested in your views on the Act of Parliament as it stands. We intend to make special rules which will allow illegal evidence to be used in existing proceedings regardless of the blatancy of the illegality'. What this does is to move the law backwards to the law as it existed in England in 1955. There was a very famous case called Carooma. Carooma's case concerned a search which took place during the Mau-Mau emergency. The search was illegal. The Privy Council thought there were very grave doubts about the way in which the search had been carried out and about the evidence that had been given. But it was not reviewing the evidence; it was simply reviewing the law. The Privy Council came to a conclusion. It was put by Mr Justice Stefan and Mr Justice Akin in the case of Bunning v. Cross in these terms: According to Carooma the discretion to be exercised when real evidence is sought to be tendered in a criminal trial is not different from, is indeed but an instance of that general discretion which always existed to exclude admissible evidence when to admit it would be unfair to the accused. In other words, he simply looked at questions of prejudice. Our law has gone on a different path. We require public interest considerations to be examined and those public interest considerations are stated by Mr Justice Stefan and Mr Justice Aikin in Bunning v Cross. Effectively, what one does is to look at two competing requirements. I quote from what was said by them. Referring to an earlier case of Ireland, they said: What Ireland involves is no simple question of assuring fairness to an accused but instead the weighing against each other of two competing requirements of public policy thereby seeking to resolve the apparent conflict between the desirable goal of bringing a conviction to the wrongdoer and the undesirable effect of curial approval or even encouragement being given to the unlawful conduct of those whose task it is to enforce the law. We do not adopt the English law. But what this clause does effectively is to entrench an unjust view of inadmissibility for the purposes of proceedings that have already been commenced. I do not say this in any way critical of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) or of the Government, but surely the sensible thing is to leave to the High Court the decision of determining what is the proper interpretation of the existing Act so that, if evidence is admissible, even though it is obtained illegally, it is a matter for the Court to decide whether in exercising its discretion it should admit the evidence, or if the minority view prevails and there is an exclusion of any illegally obtained evidence, the Court should be left to decide that. Surely we should not as a Parliament be saying: `We are going to pass special rules here so that illegal evidence may be used regardless of what the High Court says as to the law that existed at the time that evidence was obtained'. It is not simply the Opposition that objects to this. The Law Society of New South Wales has objected to it. I have heard from Mr Roger Gyles, the President of the Bar Association of New South Wales. This morning in the Press there was reference to an objection to it on behalf of the Law Council of Australia. We say that the law as it stands should apply to existing proceedings-that is, to evidence which has been obtained under the law as it stands-and that we should not change those rules. Furthermore, let us not make special rules for telephone interceptions prospectively. There is no distinction between the illegality of evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search and evidence obtained as a consequence of an illegal interception. In all cases it should be left to the courts to determine what in the balance of public interest is the right course to take in any particular case. As I said earlier, I understand that it is only in the case of telephone interceptions that we are to have special rules. For the life of me I can see no reason why we should have special rules applying to-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SPENDER —telephone interception that do not apply to- The CHAIRMAN —Order! Mr SPENDER —obtaining evidence otherwise illegally. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for North Sydney will cease his contribution when his time has expired, particularly when drawn to order by the Chair. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(5.28) —This is a matter that I think has been looked at from the wrong premise. The whole thrust of what the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) says is that we should not alter the law to make it retrospective. Let me make it very clear that the law that we are talking about at present happens to be the law as decided by the High Court of Australia in Hilton's case. The honourable gentleman will have to acknowledge that. A number of people have been dealt with and sentenced pursuant to that interpretation. So, are we to take the view that, if one were unlucky enough to have been sentenced-there is at least one serious case involving murder-under what the honourable member now says should not have been the law, that would be just too bad? Mr Spender —No. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I know that is not what he is saying, but that is the principle. All we are saying is that what we are talking about now is preserving the present law as decided by the High Court. What the honourable member wants us to look at is the fact that the High Court may change its decision or, as the honourable member puts it, may not be able to make a decision if we pass this law. I do not know that that is altogether correct. I think there are other aspects of this legislation that the High Court will look at and it may well be that we will be back here looking at it again after that. I just say that in passing, because it is not just a question of what the honourable member terms `illegal evidence' being admitted. I would like to refresh the honourable gentleman's memory. When we were discussing a similar piece of legislation in March 1985 he properly raised the difficulties in evidence gained by Mr Justice Stewart on the admissibility of what is called the Age tapes. I will quote him, which I do not usually do: `It seems likely from all that we have heard about the Age tapes that this material is going to contain evidence' that there might be some doubts about being admissible. He said that as he understood the situation `people involved in organised crime have a lot of money and with a split High Court on such an important question it is very likely . . . that the High Court is going to be asked to review its decision'. So what does the honourable gentleman do? He moves an amendment to guarantee that all the evidence obtained illegally would still be admitted. That was his amendment on that occasion. Mr Spender —That was a second reading amendment. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, I know, but it was the thrust of the issue. What we have at the moment are a number of people who apparently have been dealt with on evidence which the High Court might determine has been improperly obtained. Mr Spender —We were talking about indemnities then, were we not? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I want to tell the honourable member about the position we would face. All I am saying is that we are not altering the law. It is a matter for the courts as to what, in their discretion as it presently exists under Bunning v. Cross, they would think of this evidence that might have been obtained or whether there is going to be a new trial or something of that nature; but it is wrong to suggest that we are making retrospective law. Mr Roger Gyles, whom I admire immensely, was on to me and I asked him: `How are we altering the law? The law is the law of the High Court at the present time'. He said: `Yes, but I think it will change its decision'. I suppose that if one were a betting man one could say that that might well be the case. But we seem to be rushing along on the thrust that we are doing something wrong when all we are saying is that in respect of current proceedings the existing law will apply-and there happens to be at least one current proceeding. A couple of other people have been dealt with and are now incarcerated, it would appear, the jury having heard the evidence. I think that the evidence, whilst it might have been illegally obtained, nevertheless does exist. That certainly gets back to the discretion in Bunning v. Cross. From here on, of course, we will be excluding it. Mr Spender —No. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Well, we are anxious to exclude it, from that point of view. I think we have to look at it from the perspective of what we are about here today; in other words, we are not preventing evidence going before the court at the present time, because according to the law it must, but we are saying that after the current proceedings and from the coming into force of this legislation, which I still think will be the subject of challenge on other grounds, the matter would not be admitted in the normal course of events. That is the whole purpose and the whole thrust of what we are about. If we are going to have illegally obtained evidence admitted, we are going to be in all the difficulties in the world worrying about having interceptions authorised by warrants. I can understand the honourable gentleman's thrust, but at this stage we do not accept it. We do not think it will inhibit the High Court coming to a decision. We are alerted to the fact that when it does make a decision-and it might overturn this part of the legislation-it might advert to other parts of the legislation. That could create difficulties which the honourable gentleman and I might have to discuss at a later date, assuming whatever happens on 11 July. At the moment the High Court is going to deal with a case. Mr Spender —The case of Jones. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, that is the one. What is being said is that, as the Court is likely to change its decision, we should not pass this particular piece of legislation which preserves the law as it now exists. That is the point I want to make. It has been interpreted everywhere else that we are making the law retrospective. We are not. We are just applying the existing law and preserving it because there is a case where a person has been dealt with. There has been a question of appeal, but I will not go into that. Whilst I have no doubt that the High Court will still look at the case, I think it will be some time before it gives its decision. I am aware of the concern that has suddenly arisen in respect of a particular case which is the subject of appeal. The problem seems to be that we should not be putting this piece of legislation in place because the High Court may change its position. I do not think that that is the way to deal with it. I think it has to be dealt with on the basis that I have outlined-that we are not changing the law. The law that applies in this case is the same as that which applied in a number of other cases. If the Opposition is going to say that we have to exempt this particular case, we would have to go back and look at those people who are presently incarcerated on the very same premise. We could not say: `They were a bit unlucky; they were dealt with at the wrong time'. The High Court might never have heard of the Jones case and we might not be discussing the matter. We have to predict that the High Court is going to change its opinion and reverse its decision. We can all understand that, but that is not the way we can legislate in this matter. I understand what the honourable gentleman is saying and that the people out in the community are saying: `I would be so much better off if I waited for the High Court perhaps to change the law'. I do not think we can legislate on that basis, and I cannot accept the amendments. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(5.36) —I have sought to intervene before my colleague the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), because he may care to comment also on what I have to say briefly. The amendments we are discussing relate to clause 21 and are in a number of parts. My colleague particularly proposes to delete new section 76 which this Bill proposed to include in the Telecommunications (Interception) Act. Proposed new section 76 deals with the giving of information in evidence where there is a defect in connection with the warrant. This matter was the subject of some discussion before the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception. It was considered by those who signed the minority report and it was a matter upon which those who signed the minority report-and I was one of those-said that in our view the fact that there might have been a mere technical breach in relation to the issuing of a warrant ought not of itself to invalidate the evidence if there was clear evidence then available of the commission of an offence. It seemed to us that, simply because somebody failed to sign a document or there may well have been some other form of technical defect in connection with the proceedings, evidence of a very serious offence could well be challenged in a court and the examination of the way in which the warrants were issued and the interception was put in place may well of itself become a matter for examination in minutiae to ascertain whether there was some technical basis upon which proceedings may be invalidated. The honourable member for North Sydney may care to tell me that the concern I have about proposed new section 76 is adequately covered by the common law as it now stands. If that is the case, I would be pleased to be reassured as to that. But if it is not covered by the common law so as to ensure that technical defects in connection with a warrant would not invalidate evidence that might otherwise be available, I would want my colleague to know that I might not support his amendment. I am seeking a clear statement from my colleague the honourable member for North Sydney as to what he intends to achieve by his amendment. He might care to indicate whether he has understood the point I have made and whether he will be in a position to deal with it in the debate or whether he would like me to go through it again. Mr Spender —I would like you to go through it again. Mr RUDDOCK —I thought that might be the case. I am sorry that it is necessary to emphasise this. The honourable member for North Sydney has moved in amendment (6), which is being discussed in a cognate fashion, to omit proposed section 76. I am of the view that evidence given where there is a minor defect in connection with a warrant should not be rejected simply because of a technical defect in the proceedings. In other words, I do not think warrants ought to be gone over in such detail in proceedings to provide a more technical defence to deny evidence that would otherwise establish a conviction in relation to a serious offence. I hold that view very strongly. I want to know whether the honourable member's amendment to delete proposed section 76 will put in place a common law position which would ensure that evidence available in relation to the commission of an offence was not invalidated simply because of a technical defect in the issue of a warrant. I mention again that it was the view of the minority who signed the report-I was pleased that the Attorney-General picked it up, or it seemed to me that he picked it up in the response-that technical defects ought not to invalidate evidence obtained by a warrant in relation to the commission of a serious offence. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(5.43) — Answering the comments from my front and my back, let me, first of all, deal with the one which came, lastly, from the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock). The intent of what is proposed is to make sure that the common law rules as to the acceptance or rejection of evidence which is obtained illegally apply in all future cases. For example, if there is a defect of a technical nature, one would think that courts ordinarily would overlook that defect and say that the evidence should be admitted. Whether or not evidence which is illegally obtained is to be admitted under common law rules depends upon a balancing of the interests to which I referred earlier. So if there has been blatant and deliberate illegality, it is extremely difficult to persuade a court to admit the evidence. On the other hand, if the illegality is incidental, technical or unintentional, it is a quite different proposition. I hope what I have just said answers the honourable member for Dundas. I do not say that the amendments I proposed are easy ones because it is a complicated legislative code and I know the Government has given a considerable amount of thought to how it should work. However, I understand from what the Attorney- General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has said that he really does not disagree with what I am saying but what he really thinks is that the position is probably achieved under the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill without the amendments that I propose. Let me go back a little and pick up one or two things that the Attorney-General said and then come to the question of principle. The Attorney-General asked: `What about people who are unlucky enough to have been sentenced before the law is changed on the assumption that the High Court of Australia says that the decision in Hilton v. Wells should be overruled?'. What would then happen is that anybody who had been sentenced on the basis of law-not that the High Court changes a statute; courts do not change a statute, they change the meaning to be given to a statute or decide that a previous meaning was not the correct meaning-would, I assume, make an application for special leave to appeal from a conviction and the court would deal with it on its merits. Secondly, the Attorney-General says that his desire is to entrench the current law; that is, the decision in Hilton v. Wells. But that is simply the current interpretation. The interpretation to be given to the law, as it is stated in section 7 of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act, is ultimately to be decided, as I understand it, by the Full High Court. But what the Attorney-General has said does illustrate the nature of the problem, because if the High Court reverses Hilton and Wells and says that evidence which has in the past been obtained illegally is not admissible, it will mean that one set of rules will have applied to those who were convicted before that reversal and another set of rules are to apply to those who are convicted after that reversal-subject, as I said, to an application being made for special leave if a person has been sentenced under the old interpretation. What the amendments are designed to achieve is no more than this: Firstly, to place the common law rules into effect as the basis on which the legislation is to operate prospectively; secondly, to leave the interpretation of the old law-that is, the old statute-up to the High Court. It seems to me-there appears to be a difference between me and the Attorney-General on this-that effectively proposed section 64 entrenches the decision in Hilton v. Wells regardless of what may take place in the future. That is something which we think should not happen. If the High Court decides that the Hilton and Wells decision was wrong, so be it. But effectively what we say is that the common law discretions, the common law rules, should continue to apply. The Attorney-General said that I was putting an amendment which, amongst other things, referred to `subject to other rules as to admissibility'-I paraphrase what I said-`so that there would be a discretion in the court to decide one way or the other as to whether evidence was admissible'. I have referred to what lawyers have said. I do not necessarily agree with what the law associations say about these things, but I point out to the Attorney-General that the President of the Law Council of Australia has said that clause 6 and proposed section 64 will remove from the judges the discretion they would otherwise have to exclude the illegally obtained evidence. If, as I understand, it is not the Government's view-the Attorney-General has confirmed to me that that is not what the Government intends-that may be a way of overcoming the problem insofar as the courts have any regard to what takes place in these debates. If it is the Attorney-General's intention that the common law principles should continue to apply for evidence that has been obtained under the old regime, but obtained illegally, that might go some distance to meeting the problem. But for the purposes of dealing conclusively with the problem, we have put up a number of amendments which would leave the old law to be determined by the High Court if it chooses to reverse Hilton and Wells and the new law-that is, evidence obtained under the Act with all the various amendments that have been made to it-to be determined according to common law rules and not according to any special rules to be laid down by this Act. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(5.50) —We are in the difficulty of trying to deal with what are called existing proceedings and the further difficulty of trying to project what the High Court may do in a case that is apparently before it. I have to say: Let us deal with the fact that does exist; there is an existing proceeding. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) is concerned about whether the common law discretion would apply. I am advised, and I think it is correct to say, that it would. Proposed section 79 deals with the extent to which evidence is able to be admitted and states: Nothing in this Part renders information, or a restricted record, admissible in evidence in a proceeding to a greater extent than it would have been admissible in evidence in that proceeding if this Part had not been enacted. I think that is the position. We are not making it any worse for any existing proceeding. I think it is wrong to suggest, as many people do, well meaning as they are, that we are trying to legislate retrospectively to deal with one existing proceeding. There are a number of other proceedings. That is the effect of it. If those provisions were omitted as suggested by the Opposition's amendments there would be no opportunity to talk about that proceeding that has existed if the High Court reverses its decision. That is what I think is the plea and it puts us in the position of saying: `Well, the existing law as at today will not be the law in a few weeks time. Therefore, we ought to legislate on the basis that if the law is interpreted differently in two or three weeks time the person now in an existing proceeding gets the benefit of that interpretation.' I come back to the point that one person is in a very serious position in gaol because of a situation that might have developed a few months before, on the very same basis. He would not get the benefit because the proceeding is no longer existing. The proceeding we are talking about in this particular case has already had a hearing and a jury has made a decision. I want the honourable member for North Sydney to realise that we are not trying to be unfair to the person concerned. We are talking about the law as it now exists and we are anxious to change it to prevent any illegality in the future. In the future we will not have any common law discretion. That is the argument we are putting up. No longer will Bunning v. Cross be available. We believe this law will be statute to the extent that it will exclude it. At present the discretion does exist in relation to existing proceedings. That is the point we are mentioning. In the case itself, I understand-I am not advising counsel-that the High Court will address itself to a number of matters, one of which will be the warrants. If that is the case, we will be in some difficulty because we will have to try to look at all the people who have been dealt with under warrants. That is a matter for another day. I am told that that is probably the vulnerable part of the situation, not so much the question of the illegal evidence. I look forward in the future to some goodwill from the Opposition-the future being after the election-in deciding whether we might have to do something because otherwise a large number of people who are now incarcerated might be fully entitled to say that the evidence was obtained on warrants that are not now deemed to be effectively obtained. This legislation is correcting that matter. That is the important part. I thank the honourable member for North Sydney for his contribution but I cannot agree with what he is saying at this stage. Amendments negatived. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(5.54) —by leave-I move: (4) Clause 21, page 44, at the end of proposed section 88 add the following subsection: `` `(5) The place, and the period or the time and day, specified in a requirement under this section shall be reasonable having regard to the circumstances in which the requirement is made.''. (5) Clause 21, page 44, lines 21 to 24, omit all the words from and including ``but'' to the end of the proposed subsection, substitute the following: ``but: (a) the information, the answer, or the fact that the person has given access to the document, as the case may be; and (b) any information or thing (including a document) obtained as a direct or indirect consequence of giving the first-mentioned information, answering the question or giving access to the first-mentioned document, as the case may be; is not admissible in evidence against the person except in a proceeding by way of a prosecution for an offence against section 108.''. These amendments are the result of comments made on the Bill by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. Under proposed sub-sections 82 (2), (3) and (4) the Ombudsman may require an officer of an agency to give information or attend before an inspecting officer. The provisions do not stipulate that the place and period or the time and day specified by the Ombudsman must be reasonable. The amendments therefore correct this by inserting a new sub-section 88 (5), which provides that a requirement under section 88 shall be reasonable having regard to the circumstances in which the requirement is made. A final government amendment relates to proposed sub-section 89 (1), which provides, in effect, that the person is not excused from giving information to the Ombudsman on the ground that doing so would contravene a law, be contrary to the public interest, tend to incriminate the person or make the person liable to a penalty but the information given is not admissible in evidence against the person except in a prosecution for an offence against proposed section 108, which provides for offences relating to the Ombudsman's inspection under Part VIII of the legislation. Since proposed sub-section 89 (1) does not protect the person giving the information from any information or thing acquired as a direct or indirect consequence of the person being required to give information, an amendment is necessary to correct the position. Amendments agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported with amendments. Adoption of Report Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(5.57) —by leave-I move: That the report be adopted. I table the explanatory memorandum in respect of the Committee amendments. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-read a third time. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(5.58) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of air movements cargo hangar at RAAF Base, Richmond, New South Wales. The proposed work that is now before the House, as I said, was referred to the Public Works Committee on 26 February 1987. It is for the construction of a new facility to house the cargo handling operations for the Royal Australian Air Force's air transport squadrons located at RAAF Base Richmond. Richmond is the home base for the RAAF's air transport force. It is the main distribution point for RAAF cargo destined for shipment within Australia and overseas. Cargo operations are currently carried out in an old aircraft hangar constructed in 1955. It is inadequate in size and functionally inappropriate for modern storage and handling techniques. Since air movements occupied the hangar in 1962 there has been a threefold increase in the amount of cargo handled. The number of air transport squadrons has also increased from one to four. This has led to substantial cargo operating inefficiencies in the confined hangar. The proposed work will commence with the demolition of existing redundant facilities on the site, including a diesel generator, air traffic control masts and underground services. The new building will house receipt, dispatch, processing and storage areas, with associated administrative and staff facilities. Specialised equipment and racking to provide an automated pallet processing system will be installed. The work also includes the construction of an access road, parking areas and hardstand. The estimated cost of the work is $10.34m at February 1987 prices. When the House referred this proposal to the Public Works Committee, I think the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) misunderstood some aspects of my speech. The honourable member considered that the cost of the work had increased and would continue to increase until construction was completed, based on an estimate from the explanations for estimates of expenditure for 1986-87. This estimate was $10.1m, but was in April 1986 prices as required for Budget purposes. As I have stated, the updated estimate of $10.34m is in February 1987 prices. This estimates not only reflects the effects of inflation since April 1986 but also involves a real reduction in the cost estimate through a reduction in the scope of the work. There is no requirement now to increase the scope of the work. Its final cost will reflect only inflationary pressures and not any real cost increases beyond the proposal's budget. It is intended to call tenders in March 1988 for construction to commence in May 1988. The works should be completed by mid-1990. Consultants will be engaged to undertake the design of the facility. Actual construction is to be contracted to private enterprise in accordance with my Department's normal practice. The construction of the work will employ a work force ranging between 15 and 50. I would like to thank the Public Works Committee for the support it has given to this proposal. I commend the motion to the House. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(6.02) —The Opposition does not oppose the motion. This proposal has gone through the procedures of this Parliament, unlike those which were brought before the Parliament last week. On one occasion, a motion relating to the embassy in Japan was moved and in, fact, carried over the protests of the Opposition. No defence commitment was involved on that occasion. It was a question of the Government needing to sell some of its overseas property for the purpose of getting some cash in the bin so that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) could carry out his mini-Budget commitment which he told us was a matter of cutting expenditure, whereas it appears that the bulk of the savings will come from selling our assets, particularly those in Tokyo. While I would concern myself with cutting expenditure in some of our embassies and embassy property, in view of the importance of Japan to us in the area of trade and so on, I certainly would not consider our expenditures on the embassy in Japan or the property we hold in Japan a misplacement of Australian taxpayers' money. Nevertheless, that proposal was forced through this Parliament. Justice resides only in the numbers in this place. I am pleased to see that the proposal before us has gone through the proper processes of this Parliament. I congratulate the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) on that. I am sure that had he had his way on the proposals which he brought before the Parliament last week they also would have gone through the proper processes with due consultation and investigation by the Joint Committee on Public Works, which I am sure you would agree, Mr Deputy Speaker, is a very important committee of this place. It is probably almost as important as one of the committees in which you are involved. It is a committee that is a watch-dog for the Australian people. It ensures that the people's rights are protected, because a huge amount of their taxes goes into projects of this nature. We know that the Committee has approved of this proposal. The Government has brought it to the Parliament in the proper fashion, the Parliament has sent it to the Committee and the Committee has reported favourably. The proposal would appear to have merit because it will improve the capacity of the Royal Australian Air Force to deliver the goods-quite literally in this case, because storerooms and specialised equipment and racking to provide an automated pallet processing system will be installed. High technology is involved in terms of equipment and goods storage. Obviously the proposal will save the Government money in the future in terms of its costs and wages. Of course, the Government needs to save some money now on defence because part of its infamous mini-Budget was to cut $350m from the expenditure of the Department of Defence. The Government intends to make the cuts not in areas such as the one which the Minister brings before us today but in areas of recurrent expenditure-the operations side. The Government has told us quite clearly that there will be no cuts in capital works, such as this proposal, which means that it can continue to have its submarines built, of which it is so keen to make political capital. I guess that the Government will be able to conclude the purchase of the FA18s-the aircraft which we need to defend our country. But the question that must be asked now is: How many people will there be to fly those aircraft and how many skilled submariners will there be to go in those wonderful new submarines, as a result of the pressure that the Government is putting on the personnel within the organisation of our defence establishment? The proposal obviously will make life better for personnel in the defence establishment because it will give them better working conditions and a mechanisation which will reduce the load that they would otherwise have to bear. I hope that the proposal is not an indication that the Government will approve of the rather foolish arrangement of limiting the amount which people may lift to 16 kilograms. That was a recommendation of one of the quangos which the Government created at a cost, as I recall, of about $40m a year and which the Opposition opposed at the time-that is, the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. We felt that the State governments had plenty of money to spend on such things. The Commission's first recommendation to us which would be applicable in the proposed storerooms is that no human being should lift an item weighing more than 16 kilograms. The weight limit of a bag which people can carry on aircraft on an interstate or international flight happens to be 16 kilograms. I have seen slips of girls arguing like steam with people behind the check-in counters because their bag is about 10 kilograms over the permitted weight and they are trying not to pay excess baggage. Those girls are able to throw their bags on to the check-in scales with no trouble at all. Yet, a Government department says that no strong man should do such a thing. The proposal provides for a high degree of mechanisation and, therefore, people will not be required to do a lot of personal lifting. However, I hope that the men and women working in that facility will not be subjected to a stupid law which suggests that 16 kilograms is all that we human beings can handle. We know that we can handle more. The proposal talks of inflationary pressures. I think that we must query that. The Minister has told us that, whereas last year the cost of the proposal was $10.1m, it is now $10.34m and that is the result, purely and simply, of inflation and does not represent the inflation component in full. The Minister has said that the Government has had to cut back on the proposal because of inflation. If the facility were built in Germany it would be able to be built for $10.1m, with all the goodies. There is no inflation in Germany. There is very little inflation in the United States of America and in other countries. It is only Australia, under the Hawke Government, that has inflation. Australia has an inflation rate of 9 per cent and it is now impacting on government, as the Minister described. If the builder or any of his contractors have to borrow money they will pay 20 per cent interest on it; whereas a contractor in Germany gets it for about 5 per cent and a contractor in Japan for about 3 per cent. Having made those brief remarks. I draw the Government's attention to the fact that if it were a better manager it would get the building more cheaply and that would be to the benefit of taxpayers. It goes round the full circle. When there is an incompetent government which cannot manage the economy, which lets inflation and interest rates blow out, taxpayers-in this case the military establishment-pay for that and, eventually, we get a lesser building. The Opposition does not oppose the proposal. It wishes the Minister well and hopes that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) will come up with some new ideas to contain inflation so that the cost does not blow out too much. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 14 May, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate this Bill concurrently with the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner Bill and the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner (Consequential Provisions) Bill. As there is no objection, the Chair will allow this course to be followed. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(6.12) —The Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill, the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner Bill and the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner (Consequential Provisions) Bill basically arise because of the action by the trade union movement dating back to September 1985. Later I will explain what the history of the matter is. Since then, the Government has been issuing Press releases on the standards to be applied to the conduct of superannuation funds. People have had to try to make decisions on the basis of those Press releases and without the benefit of legislation. This has been a practice of this Government. It introduced a wide range of tax measures in a mere statement in September 1985, and it took months and months for the legislation to come through. People were not able to order their affairs on the basis of any legislation. The same thing has happened with the media; statements were made about new rules of media ownership and people risked enormous sums of money without the basis of legislation and, in that case, took great risks. In this case, all those whose job it is to carry out in an orderly fashion the conduct of superannuation funds have been relying for months and months-in fact, since the Government put out a Press release in December 1985-on a series of Press releases in order to make satisfactory judgments on people's assets for their retirements. We are now running into the last few weeks before an election. This legislation will not be dealt with by the Senate during this sitting because it was not introduced into the Senate by 1 June. The Government must be sorely embarrassed by the fact that the industry, which has been screaming for some sort of legislative base for its activities, will, once again, be disappointed by the headlong rush of this Government into a premature election. That is why the House of Representatives is now looking at this Bill. It obviously will not be passed by the Parliament before it is dissolved. Mr Hurford —With your assistance, I think we can get it through. Mr CARLTON —The Minister at the table says it can get through with my assistance. The problem is that the Senate is absolutely jam packed with legislation. Senators are being asked to debate quite important legislation within a matter of two or three hours at the most for each Bill. They have expressed their extreme concern about this, and it is unlikely that they will accept this legislation, however much we would like the framework to be in place. That is the problem of the Government; it is responsible for the delay in bringing this Bill before the House. It has had a long time to do so. Since its original statement in December 1985, the Government has had 18 months or more to bring down this legislation and now, at the last gasp, it is brought before the Parliament. The first set of changes the package of Bills brings about is the appointment and setting up of an office of the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner. This is a new body. There is an abolition of the current statutory positions of the Insurance Commissioner and the Life Insurance Commissioner. Earlier, it was foreshadowed that an Office of Occupational Superannuation Commissioner be set up separately, but that proposal has been dropped. The two insurance commissioners and the Government actuary will be included in the new office. The Opposition has no quarrel with bringing them all into the one office and the one statutory area. It seems to be a sensible rationalisation, except that I draw the attention of the Minister for Community Services and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford) to the added costs that have been incurred in doing this. An interesting letter appeared in the Australian Financial Review of Monday, 1 June from Mr Ray Stevens, Director, Mercer Campbell Cook and Knight of Melbourne. I will read the letter because it makes a very important argument: Sir, When a bill is introduced into Parliament these days, it must be accompanied by a statement on the costs involved in implementing the proposal set out in the bill. This requirement has the commendable objective of assisting the Parliament to decide whether the costs involved in implementing and maintaining the proposals submitted are justified by the bill's objectives. On May 14, 1987 the introduction of three bills relating to insurance and superannuation demonstrated that the Public Service treats these requirements as a joke. Two of the bills relate to establishment of the new office of insurance and superannuation commissioner. Under this commissioner there will be three deputy commissioners, each with his own department. Two of these departments already exist, operating as the offices of the Insurance Commissioner and the Life Insurance Commissioner (Occupational Superannuation). An interim group established a year ago in anticipation of Parliament's approval of the Occupational Superannuation Commissioner's office has grown like wildfire. Some of its functions were intended to replace existing Tax Department activities. Avoidance of duplication has not, however, worked in practice. For example, new trust deeds and trust deed amendments must now be sent to both the Tax Department and the Interim Group, instead of just the Tax Department, with each requiring completion of a different questionnaire. In spite of this the bills presented to Parliament contain a financial impact statement claiming that the only additional expenditure will be the remuneration to be paid to the new commissioner. ``The integration of insurance, superannuation and actuarial functions should improve efficiency and provide savings.'' Mr Stevens was then quoting from the Minister's second reading speech. The letter continued: With two existing departments continuing as at present, and a third new department being added, this claim shows the public servants are treating the requirements of Parliament as a joke. However, the statement which really takes the cake appears in the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill. Under this bill it is proposed that a fee be paid by each superannuation fund to recover the costs of administering the supervisory requirements. ``it is therefore anticipated that generally there will be no net cost to the Commonwealth,'' says the financial impact statement. In other words, if the cost of a new government department can be directly passed on to the community, the Parliament can ignore the cost when deciding whether the expanded public service is justified! An initial levy of $30 a fund, estimated to raise $6 million a year, is proposed under this third bill-to cover costs which the statements presented with two of the three bills suggest will be covered by improved efficiency. It seems unlikely that any of the variety of Opposition groups will question the need for this legislation. It just goes to show you can fool some of the people some of the time, but the only people you can fool all of the time are Federal members of Parliament. I inform Mr Ray Stevens that the Opposition is taking up this matter and it considers his arguments to be of some force, perhaps greater than he might think. In January, the Minister for Community Services and Minister assisting the Treasurer wrote to the life insurance industry suggesting that not only should there be an initial $30 a fund levy but also another levy on the industry to cover the cost of regulation. The Minister suggested that this would happen and he sought the views of the industry. The industry objected very strongly to that, calling a supervisory levy an unprecedented, selective and discriminatory tax. It was envisaged that the cost of a levy might be a couple of million dollars. Does this mean that every time some regulatory requirement on an industry is set up, a tax or charge on that industry is made to cover the cost of the regulatory body so that we can say to the Parliament, as pointed out by Mr Stevens, that it is not really costing anything or the financial impact of this is nil, because an additional cost is actually being imposed on an industry. The additional cost might not be borne directly by the taxpayer, but that is not very useful. The cost is obviously passed to the consumers through the higher charges that must be paid for the administration and so on of these funds. My colleague the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) will be moving a couple of amendments relating to the office of the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner. The Liberal Party will be supporting those amendments. I will leave it to the honourable member for Richmond to describe his amendments. In the relatively limited time I have available let me go to the substance of the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill. This is an important issue. The background of this is that on 4 September 1985 the Government came to an agreement with the Australian Council of Trade Unions under the accord mark 2 whereby the unions were to obtain for their members through the conciliation and arbitration system a 3 per cent disguised wage increase, called a productivity increase, which would be in the form of superannuation contributions by employers on behalf of employees. This was a deal stitched up between the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the ACTU to disguise a wage increase which was over and above what was economically justified. It was necessary for the Treasurer to present a front to the financial community to try to say that the wage increase that was being granted, which was clearly in advance of wage increases being granted by our competitors overseas, was somehow not a wage increase. So it was called a productivity increase and it was to be paid in the form of superannuation. The ACTU pulled an old policy objective out of the drawer in order to accommodate the Treasurer on that point. On 16 December 1985, before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission had made any decision, the Government published guidelines and draft operating standards for occupational superannuation funds. On 11 June 1986, some six months later, the Government published comprehensive standards for these funds to meet the requirements of the Australian Taxation Office so that the funds would enjoy the tax concessions that are available to superannuation funds. Unfortunately for the Government, on 26 June 1986, shortly after these comprehensive standards had been issued, the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission came out with a rather confused decision, a typical political fudge of that body, in which it said that it was not prepared to agree that everybody would get this 3 per cent so-called productivity increase but that it would only confirm consent arrangements between employers and unions. That meant, of course, that the more powerful unions would be able to force employers into putting money into union- controlled superannuation funds. On 30 July 1986 the Government, obviously a little concerned by this CAC refusal absolutely to toe the line, issued a further statement promising consultation with the industry. On 10 March 1987 the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, seeing the chaos that was reigning in this area because unions were bullying employers into various schemes, modified its decision and said that rather than rely on consent arrangements it would arbitrate in any particular dispute, thereby putting itself in the position to force this so-called productivity increase on the whole of the employed work force. That is the history of it. It started with a fraudulent deal between the Treasurer and the ACTU in order to disguise a wage increase. It has led to the Government scrambling along the way to try to catch up with what the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission was deciding and what the unions were pushing for in the field. The standards, in effect, have been operative from 1 July 1986 and here at last, in the dying days of the Parliament, we have some legislation which cannot get through the Senate, but we still do not have the regulations which are the real operating standards. So this Bill, on operating standards, merely sets up a framework for regulations which, of course, are subject to disallowance under the Acts Interpretation Act. We will certainly be looking very closely at those regulations when they come in to see whether we like them. We have expressed in the past our reservations about certain aspects of the standards, particularly about the preservation of benefits to age 55 and not to age 65. We will not oppose this main aspect of the Bill, but we certainly would like to have a look at the precise standards when we see the regulations. Now that they will not go through the Parliament we expect to be setting up the new regulations in government. For the record, it seems a little futile to go ahead now, given that the whole legislation will be under our control in a very short time. Nonetheless, I will proceed at the Committee stage to move two amendments. The first amendment is to clause 3, page 3. At the end of the definition of `superannuation fund', we want to add: but does not include: (c) a fund established as a result of an employer or employers being threatened, intimidated or coerced by a trade union or trade unions. In other words, for the superannuation funds to enjoy the taxation concessions that are available we would want to be certain that funds were not set up as a result of coercion. That taxation concessions would not be available to a fund if an employer who has to pay money on behalf of the employee into a fund does not agree to put the money into that fund, or if the money is put into a fund because of pressure and without the agreement of the employer, of if employees did not agree that their long term retirement money was to go into a particular fund. As far as we are concerned, that is an elementary matter of civil liberties and rights, and it is linked with our approach to industrial relations, to non-compulsory unionism. Funds such as the building unions superannuation scheme fund which have been set up as a result of coercion of employers by unions would have to be examined very closely and would be excluded from the taxation concessions if it were found that they were set up as a result of coercion. The second amendment will be to clause 7, page 6, sub-clause (2), after paragraph (j). We propose that the following paragraph be inserted: (ja) the levels of administrative fees, commissions or other deductions which may be payable from amounts contributed to superannuation funds; Here we would want to regulate these fees to ensure that money was not siphoned off by unions and used for their own purposes instead of for the genuine administration of funds by the fund managers. We believe that a very close look has to be taken at where this money is going and how it is being used-money that employees, as a matter of free choice, would rather go into a fund organised by some body other than a union, or money that employers, as a matter of free choice, would rather went into a fund other than one governed by a union. It is not a very happy thought for somebody who is looking at his or her retirement nest egg to be under the control of unions such as those in the building industry that are responsible for the BUS scheme. One does not get much of a squeal from the industry on these things because the industry likes to manage these funds. As these funds build up, the most reputable of companies become involved in the management of the funds. But the source of the funds is tainted in many cases, because they are there as a result of intimidation and, in the case of the building unions, very much by intimidation. If I had more time I would give the House a number of examples of where people have been bludgeoned on building sites and elsewhere into becoming members of these funds, of where subcontractors have been forced into these funds with employees, and where they have no choice if they are to continue to work on building sites. There are other industries where this is happening. It simply cannot be allowed to continue. Under a Liberal government it certainly will not be allowed to continue. Therefore, within the very near future we will take steps in office to prevent this kind of coercion occurring. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(8.00) —The Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill, the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner Bill and the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner (Consequential Provisions) Bill now before the House give effect to the announcements of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on 11 June, 30 July and 22 December last year. On those occasions he announced various operating standards which superannuation funds and approved deposit funds would be required to meet to be eligible for relevant taxation concessions. The most important of the three Bills we are considering tonight is the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill, but I will deal first with the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner Bill, which is designed to create the position of Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner and thereby establish an Insurance and Superannuation Commission in Australia. Certainly, as far as the superannuation industry is concerned, this is undoubtedly the most important legislation to come before Parliament in a long time. The existing statutory office holders fully support and have encouraged the Government to adopt this change in approach. There has been a change on earlier recommendations considered by the Government to establish new full commissioner positions for the administration and control of these industries, and the Government has now decided to establish one overall commissioner and a number of deputy commissioners in each of the specialist areas. The first result of this will be greater integration of the various superannuation insurance functions; and the second is that the difficulties in achieving that objective which could arise from maintaining a number of specific statutory offices will be overcome to a very large extent. The Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill provides that where the trustees of a superannuation fund or an approved deposit fund provide to the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner certain information on the operations of the fund, together with certificates as prescribed, the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner will notify the trustees of the fund whether the Commission itself is satisfied that the fund has met the relevant standards and requirements for the purpose of establishing eligibility for concessional taxation treatment. That is a fundamental question about this legislation because we know that successive governments over many years have taken advantage of the opportunity to provide in various ways taxation concessions which have been designed to encourage people, in effect, to provide for their own retirement income. This Government has taken a number of initiatives in connection with the operation of superannuation schemes and the way in which those schemes would effectively provide an income flow for people in their retirement. Of course, the most recent was an extremely important provision undertaken by this Government to tax the lump sum benefits of superannuitants in order to encourage them to take out those benefits in the form of an income flow because the taxation concessions provided by the Government had been intended to encourage them to do that. Of course, to a very large extent that objective was being frustrated because, contrary to the purpose of creating an income flow by having these people provide for their own retirement income, people were taking advantage of the accrued benefit which existed within the superannuation funds for them and taking it out in the form of a lump sum benefit. So, in effect, we were providing very extensive taxation benefits to make it possible for people when they retired to upgrade the standard of their homes, buy a new motor vehicle, a weekender or a launch or take a trip overseas. All of those things are quite commendable in themselves but they are certainly not the purpose for which those taxation concessions and arrangements were provided. So now we are encouraging the use of superannuation benefits and entitlements for the purposes for which they were originally intended. The other part, in addition to the creation of the Commission, is the creation of certain standards, as I have indicated, that will guarantee that superannuation funds qualify for the taxation concessions which are available. They will be required to satisfy conditions in a number of different areas. First, standards are created for improvement in the vesting provisions of superannuation; that is, the extent to which particularly employers' contributions towards the funds will be retained by employees for the benefit of employees. Secondly, there are improved requirements governing the extent to which the interest of the employee will be preserved in the accumulating benefit within the fund. There are improved portability arrangements so that when employees who have contributed to superannuation funds and have in turn had their employers contribute on their behalf move from one occupation to another their accrued benefit within the fund is portable and can move with them. Thirdly, there are measures to ensure greater member involvement in the control of superannuation funds and, despite many quite spurious and in some cases malicious accusations and claims that have been peddled by members of the Opposition about the total operation of these new arrangements and the extent to which unions may or may not be in a position to control what will undoubtedly prove in the future to be very substantial sums of money, the Government is now providing, in the arrangements which it is now introducing, for equal representation by the employers and employees. Why should that not be so? Both groups contribute and both have an interest in the effectiveness with which those funds operate; and both are entitled to have some say as to the extent to which and the way in which the funds are controlled. But if there was any concern about the way in which the funds would be directed and the way in which they would be utilised, that concern is also overcome by the fact that these provisions not only ensure improved security for members' benefits but also ensure that the direction of those funds and their investment will be determined on the basis of commercial considerations. We have heard some nonsense from members of the Opposition. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) suggested that one of his amendments is directed towards ensuring that money is not siphoned off to the trade unions. That is an absurd proposition. It is offensive not only to trade unions and to employees who themselves are involved in and contribute towards these funds but also to the capacity of employer representatives, who will have at least 50 per cent of the controlling interest over those funds and the direction of their investment. If the best that the Opposition can do in relation to legislation of this kind is to come up with quite ridiculous, unnecessary and offensive amendments, it really needs to re-examine its position on these questions. Apart from some members of the Opposition, no one denies that these Bills take into account recent consultations between the Government and industry representatives. Those consultations on the regulations are continuing even at this stage, and they will continue into the future. If there are any blemishes, they will show themselves and undoubtedly the Government has sufficient interest to ensure that any residual difficulties or blemishes that may exist are hauled out of the system so that it can operate as intended. Of course, the Commission will better reflect the growing importance of the insurance and superannuation industries to the national economy. Some people, particularly people in private funds and private arrangements, may have felt threatened about the future of the section 23fb funds. They are the private funds which provide for their contributors, for the people who participate, the benefit of up to $1,500 in taxation deductions each year, depending on the value of the contribution that they make. The Government has made it perfectly clear that it sees a continued and important role for those section 23fb funds both as vehicles for portability of superannuation benefits and as one of the types of funds eligible for the receipt of productivity payments if agreed between the relevant parties. The Government has also made it perfectly clear that it wants to allay the concerns expressed in some of the submissions on the earlier published draft standards with respect to the continued availability of the $1,500 taxation deduction for unsupported personal contributions to those funds. It is possible that, in future, we may need to re-examine that limit. It is important that a limit exists, but substantial benefits accrue to the public sector by encouraging individuals to make their own arrangements for retirement income. Madam Deputy Speaker, there is general recognition that, despite-- Madam SPEAKER —It is Madam Speaker; I keep being demoted. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I am sorry, Madam Speaker. There is continuing recognition that the taxation benefits available to encourage people to participate in superannuation funds are substantial, and that is still the case despite the fact that, recently, provision has been made for an adjustment in the way in which lump sum benefits are taxed. Undoubtedly, superannuation is one of the most tax effective investments available, and should be near the top of every investor's list of options. Yet, despite the potential benefits for some people, the decision to join a superannuation scheme can turn out to be a costly mistake. Too often people, especially those in the non-public sector major superannuation funds, make inadequate preparation and inquiries into the details and circumstances of the funds that they eventually enter. Some of the operators of those funds have a lot to answer for in that regard. In many respects, the existing provisions are confusing, so people need to obtain expert advice. In addition, some place far too much emphasis on the commission that can accrue to the salesman in the field flogging the schemes. Naturally enough, his chief purpose is to sell the schemes that provide the greatest commission. There is a great deal of confusion, and many unnecessary mistakes are made when people enter schemes. They are certainly matters to which consideration should be given. In 1983, a survey was conducted among employees seeking advice about the considerations in their employment that they thought to be the more important. One especially interesting result was that 84 per cent of the work force considered superannuation to be the most important benefit that an employer could offer. The revenue that is forgone at the Commonwealth level because of the taxation concessions which successive governments have accepted in order to encourage people to participate in superannuation schemes amounts to about $3,000m every year. That has encouraged some people to suggest that because only about 50 per cent of the total work force contribute to superannuation funds, and as the total work force consists of about six million people, three million people are taking advantage of the $3,000m a year taxation benefits that are designed to encourage them to participate in the funds. That works out at a benefit per participant of about $1,000 a year. It may be that $3,000m appears to be substantial, but an individual benefit averaging $1,000 a year ceases to be quite so significant, especially if we take account of the ultimate benefit not only to the participant in providing for a flow of retirement income in excess of the flow of income that he could expect to obtain from an old age pension, but also to the public sector because of the reduced burden on it of providing additional retirement incomes. Although concerns are expressed from time to time about the imposition on government revenue and government fiscal policy of the taxation benefits for superannuation funds, in the long run it is generally accepted that the benefits are appropriate and should be kept in place. There is one matter to which I wish to draw particular attention in the time left to me. The Government's position on superannuation and the operation of the funds has been made perfectly clear. Our approach towards superannuation funds, the standards applied, the conditions related to the direction of those funds and the appropriate forms of taxation concessions that should relate to them, has probably been the most comprehensive and fruitful of any government-and to a much greater and better extent. I am concerned that a threat has been made against the superannuation funds. The Opposition has indicated that their investment income is likely to be taxed. Such a policy has been resisted for a long time. The superannuation funds themselves are concerned about the implications of such a policy, and the operators of the private funds that make special provision for individual employees who are not covered by other types of superannuation arrangements have felt threatened. Now, it appears that they have good cause. We know that there is a $16,000m credibility gap between the undertakings given by the Opposition and its capacity to raise funds to finance those undertakings. Of course, that $16,000m must be financed in some way. I ask the Opposition whether the threat to tax the investment income of superannuation funds is part of the hidden agenda to help to finance that $16,000m credibility gap. I think it likely that it is. As I have said, $3,000m of that credibility gap between the Opposition's commitments and its capacity to finance them could be eliminated in one fell swoop by removing the $3,000m taxation concession. Those 50 per cent of employees-wage and salary earners throughout the whole Australia-who now have superannuation benefits need to take on board very seriously the possibility that the investment income of those superannuation funds would be taxed if the two parties on the Opposition benches were ever to come to government. There was an article on superannuation in the Sydney Morning Herald today, showing the contrast when a person with, say, a $10,000 a year salary increase chooses to save it in the normal way or to invest it in superannuation. The difference, as a result of the taxation concessions, is this: The benefit to the person who saves in the normal way and is taxed at a marginal rate of 40c in the dollar after 30 years would be about $790,000. But if the $10,000 a year is put into superannuation, with all the taxation benefits that result from that, the figure is about $2.5m. So those people who have taken out superannuation should make sure that their interests are not ripped off them by a political party that would tax their benefits. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(8.20) —It is normally a pleasure to follow the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown). He is one of the few members on the Government benches who have an understanding of economics. Tonight, I suppose, given a very difficult subject, he did his best to defend a fairly ragtag policy. The only thing I would deplore about his comments tonight was that the last few minutes of his remarks degenerated into a bit of cheap political point scoring about an issue which he knows is pure speculation. It really does not do credit to his reputation either as an economist or as a debater in this chamber. One point that the honourable member for Charlton made is worth restating-that is, that superannuation is very important to all people in Australia. It is also very important to a government in planning fiscal policy for the future. The demographic studies of the Australian population indicate that from about 2010 we will have a very large retired population. At that point the cost of financing retirement income for those people will be very high if it devolves completely on the public sector. It is for that reason that we must act now, and we must act decisively now, to ensure that we have an adequate superannuation policy in this country to allow people to plan for their retirement years. It takes 25 to 35 years to provide for one's retirement. Over a working lifetime, unless one starts fairly early to plan for retirement, the benefit that will be available will be inadequate to maintain the standard of living to which most people aspire or have become accustomed to during their working lives. The honourable member for Charlton made reference to the legislation that we are debating tonight. It is a cognate debate involving three pieces of legislation that have bearing on superannuation, retirement income and insurance-the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill 1987, the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner Bill 1987 and the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1987. He also made reference to the fact that the legislation enacts statements made by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in June, July and December 1986. I wonder how much priority the Government attaches to superannuation when since June 1986 we have had planning for people's retirement, which takes 35 years, based on a Press release. That is the sort of priority that the Government has. It issues Press releases because it has been pushed into a corner by the demands of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, which has its own motives in the superannuation debate. In the dying hours of this Parliament, just before this Government is defeated, legislation is introduced which the honourable member for Charlton knows will lapse because it will not be introduced in the Senate this week before Parliament is prorogued. I guess the honourable member did a sterling job. He debated with some enthusiasm the significance of this legislation, knowing full well that it will lapse. It will have to be brought back in the new Parliament by a new government and it will reflect a new philosophy on superannuation. As I said, superannuation is very important. For that reason it is very important that the guidelines and framework established by a government for superannuation planning are first class; that they are equitable and fair; and that people who are putting a fairly sizable proportion of their weekly or monthly earnings into a superannuation plan can count on the Government's policy in that area. Since June last year we have had policy by Press release-much akin to the Government's policy on media amalgamation. Some people invested hundreds of millions of dollars in the area of media amalgamation on the basis of a Press release. Not everybody is in the category of people who are buying television networks. Some people have a far more modest approach to saving and planning for their retirement. They are the sort of people who are putting 3 per cent of their weekly earnings into superannuation funds. That is the figure that the Government has agreed with the ACTU. What the Government has not told people who are putting that money aside is that 3 per cent is totally inadequate to provide a reasonable superannuation payout in order to sustain a reason- able standard of living on their retirement. The honourable member for Charlton made comments about the need to ensure that superannuation is preserved to provide retirement income. What he did not mention was that the preservation provisions of the Government's deal with the ACTU refer to age 55. At 55 a person can get superannuation. He could probably spend the fairly modest amount that 3 per cent will accumulate for him in the five years between ages 55 and 60. He will then have a need for further support and the burden, unless something is done about this Government's superannuation policy, will come back to the public sector. For the `public sector', read the `Australian taxpayer of the day'. As I said previously, in about 2010 the burden of financing retirement income in this country will be considerably more than it is at present. There are a number of problems with the legislation that is before us tonight. If one listened to Government speakers, one would believe that there was absolutely nothing wrong with it and that it was the subject of unanimous support from the entire industry. That is not the case. On Friday, 29 May, in the Melbourne Herald there was an article about superannuation which referred to the legislation that we are currently debating. It states: . . . the Occupational Superannuation Commissioner . . . who will have the power of administering the new and complex rules on superannuation. That section will cost an extra $6 million-which will be paid for by a $30 levy on each superannuation fund to cover the estimated costs. But the Government has not done any estimate of the cost of the extra facilities and administration that will arise from the provisions of this legislation, should it go through this Parliament. The article continues: . . . the superannuation industry believes that there could be another 300 public servants . . . in addition to the 200 now employed in the area. So there are 200 at present and another 300 will have to be hired. It is almost like the fringe benefits tax or the assets test. The Government seems to be quite confused about how it will actually administer this question of superannuation. In fact, leading actuaries Mercer Campbell Cook and Knight Pty Ltd have stated that the method that the Government has chosen will become almost impossible to administer within a few years. In its opinion it will have to be replaced. The actuaries' argument only concerns the method. They, like every member on this side, have no argument with the need to have effective guidelines for superannuation and to ensure that the principal of preserving benefits is adhered to. The Institute of Actuaries has put forward an alternative approach which it thinks the Government should consider. This involves dropping some of the calculations which are enshrined in this legislation in adopting a totally different approach. I mention that point because it is very important for those people who are listening. A large proportion of those people who are listening to the broadcast of this debate tonight would be participants in superannuation schemes. It is their future, their savings and their retirement standards of living that we are talking about in this legislation. There are a number of aspects of this legislation that are of concern to us. I mentioned that the Government is pretending that everybody agrees with its approach to it. It has certainly not achieved the unanimous agreement of all people who have an interest in the industry. The Life Underwriters Association has constantly corresponded with just about everybody in the Government that it can think of to try to put its point of view on this very important subject. It has written to the Commissioner of Taxation, the Treasurer and the Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford), who I see is in the chamber tonight. It has not received a response from anybody. Mr Hurford —That is not true. Mr BLUNT —The Minister says that that is not true. That is the information that has been given to me. I am quite sure that if it has received a response, it will communicate that to me. It raised a number of very important issues in that correspondence which should be laid before the public. One of those is the situation where overfunding occurs. That will be a more frequent occurrence as a result of the deal that the Australian Labor Party has done with the ACTU on superannuation. Many people in Australia have-or had prior to the Simon Crean, Gary Weaven, Bill Kelty deal, on superannuation-their own private superannuation plans, either in conjunction with an employer or privately through a superannuation fund. Under our taxation arrangements there is a limit on contributions and benefits that can be made to these funds. Overfunding arises when, as a result of this new deal-it is about 3 per cent-a person gets a pay-in and a pay-out which is above the limits that have currently been established. The Life Underwriters Association wrote to the Commissioner of Taxation on 25 March and raised this very important issue. It stated in part: To adequately advise our members and their clients, the LUA would appreciate your advice on the following: 1. When overfunding occurs will tax concessions be lost to the `union sponsored fund' as the cause of the overfunding- because that is the most recent fund- or to the other fund(s) involved, or both'? As I have said, it is my understanding that there has been no answer to that very important question. Secondly, it raised the question of what action can be taken by a taxpayer who is already funding the maximum benefits but who is coerced into joining a union sponsored fund. Members of the Australian Labor Party will say that there is no coercion. But let me tell them that one has only to drive around our community and look at some of the stickers that the Transport Workers Union of Australia and other trade unions are using to promote their superannuation funds to see that there is coercion and that people will not be allowed on to certain sites or into certain jobs unless they are members of a union sponsored superannuation fund, notwithstanding the fact that they may have already contributed to the maximum to some other private or employer sponsored fund. This is a very important issue and we still have no answer from the Government. The third question put was: Can employers pay superannuation contributions for self-employed contractors? The fourth question was: If coercion can be proved, are the trustees of a trade union sponsored fund in breach of their duties as trustees if a taxpayer is forced to join a trade union sponsored fund and in so doing that taxpayer is overfunded? Those four questions should be answered by this Government because they are very important. They are important not only to the general determination of superannuation policy; they are very important to the tax status and to the retirement planning status of those people who are making contributions to those funds. That is just one example of some of the very complex issues in this whole superannuation question which have been inadequately dealt with by this Government. One classic example of the Government's inadequacy in this area is its determination to move ahead to ensure that future regulations for superannuation funds and what are known as approved deposit funds will be established by regulation, not legislation. Let me say that we in the National Party of Australia believe that something that is so important to many millions of Australians, something that takes 35 years to put in place, something that determines whether one's efforts over a working life will be successful during one's retirement-whether one is to have a happy and content retirement or whether one will be reduced to penury-should not be able to be changed at the whim of regulation. If it takes a long time to plan for one's retirement, it should take a substantial effort for a government of the day to change the rules affecting a superannuation fund or an approved deposit fund. We do not believe it is appropriate for people's life savings-that is what we are talking about in superannuation and approved deposit funds-to be changed by regulation. If the changes or the guidelines that the Government proposes from time to time for superannuation funds and ADFs are so significant to individuals, surely this Government and any government should be prepared to come back into the Parliament and put the legislation to a debate-not simply to make the changes by way of regulation, by delegated legislation. That is totally unacceptable. I should add that we are concerned at some of the administrative procedures that the Government envisages. We believe that the proposed term of seven years for the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner is too long. We suggest that five years would be more than adequate to attract a person of the necessary calibre. We recognise that it is an important statutory office but we are concerned that from time to time there may be a tendency by governments to make political appointments. Seven years represents two and a bit terms of this Parliament; that is a long time. We believe that five years is a far more appropriate term of office. It is still sufficient for a person of sufficient calibre to administer the office adequately and make sure that policy is implemented and administration effective. Seven years is too long. We are also concerned at some of the bureaucratic approaches and the excuses for inactivity that have been slipped into this legislation. In the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill there is a proposal that, where the Commission finds that a fund does not meet a particular guideline, there is a right of appeal. The appeal has to be made within 21 days of the ruling. Currently, following lodgment of one's tax return with the Australian Taxation Office, one has 60 days in which to appeal. The provision of 21 days is a reduction. We do not think that is on. Superannuation is complex and there is a need to consult trustees, change deeds, et cetera. But the 21-day reduction is not the most significant provision. The most significant provision is that if after that appeal is lodged the Commission does not take a decision within 21 days, it is deemed that the original determination is upheld. What an excuse for bureaucratic inaction! If one puts in an appeal and nothing is done about it, the original decision is confirmed. That is just a Claytons appeal procedure. We will formally move an amendment at the Committee stage. As I have said, this Bill will lapse because the Parliament will be prorogued on Friday-- Mr Hurford —Not if we have your support. We can get it through. We will listen to your amendments. Mr BLUNT —If the Government accepts our amendments, we will be more than happy. But fancy giving bureaucrats an excuse not to do anything. What sort of government would bring in that sort of provision to the Parliament and say: `You have 21 days. If you do nothing in those 21 days, we will let you off the hook'? Then the trustees of the superannuation fund would have to go to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Heaven only knows what the backlog in the AAT is at this time since we have abolished the taxation boards of review and every tax appeal now goes to the AAT at the princely cost of $200. We think that is fundamentally wrong. It is not the right approach to superannuation. But it is the same sort of approach that allows this Government to cave in to the demands of the trade union movement. We have seen a lot of rhetoric come from the Government benches about how the Government is really concerned to address the retirement income funding problem, how it is really concerned to provide adequate superannuation for the people of Australia, the workers of Australia, and to extend the coverage of superannuation right throughout the community. Let me say that I have no argument with any of those objectives. They are laudable objectives and they are supported by every member of the National Party. Mr Connolly —And the Liberal Party. Mr BLUNT —And they are supported by the Liberal Party of Australia. What we are absolutely concerned about is that in doing this the Government is handing to the trade union movement, just as it did with the industrial relations legislation which was withdrawn earlier this week, another club with which to belt the Australian community about the ears. The Government has said that 50 per cent of the trustees will represent workers. But unfortunately, in this Government's dictionary, workers are members of trade unions. That is not true. At present less than 50 per cent of workers are members of trade unions. What we should have is a bit of genuine industrial democracy, which is not government by the ACTU of the ACTU for the ACTU. What it is really about is providing the people who put their money into those funds with some say in the way in which that money is managed. Of course, the obligations of a trustee are to manage the funds to maximise the return for the trustees. It is not so long ago that we saw in the popular Press throughout Australia calls by trade union leaders to pull money out of certain investments and put it into other selected causes. That was for political reasons, either that they did not like the South African regime which was repugnant, or that they felt that there was not enough activity in the housing industry and that there was an absolute need to put more money into the housing industry, or that they thought they should be funding some sort of fantasy theme land out in the western suburbs of Sydney. All of those decisions are decisions taken on a whim or a fancy or for political reasons-not because they maximise the return on the funds or because they maximise the returns for the people paying into these funds, but because they give the trade unions who are putting those trustees on those funds more leverage, more industrial muscle and more clout within the industrial system and the Australian economy. a Can honourable members imagine a situation in which the ACTU had control of the majority of superannuation funds throughout Australia? The whim of Simon Crean, Bill Kelty or anyone who happens to succeed them would determine the investment decisions on billions of dollars in this community-not a rational basis to maximise return, not on a basis that would ensure that the Australian economy had an adequate supply of funds into those areas of our community that need to be developed because the market says: `That is the optimum place for us to grow and that will increase the standard of living of all Australians, make sure that our gross domestic product grows at a competitive rate with the rest of the world, make sure that our industries are competitive and make sure that we can export'. Heaven only knows where Treasurer Keating's J-curve would be if it were up to the ACTU to decide the investment priorities of some of the major superannuation funds. The investments would not go anywhere near the industries that his Government would prefer. They would go on politically popular causes. What we must have in this country is fair dinkum superannuation-superannuation that does not have Simon Crean and Bill Kelty with their fingers in the pie; superannuation that gives genuine representation to the people who are contributing to the funds; superannuation that provides an adequate pay-out at the end of a working life-not some Clayton's superannuation that provides an inadequate pay-out at 55 and that does not address the public policy issue of funding retirement income in the year 2010. This Government's policy is totally inadequate. It does not know where it is going. That is why in this legislation we have the statement in clauses 7 and 8 of the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill that guidelines will be determined by regulation. The reason they are not being determined by legislation is that the Government does not know where it is going. Press releases were rushed out in June and July of 1986. At this point the Government still does not have a legislative framework for superannuation guidelines in Australia. That is how well thought out its superannuation policy is, and it underlines again that we are in the mess we are in now because Simon Crean and Bill Kelty call the shots for this Government. They call the shots for superannuation, they call the shots for taxation and they call the shots for industrial legislation. They are even determining this Government's foreign policy. It is not good enough for the many millions of people in Australia who are relying on a responsible government to provide decent guidelines for their retirement income planning. Mr BURR(Lyons)(8.40) —The exercise by the Government in bringing forward the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill, the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner Bill and the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner (Consequential Provisions) Bill, in my view, is nothing more than an exercise in futility. I say that because all of us in this chamber know full well that even if these Bills are passed by this House they will not go forward to the Senate. This package of Bills cannot be passed into legislation. Mr Hurford —Why? Mr BURR —It cannot become law because this Parliament will be dissolved before this legislation becomes law. If the purpose of the exercise is not to put legislation and laws on the statute book, what is the intention of the Government in bringing it forward? I believe, as I believe does the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), that the purpose of the Government in bringing this legislation forward is to prove its bona fides with the trade union movement. The Government knows that it cannot pass this legislation into law and therefore its second objective is to prove to the trade union movement that it is trying to do the right thing by it so that it can maintain its support during the election campaign. Why does the Government want to retain the support of the trade union movement? Is its only intention in this regard to put forward legislation in relation to superannuation funding or does the Government have other intentions in mind? What is the strategy behind the Government's moves? In a debate on a Bill presented to this House earlier I believe that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) made a master gaffe. To my mind, it exposed the strategy that this Government is using in conjunction with its coalition partners in the Australian Council of Trade Unions. In the second reading speech on that earlier Bill, which has not yet passed into law-the Industrial Relations Bill 1987-the Minister had this to say: The Bill now before the House is not, therefore, to be seen in isolation. It is part of a comprehensive industrial relations strategy which has already demonstrated its effectiveness. The measures contained in this legislation will ensure that the effectiveness of that strategy is further enhanced. I believe that the Bill now being debated by this House is part of that grand strategy that the Minister was talking about at that time. He was putting before this House certain measures, the effect of which would have been quite dramatic and quite draconian in the field of industrial relations. But he talked also of a grand strategy that both this Government and its coalition partners in the ACTU were quite actively pursuing. I believe that this legislation in relation to superannuation funds and the way in which those funds will be used is part of that grand strategy that the Minister talked about. There really is not very much in the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill. The lack of detail and the lack of exposure by the Government make me very concerned about this Bill and what the Government may have in mind. This Bill establishes an Insurance and Superannuation Commission, but it does not go into any detail as to what that Commission will do. It does not give any detail as to how the funds that are contributed to superannuation schemes will be handled. We are told in the Minister's second reading speech that all of that will be handled by regulation, but we are yet to be told what will be contained in those regulations. I have great fear because regulations can slip through this Parliament without any consideration being given to their detail. But that is what is intended in this Bill. The Government is simply setting up a commission and then saying to this House and to the people of Australia: `Don't you worry about that'-we have heard that before-`all the detail will be contained in the regulations'. I wish the Government would come clean and tell us exactly what it has in mind. I have the gravest suspicion as to what might be intended in the field of superannuation. There is no doubt in my mind that there is a grave need for a national superannuation scheme. We have heard from the honourable member for Richmond, and also from the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown), who said that there is a grave need for much better retirement provisions in this country. Mr Goodluck —Hear, hear! Mr BURR —My colleague from Franklin agrees with that concept. There is no doubt that the age pensions paid out by the Department of Social Security when people retire are presently an incredible drain on taxpayers and on the Government's Budget. We all realise that much better provisions must be made for retirement benefits. I very strongly support the concept of a national superannuation scheme that can, over a long period, replace that drain on taxpayers. It will be a long time before the effects of any national superannuation scheme become clear. We all know that, but the sooner a national scheme is implemented, the sooner its benefits can become apparent. But this legislation is not intended to set up a national superannuation scheme. Therefore, I believe this House and the people of Australia have every right to question the intentions and the motive behind its introduction. What we are seeing at the moment, I believe, is part of a grander strategy by this Government and by the trade union movement to transfer massive amounts of funds to the control of the trade union movement. That may be disputed by my friends opposite, but I believe that that is the grand strategy behind this legislation. Over recent years we have seen a number of schemes set up at the instigation of the trade union movement, schemes such as the building unions superannuation scheme, the allied unions superannuation trust, and so on. These schemes have been set up at the dictate-not even at the instigation, but at the dictate-of the trade union movement. They have been put in place with the `consent' of the employers of this country but at the insistence of the trade union movement, because in a number of instances the trade unions have simply gone to employers who had schemes in place, and said: `You will accept our scheme even though you may want to retain your own scheme'. Of course, through the coercion of the trade union movement, it has been the unions scheme that has prevailed. That is not a choice in superannuation schemes for employees or employers, it is simply a scheme that is foisted on those people by the trade union movement. If one follows the logic of unions simply pushing schemes on to the employer and the employees of this country, over an extended period it will transfer massive amounts of investment capital to union control because superannuation funds have available massive amounts of capital for private investors to use for future developments in this country. In the not too distant future those huge amounts of capital will not be controlled by superannuation trustees. The trade unions will be the ultimate master of the schemes, behind the trustees and behind the employees who become the investors. It is folly in the extreme to think that we can transfer into the hands of the trade union movement such massive amounts of investment capital because the trade unions can then effectively dictate to private industry how those funds will be used. It will be folly in the extreme if we allow that course to be adopted. I believe that that is part of the grand strategy that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations talked about when he presented his earlier Bill. I am sure that some of his colleagues in the ACTU, such as Mr Crean and Mr Kelty, are also cognisant of that grand strategy. The Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill will lapse and will not pass into law in the course of this Parliament. Therefore, this Government is really doing nothing more than trying to keep favour with its friends in the trade union movement. We need to have a genuine system of national superannuation in this country. It is only through the mechanism of a proper, well-established and universal national superannuation scheme that the onus can be lifted from the social security system and, therefore, from the taxpayers of this country. As I said earlier, this is not a national superannuation scheme, this is a backdoor method of allowing trade unions to take control of huge amounts of investment capital and, through that method, the private enterprise companies that rely on that investment capital. This does nothing to help in providing security for retirees in the future. People who reach retirement age, need, more than anything else, a flow of cash in their retirement years. Superannuation can provide that, but it does not necessarily do so because it still allows lump sums to be taken in lieu of regular annuities. This Bill does nothing to change that. Superannuation funds will still be established and paid into regularly by many people over a long period. At the time of their retirement they may still choose to take a lump sum in lieu of an annuity. Having disposed of the lump sum that they have collected they can come back to the social security system, to the taxpayers at the time and say: `I want an age pension'. This Bill does nothing whatsoever to change that. If we are to establish a genuine, national superannuation scheme to change the whole basis of retirement benefits in this country, we need to look seriously at the long term. We need a scheme that will provide not the lump sum cash payment at the end of a person's working life but a flow of cash through the retirement years. This Bill does not even attempt to go down that track. If we follow the logic of this Bill, which effectively allows people during their working lives, to pay into a superannuation fund under the control of the union movement, and if at the end of their working lives they are able to collect a lump sum superannuation payment and then claim on the social security system, what we are effectively adding to the prospect of people double dipping well into the future. There is no futuristic vision in the way in which this Bill is structured. It does not attempt to grapple with the problems that we face in this country with many people reaching retirement age. It simply transfers into the hands of the union movement many millions of dollars of investment capital. I reject this Bill on that basis. I hope that the House does likewise. Mr Hand —Why do you hate unions? What have you got against them? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member for Melbourne should not interject from out of his seat. Mr BURR —My colleague the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), will move an amendment which states: . . . a fund established as a result of an employee or employers being threatened, intimidated or coerced by a trade union or trade unions. I do not think any of us in this place can reject the amendment that has been moved by the shadow Treasurer. Who in this place can say that he would support coercion by a trade union to force employees to become members of a particular superannuation fund? I am sure that none of my friends on the other side of the chamber would openly say that they would support coercion by a trade union of employees to take any particular course of action. I am sure that my friend, the honourable member for Melbourne, would not agree with such a concept. I wish that the honourable member, who is trying to interject, would do it loudly enough for me to hear him. Mr Hand —I will take a point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Melbourne will not take up the honourable member for Lyons on that offer. Mr BURR —All of us in this chamber would not accept the concept the employers or employees should be forced by any form of coercion into being participants in a particular form of superannuation or into any other action in which they, as individuals, would not voluntarily want to participate. I believe that is the way in which this Bill is leading the employers and employees of this country. Through the coercive actions of the trade union movement it is effectively forcing employers and employees into that position. I am sorry, I do not accept that concept; I will never accept it. I believe, that, as individuals, they should have a right to choose. I believe that the union movement, along with any other organisation, has the right to offer superannuation to any person, any employee, but the employee must equally have the right to accept or reject the offer that he has made. Once we take away the right of any individual, any citizen, to accept or reject any offer that is made, we are taking away part of the human rights of this country. I cannot accept that. I cannot believe that my friend, the honourable member for Melbourne, would accept that concept. Therefore, I invite my friend from Melbourne, when he makes his contribution to this debate, to reject equally the concepts behind this Bill, just as I do because I am sure that we have similar views on human rights. I reject the concepts behind this Bill. I will not accept that employers or employees should act under any form of coercion. I hope that when the vote is taken on this Bill the House will also reject it. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(8.59) —The Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill, the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner Bill and the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner (Consequential Provisions) Bill are the Government's attempt to catch up with the trade union movement which, on this occasion, as on many others, has been leading the way as to where it wants the Government to go. We have a classic example of that in the past few days with the trade in one of our more important export commodities-namely, wheat and other grains-being held up by the intransigence of the trade union movement because members of the trade union movement think they know more about foreign policy than the Government. I guess that would be a reasonable decision to come to because the Government does not seem to be getting very far with its foreign policy initiatives in connection with Fiji. Here was a trade union defying the Government and putting at great risk the exports of Australia, yet nobody seemed to be too worried about it. In fact, one of the vilest and most creepy-crawly Press releases has been put out by the Australian Wheat Board today on this subject. It has claimed victory in defeat. It has crawled to the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the maritime unions and the unions have eventually condescended-partly, I presume, because of the pressure that has been applied in this place-to send that grain to Fiji. Fiji, of course, was the least concerned about whether the wheat was sent because there are mountains of grain around the world and sellers are desperate for clients. But, had we lost that sale, future sales would have been lost and a $10m a year trade would have been lost to Australia when we so desperately need those sorts of sales to produce the dollars that will put wealth into Australian pockets. More importantly, the trade unionists who were delaying that shipment are those who would profit most. The reality is that 47 per cent of the value of a tonne of grain at present goes in freight and handling and we know that members of trade unions get most of that. But this legislation is an example of how the trade unions are also prepared to circumvent the rules put down by government. One of the great economic planks of the Labor Government in office-other than consensus, which was a major plank-was, of course, the accord. The accord was to be a long-standing industrial arrangement that would lead Australia to prosperity. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! I would remind the honourable member that although this has been a wide ranging debate we are not discussing the accord; we are discussing the relevant Bills, which relate to superannuation. Mr TUCKEY —With due respect, sir, the Bills we are discussing are creatures of the accord. They are here as the result of the Government making deals with trade unions. Mr Hurford —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member for O'Connor is absolutely wrong in suggesting that the accord has anything to do with these Bills. These Bills, as you have suggested, are very much administrative ones relating to the administration of superannuation. Any suggestion that these Bills are of some value to the trade union movement is itself flawed. They are of value to trustees of superannuation funds. Mr TUCKEY —You are not making a point of order; you are making a speech. Mr Hurford —I am making a point of order and the honourable member has no right to interrupt me. I have made my point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will desist from speaking until I have heard the Minister's point of order. Mr Hurford —I say again to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the suggestions of the Opposition that these Bills arise out of the accord are fundamentally flawed. These are very narrow Bills about the administration of superannuation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I accept the point of order of the Minister. I remind the honourable member for O'Connor that, as I said earlier, there has been a reasonably wide-ranging debate but I should like him to return to the Bills. Mr TUCKEY —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. You have made the point that this is a wide-ranging debate and it would be quite unfair to me, as one of the last speakers, suddenly to be confined to these particular Bills because apparently the Minister now wants to deny the accord. It has become so tattered and fragmented that he does not want to know about it any more. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member to return to the Bills. Mr TUCKEY —One of the necessities, Mr Deputy Speaker-and I shall proceed with this and you can stop me if you think appropriate-of stating a case in this Parliament is to be able to put the historical circumstances surrounding the matter. We have some legislation that until recently was unnecessary. It was unnecessary because the Government did not need to control trade union superannuation schemes. Until then we had some other legislation that controlled the superannuation companies, co-operatives or whatever they were, and it was considered adequate. Suddenly, through union action-and, as I say, as a result of the accord; and I was really bringing in the accord only to demonstrate the growth and development of this arrangement-we need this legislation. We have had to tighten the rules. There were some gentlemen in Victoria who went out one day with the superannuation fund cheque book and they bought a house. That is why the Government has brought in these rules. It is absolutely fundamental to this legislation that it was trade union superannuation that created the need for it. The Treasurer (Mr Keating), for a start, suddenly was forced to rush out and state guidelines, and so he should. Mr Hurford —Do you believe there should not be guidelines? Mr TUCKEY —No, I do not. I believe it is absolutely necessary that we have guidelines because of some of the fellows who are signing the cheques. But the point I make on all of this is that I have been picked up because I bothered to mention the accord. I was about to say to you-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is not reflecting on the Chair, of course. Mr TUCKEY —No, I am not. In fact, I am reflecting on the Minister who took a point of order and I am entitled to come up with a point of view opposing his argument. The points I want to make are quite simple. We have this legislation because suddenly we have trade unionists controlling superannuation. We have a brand new set of rules. It is compulsory superannuation and, as such, the Government needs to protect the contributors a little more. The protection is somewhat limited. A trade union can take a dollar a week out of $11 and now some of those contributions that were $11 or $12 have gone up to $24. They are compulsory contributions from employees who do not start work in the morning unless everybody on the job has a building union superannuation ticket or whatever other sort of ticket is necessary. They may even need a MUST ticket. I might read a little about the MUST ticket. It is a manufacturing unions superannuation trust ticket. The reality is that the Government has had to introduce this legislation so that it can get some idea where the money might be going. I repeat, and it was reported in the Press, that in the early days of this trade union superannuation two blokes went out shopping with the superannuation fund cheque book and they bought a house. Mr Uren —A big house? Mr TUCKEY —Does the Minister think that is a joke? Mr Uren —I didn't say that; I said: `A big house?'. Mr TUCKEY —Yes, a big house, and we know all about it. As a result of that, in time one of those trade unionists had to resign as a Minister in the Victorian Government. It is compulsory superannuation and there is the need for this legislation but it is time we became aware of the sort of correspondence that gets sent around the place. This letter has come to me with the compliments of a big mining company. A card is attached to it. The company received this letter, which says: SUPERANNUATION-LETTER OF DEMAND You are hereby requested to sign (and if a registered company to seal) the Deed of Adherence to the MUST Scheme (Manufacturing Unions Superannuation Trust), a scheme approved by the Commissioner for Taxation under Section 23f of the Act. This demand is consistent with the ACTU/Federal Government Agreement on wages, tax and superannuation which recognises that unions can commence bargaining- one minute it is a demand and the next minute it is bargaining- for the introduction of industry-wide superannuation schemes. Part of the Agreement is that the demand should be limited to a trade-off against national productivity growth and excepting special circumstances should not create a cost increase prior to 1st July, 1986. This means that by signing the Deed of Adherence with an effective date of 1st July, 1986 you will:- 1. Be covered by the `no extra claims' and `no double counting' undertakings given under the Wage Fixing Principles; 2. You will have discharged your obligations under the Accord in respect to the Productivity claim. Quite obviously this trade union-and the letter has the ACTU stamp in the corner-believes it had something to do with the accord. The letter continues: Please note that even if you are currently sponsoring superannuation arrangements for some or all of your employees you should sign up for MUST in addition to those existing arrangements. The minimum contribution required under MUST is $12.50 per week although the Scheme can accept greater amounts. Provision is made for voluntary contributions from employees. In other words, they can be heavied into paying a bit more; and so on. That is what it is all about and that is why we now have this legislation in the Parliament to try to come to grips with the thousands of millions of dollars that, prospectively, will come into these schemes. I want to say something about contributors. To a degree the proposal is now a fait accompli. Why is it that if a person is forced into a superannuation arrangement the trade union that has heavied him into it gets a commission? Commissions were paid to people who went out and sold something. They knocked on people's doors, went through proposals with people and went back to see them. Sometimes they put a lot of work into getting a person into a superannuation scheme. Nowadays, when a fella stands at the gate and says `Have you got your ticket?' and the reply is `What ticket?' he says `Your MUST ticket'. If a worker replies that he does not have such a ticket but then he owns his own truck he is told: `That does not matter, mate. Until you have one you don't get through the gate'. We know that that happens. Why does a person have to pay $1 a week to a trade union for the privilege of being forced into such a scheme? Surely if a proprietor, a businessman, an employer, has to pay-- Mr Cunningham —My blokes are quite happy. Mr TUCKEY —If the honourable member for McMillan wants to put an advertisement in a newspaper to the effect that he supports the fact that every one of his constituents who is getting $11 or $24 a week from his employer has to go without $1 or $2 a week of that amount in terms of his end benefit, I will pay for it. I will pay for the advertisement if the honourable member is prepared to tell the people of his electorate that he supports the fact that $2 a week, which could add up to thousands of dollars by the time a person collects his benefit, is better in the hands of his trade union than in his pocket. I object to that principle. We have moved, in our amendments, to ensure that the Australian Taxation Commissioner has a right to stop that sort of bleeding off. If we are to give benefits to workers, for goodness sake let us give them to workers-not to trade union bureaucrats who are fresh out of university. It is a long time since we found many of them with a bit of grease under their fingernails. Some of those trade union bureaucrats have been thinking this thing through for a long time. A submission to the 1981 Australian Labor Party Special National Conference stated: There are a number of issues raised by the extension of union involvement in Superannuation Schemes. Ultimately these questions include an examination of the investment strategies of those funds and their implications for industrial relations, employment and structural changes in the economy. Conflicts may arise from those investment decisions. For example, investment in highly profitable areas will maximise the members' retirement benefits- that sounds a pretty good idea- but the social consequences of that investment may create a conflict. Obvious examples are investment in Uranium mining or in firms which operate in South Africa. In other words, the rights of contributors to have the money for their retirement are to be subsumed in politics. The submission continued: What we must recognise at this early stage of union involvement in the Superannuation issues is that control over the funds will provide unions and governments with considerable financial leverage. That leverage can be used to advance the cause of Socialism in Australia. That is an exact extract from a submission put to the 1981 ALP Special National Conference. It gives honourable members some idea of how other people view this forced role, to the point that the rights of contributors are secondary to the philosophy of trustees. I have already complained that the legislation does insufficient to demand that any payment made by employers be sent to the fund manager without someone creaming some off on the side for whatever purpose. Such a procedure is unnecessary. First of all, an employer could send a cheque off to a fund manager as easily as he could send it to a trade union whereby it claims some commission which it does not earn, which is a cost to its members. Secondly, if trustees want to impose their philosophy on the investment decisions of the fund, they should be liable for it. The contributor should be protected to the point where he can sue if decisions are taken by the trustee that reduce the overall benefit that he receives at 55 years. No one on the Government benches seems to be speaking, but I would like a response from the Minister on those two points. Why is it that the legislation is deficient in guaranteeing those two fundamental facts? I think it is a tragedy that it has taken us so long to get such a lousy scheme. I lay some of the blame on my predecessors. Quite obviously, people should have been able to invest in a scheme for their retirement. There are even better mechanisms than the scheme which exists today. I believe that it is totally inequitable that some wage earners can get $4,000 a year deductibility in certain circumstances to invest in superannuation, whereas a small businessman, a self-employed person, has a maximum limit of $1,500. Mr Cunningham —I am looking forward to the release of your policy on this matter. Mr TUCKEY —I am not defending the previous policy in this area. I think that it has been a long time since we came to grips with the issue. Unfortunately, this is just a development of the mess. Nobody has yet stood back and considered it in a global sense. It is about time that we did so. We must be careful that, in time, these arrangements which I call investment funded retirement schemes do not dominate our economy. We may have to ask ourselves whether people should have a wider scope to invest in their retirement. If they do not do so, we might have so much money in these funds that they become very embarrassing to government and distort the economy. Presently, I believe that is one of the major causes of the inflation-I know the score about foreign money-of our share market. I genuinely believe that, although the present situation is okay, in time we will be forced to consider alternatives-not a change but a mixture. I am concerned for the rights of employees and contributors. I think that that is an honourable position to take. I make it very clear that in government I will be pushing very hard to ensure that trustees will be liable for the decisions they take and there will be no creaming off. If there is to be such a form of compulsory superannuation, I want the benefits to be in the hands of the person who could be considered-the contributor. The contributions that are made by employers are made on behalf of employees. It would have been a much simpler arrangement, I am sure, if in the first instance the money was paid and the workers were given truly portable schemes-a piece of paper in their hands. I do not think that a trade union needs to be the provider of portability. With local government I negotiated an arrangement for local government staff who also move from job to job. It is necessary for them to do so to gain promotion. We put together a suitable scheme for local government staff. We did not do it through their trade union. It struck me at the time that we should have made better provisions for them in terms of their salary and conditions and encouraged them to buy their own piece of paper-a 23fb style scheme-which they would take from job to job where the arrangements would be made. That was an alternative. Nobody thought enough of it in the past. We now have a scheme of which I am suspicious. It has been conceived with good reasons in terms of the rights of employees and getting them some retirement benefit. I am disappointed that they chose 55 years as the age at which they can basically cash in the benefit. That suggests to me that they will spend it before they reach 65 years and then claim a government pension. That, of course, would be in direct conflict with what the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has said. He said that the scheme was a great idea because it would reduce taxpayers' contributions to the aged in the future. It will not happen that way. I have considerable doubts about the legislation. I have my doubts on behalf of the workers. I have not heard Government members express that concern in this debate, but no doubt they get their messages from trade unions. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr COBB(Parkes)(9.19) —Tonight we are debating the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill, the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner Bill and the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner (Consequential Provisions) Bill. The Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill has as its purpose the establishment of the conditions and the supervisory requirements which superannuation funds and approved deposit funds must meet in order to be eligible for concessional taxation treatment under the Income Tax Assessment Act. The Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner Bill creates a new office to perform these supervisory functions and to be called the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner. The Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner (Consequential Provisions) Bill does away with present offices, who are now to be combined under the one office of the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner. All that sounds very logical, but earlier in the debate we heard that it may mean the employment of another 300 public servants, which is probably the last thing this country needs. At the outset of the debate it should be stressed that the way in which the Government has handled the whole issue of superannuation in the four years it has been in office has been not only abysmal but also subject to every thuggerish whim and desire of the trade union movement. Some extraordinary anomalies have arisen in the field of superannuation to which I shall refer shortly. The worst feature about the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill before us is that it gives no details at all of what the Government intends to do. It tells us only that standards will be set that must be adhered to to qualify for tax concessions, but tells us nothing of precisely what the regulations will be. The regulations will not even come up for debate in this House. They will merely be listed in the back of some Government publication and presented to the industry as a fait accompli. This Bill will, in effect, give a carte-blanche for the Government to bring in these regulations at some indeterminate time in the future. I find this an extraordinary situation. The Government talks in the Bill about standards that may be considered. The Bill lists them-and some of them are crucially important factors, such as vesting, preservation and portability-but the Government tells us nothing about what is exactly intended. It is a bit like someone inventing the game of cricket and saying that one has a pitch but not telling one what length it will be; one has some stumps but does not know whether it is two, three or four; one has a ball, but is not told whether it is inflatable, hard or what size it is. The legislation has no detail about who must contribute, what the penalties are for not contributing, or what time factors and mechanisms the Government has in mind for when the employer's contributions are transferred or vested to the employee. There is nothing about when the employers can get their hands on the money-whether it will be a matter of weeks or whether one must wait until one is 55, 60 or 65 years old. It has nothing as to whether it will be paid as a lump sum, annuity or a proportion of both; it has nothing about whether there will be penalties for early withdrawal or whether, if one withdraws the sum at 65 years and blows it, one can get the pension from then on. We should also consider whether the public will be given a chance to debate the role of the Commissioner and the part he plays in setting the levels of contributions and the principle as to whether or not the Commissioner should have any say at all. Is there to be some debate at some stage on what proportion employers and employees contribute to the scheme? Are the schemes to be made compulsory? That is no minor point because some polls show that 70 per cent to 80 per cent of workers in some industries do not want to participate in the available work schemes. The questions of concern that workers and those in the superannuation industry legitimately have about this whole area are not here for us to debate tonight. All this Bill achieves is the Treasurer (Mr Keating) telling us that regulations are to be presented in their final form at some indeterminate time in the future. To that extent, the legislation is worthless. The Treasurer may as well put out a Press release telling us what he is going to do and save us all the charade of respectability he is trying to convey tonight. While I am on the subject of Press releases, many people in the superannuation industry were astounded by the Treasurer's Press release of 9 February that the Government had established a superannuation consultative committee to advise the Government on superannuation legislation and policy proposal implications for the superannuation industry. One might say there is nothing wrong with that, and there is not until one realises that the biggest body of people in this industry who represent the industry were excluded from the committee. I refer, of course, to the Life Underwriters Association of Australia. It alone has over 4,000 members and represents 60 per cent of the professional superannuation and life insurance agents in Australia. They are the people in the field who are dealing every day with the real world situation of superannuation. To exclude them is a bit like the Government drawing up a union policy without consulting the Australian Council of Trade Unions at some stage. How this Government could deny 60 per cent of the superannuation industry an input into the policy defies comprehension. It is little more than a cynical political exercise. The Government has loaded the committee with its own supporters, with administration-type people who have little or no experience of the every day, real world situation. It would be a bit like setting up a legal committee and stacking it with Labor lawyers. The whole exercise is a political stunt. When it was pointed out to the Treasurer in a letter to him over two months ago, he did not have the courtesy to reply to the Life Underwriters Association of Australia. As a result of refusing to listen to the industry, the Government is now faced with a mounting stack of anomalies in the superannuation area that are crying out to be fixed, but one cannot seem to get a word of reply in this regard from the Treasurer or the Taxation Commissioner. I will outline a few of the problems which are mounting up and with which the Government seems incapable of dealing. The first problem I will mention is over-funding, because that is an excellent example. Let us take the case of a self-employed person in a superannuation scheme of his own choice who is paying the maximum rate permissible for which he can get tax concessions. If that person wants to do some building work on a building site because he has a contract to do so, before he is even permitted on the building site-as was mentioned earlier by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey)-he is forced to join the building unions superannuation scheme-the BUS scheme. Apart from the repugnance of Australian citizens in this supposedly free country being forced to do this, none of the monetary contributions from this individual will be eligible for tax concessions if he is fully funded under his own scheme and forced into this one. Let us dwell on this situation for a while: The individual is forced to take out more superannuation that he does not want. In this supposedly free country he is forced to contribute to a union sponsored fund, which in many instances he would not want to do. He is entitled to no tax concessions because he has already used them up in his own scheme. It is pertinent to ask what will happen to those lost concessions and what action this coerced individual can take. At the moment he cannot take any. Another consideration is what responsibilities the trustees of such funds have in investing such funds, knowing full well that no tax concessions will be available to these funds. I wonder whether the trustees are legally or morally liable for their actions under such circumstances. We have been waiting months for answers from the Taxation Commissioner and the Treasurer to these questions, and they have come up with nothing. The reason is that there are no answers. The solution is to go back and look at the basic cause-union standover tactics in this area. We must be concerned about this Government's capitulation and embracement of that. Mr McGauran —But they're not. Mr COBB —No, they are not; they have done nothing for months. All this compulsory superannuation, and compulsory unionism for that matter, will go when the Liberal Party returns to government come 11 July. Already the position exists in this country where the employers' contributions to the BUS scheme and the allied unions superannuation trust-the AUST scheme-have been increased to $24.50 a week. Mr McGauran —Who pays it? Mr COBB —The employer pays the lot. Of that amount, $9 is payable to the employee only 39 weeks after he leaves the industry or immediately he retires. He can get the rest at 55 years of age, which is, of course, an advantage over many other schemes. If one looks at the official leaflet of the AUST scheme, one sees that an amount of $1 is put aside each week for administration. I believe the private firms can run these schemes for something like 35c a week. When one considers that there are 120,000 members of the scheme and multiplies that by 65c, which is the amount by which it exceeds the 35c for private superannuation schemes, one realises that $80,000 a week is being put aside. Mr Cunningham —Not quite; a bit more. Mr COBB —I am very interested to hear the confession from the Government that it is putting more aside. At least we have an admission in this area. Mr Tim Fischer —He will soon be the ex-member for McMillan. Mr COBB —He certainly will be. The drop-out rate of members from the BUS scheme is well over two times that of the industry average. The scheme clearly is being abused. It is being used in many instances as nothing more than a tax dodge and as a way to get a pay rise without paying the normal rates of tax. In other words, it is a rort. The administrative difficulties of this trade union scheme have to be seen to be believed. Already $2.5m has been lost from the scheme. I am told that false names are being used and that many other rorts are in existence. Quite clearly, a tax file number should be given before any contributions can be made and tax concessions given. If that happened it would solve many of the problems in a very simple way. All this raises the question of who should be the trustees of this scheme. Mr McGauran —Norm Gallagher. Mr COBB —One would hope not, but it has happened. A workers survey shows that no confidence exists in the trade unions dominating these schemes because they might be tempted to make investments with their members' money for reasons not in the best interests of the contributors. Any superannuation scheme surely should at least allow equal representation of employers and employees on the boards. This is especially so when the employers are putting up most of the funds. I would think it obvious that every employer and employee should have the right and the freedom to select the superannuation plan of their choice without the standover tactics that this Government is encouraging and the compulsion that the unions want to see in these schemes. The last thing we want to see in Australia is the trade union movement in control of hundreds of millions of dollars of superannuation funds-if not billions of dollars-to be used to implement some of their more dubious political and philosophical aims. If a company like Solo Petrol wants to expand, should the trade unions be able to pour a million dollars of superannuation funds into it? If a trade union venture like Bourke's store is in financial difficulty, should the trade unions be able to use superannuation funds to rescue it? If a company that a trade union scheme has shares in trades with Fiji, a country the trade unions have decided they do not like, will the trade unions pull their superannuation investments out of that country for that reason alone? Mr Robert Brown —No. Mr COBB —Will it collapse its share price unless it takes an uncommercial decision and withdraws its business from Fiji? The honour- able member opposite says no. The trade unions are making political decisions now. They are not sending wheat to Fiji because they do not like the Government over there, so why would they not extend their actions in the manner I have suggested? They have not been sending our wheat to Chile. We are not allowed to trade with South Africa and other countries. These are all political decisions. The extension of trade union power into this area would not surprise me at all. Where are the safeguards in the legislation against all this? I do not see them anywhere. The Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, of course, has been party to much of this increase in trade union power in the superannuation area. They should have no role to play in this area at all. Superannuation contributions should be freely given, and should not be at the dictates of the industrial relations club. This body's power should be wound back, not extended. Mr McGauran —It should be abolished. Mr COBB —That would be a substantial step in the right direction. There should be total preservation of superannuation benefits, until genuine retirement. That is what superannuation is supposed to be all about. One gets the tax concessions now at the taxpayers' expense so that there will not be a drain on the public purse when one retires. The BUS scheme, with its spate of false early retirements, should be stopped immediately. It is abusing this area. The anomalies do not stop there. Take the example of a person who wants his retirement benefits in annuities at the age of 65 but wants to keep on working. That person is liable for tax on that annuity income. Clearly, the legislation should provide an exemption for him in some way. We also have the recent trend of trade union representatives giving all sorts of advice on superannuation. If people are to be forced into these schemes surely some sort of registration and education program should be considered to ensure that the advice given is sound. Unions, of course, are using these superannuation schemes as a lever to enforce compulsory unionism. It is a concept totally out of line with the wishes of 80 per cent of Australians. I can tell the House now that that will cease immediately the National Party and the Liberal Party return to government. In the short time left to me I will give more examples. The first example is about statutory duplication. People may be aware that a considerable portion of the 280,000-odd superannuation schemes in Australia consist of life products only. As such they are controlled and regulated under the existing provisions of the Life Insurance Act. The changes we are debating now will result in these schemes being controlled by the proposed Superannuation Act. So we will have duplication, overregulation and unnecessary costs. The Superannuation Act should, I believe, provide for the exclusion of those schemes that are wholly covered by the Life Insurance Act. If we did this it would avoid the necessity for the filing of annual audit certificates and taxation returns. The trustees of these schemes controlled by the Life Insurance Act could merely be required to lodge with the Superannuation Commissioner a verified statement declaring that the particular scheme is wholly constituted by life assurance products. I believe that would be sufficient. Another anomaly is in the equity and tax deductions for superannuation contributions. Let me give the example of an average Australian taxpayer who is say 40 years old and earning a salary of $30,000 a year. If he happens to be in an employer sponsored fund, according to a formula based on age, salary and the amount in the fund, that part of the contribution which is paid by the employer is fully deductible up to $6,884-a substantial amount of money. But if this same 40-year-old taxpayer was self-employed, or if he was a non-sponsored employee, the maximum annual deduction he could make would be only $1,500. What an anomaly that is. The present discrimination in this country against the self-employed person-the farmer, the small businessman, and the non-sponsored employee-should be rectified. It is a sham that a self-employed person can register as a proprietary company and then employ himself so that he can get the increased deduction. That is being made more difficult, particularly for professional people. People with widely fluctuating incomes are affected by the concept of a notional income. For example, a 30-year-old farmer previously could fund up to $95,000 in investment benefits but now under this formula of seven times notional salary-which I will not go into now-he is restricted if his salary is, say, $7,500, as it is for many farmers, to funding a maximum benefit of $52,500. In other words, it has been cut to about a quarter of what it was before. This is doing nothing to encourage younger taxpayers to put aside funds to invest. At the Committee stage we will be moving amendments to the effect that regulations that come down later should come before Parliament first for debate. We will be moving other amendments to do with the Superannuation Commissioner. This legislation is badly thought out. It contains all the elements of trade union coercion which we find repugnant in this country and, overall, it needs substantial amendment before it is thrust upon the Australian people. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(9.39) —I will take a few minutes tonight in this debate to express some opinions about the importance of the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill, the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner Bill and the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner (Consequential Provisions) Bill and to put a case on behalf of the Government in relation to the debate that has taken place tonight. We heard the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) carry on for 20 minutes about this legislation which is very important to a great number of Australians in the work force who will be affected by it. Without adequate superannuation legislation many people in the community would not have the benefit that a select group in the community has available to it. We also heard the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) tonight, and it was one of the few times that I have heard a member of the Opposition openly admit that his side of politics has done very little over the years in relation to superannuation in Australia. Whilst admitting that his side of the House had done very little, in fact almost nothing, in this area he found it very difficult to concede that the Government was on the right track in this legislation. I bring to the attention of the House and to those who might be listening to this debate tonight the hypocrisy of some members of the Opposition in their approach to this debate. First, we know from their rhetoric that they believe that the hand of government should be as far away as possible from business measures and that, if a government runs these sorts of government operations, particularly statutory authorities and structures such as those covered by this legislation, the further governments can distance themselves from the everyday running of those operations the better it will be. Certainly this Government has a much better legislative record on this issue than the Opposition had in the many years in which it had an opportunity to pass legislation. Yet, we heard the honourable member for Parkes and the honourable member for O'Connor arguing against their own rhetoric. They want to know why the legislation does not include certain regulations and why there is no control over certain things. It is not the Government's intention that if there is to be a proper superannuation fund it should interfere at every level. A good government must structure in laws a process that allows the decision-makers to have guidelines and laws to give them the criteria under which they will work. Properly developed superannuation funds are a necessary part of any economy, especially an aging economy as we have in Australia. We have a smaller work force which in the future will be responsible for the maintenance of the living standards of people as they move out of the work force and into a much longer retirement period. That is why superannuation is a very important issue. When I return to my electorate I will be telling the workers in the Latrobe Valley that we consider superannuation to be a very important issue. I will also remind them of the words of the honourable member for O'Connor who openly admitted that, if anyone wants superannuation legislation in the future, he should not look to the Opposition benches. This Government has not only the intention but also the will to put into legislation measures which will benefit contributors, administrators and the superannuation funds. To quibble and carry on about commissions and the peripheral issues mentioned by the honourable member for Parkes tonight belittles the debate and certainly indicates that, if members on his side are ever given the opportunity even to develop a policy on this, people will quickly come to understand that we would be returned to the era when the party opposite had some 27 or 30 years on the treasury benches but did very little to develop a superannuation package to deal with the problems facing Australia. We have a smaller number of people at the bottom end of the work force at the moment who, towards the end of this century, will be developing and generating wealth to sustain people in their retirement years. I commend the Government for the position it is adopting here tonight. I am sure that the Minister for Community Services (Mr Hurford) when he sums up will have many points to make about some of the ridiculous measures proposed by Opposition members tonight. I record my support for what the Government and remind people who may be listening that, if they want superannuation of substance in the future, this Government will provide it. They would certainly have to wait for a very long time for anything of substance on this issue from the Opposition. Mr WILSON(Sturt)(9.45) —I want to take part in the debate on the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill, the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner Bill and the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner (Consequential Provisions) Bill. There are two unfortunate things about this debate. First, the circumstances in which it occurs and, secondly, the inadequacies of the legislation now before the House. This debate occurs in circumstances where this country has been tormented by economic difficulties. Wage levels should be maintained at present levels so that we can become competitive with our international trading partners. Productivity levels do not justify a hidden wages increase. Having said that, I believe that it is wrong to bring those issues into this debate. Ultimately, this nation must have a coherent superannuation scheme, but not necessarily a government run scheme. This country requires that everyone in the community is assured that on reaching retirement age he will have available to him a stream of income that provides an adequate minimum standard of living. Furthermore, we want a scheme that provides to those who choose to postpone expenditure from their working years to their retiring years reward for that effort and benefit in their retirement and not penalty as now applies under assets tests and cruel incomes tests. This debate has become somewhat muddy because there are those whose concern about our high wage levels dominates their minds, and they lose sight of the real issues upon which we should be focusing. The second reason why I think that this legislation has come in in unfortunate circumstances is that it talks about superannuation, yet it fails adequately to define what is meant by superannuation. Payments into superannuation funds receive substantial tax benefits. When most people talk about superannuation they think of it in terms of their retirement. What is important in retirement is a consistent stream of income over the retirement years-whether they are long or short. For many years I have advocated the major reform of our social security system. I believe that even today the most effective and efficient way to build national superannuation security for the whole of the nation is to provide a basic flat rate pension for all free of an assets test or an income test, and then allow people to provide above that level at whatever level they choose. If they want to save during their working lives so they can spend it in retirement, good luck to them. If they want to enjoy their earnings while they are working, they cannot expect to have it twice over at public sector taxpayer expense. Some argue that the approach I take is very expensive-I do not believe that it is. I believe that the present income and assets tests heavily distort people's pre-retirement saving and investment patterns and heavily distort their early retirement expenditure patterns. As a result, many hundreds of thousands of Australians feel cheated on reaching retirement. They feel that they have paid their taxes only to pay other people's pension and on retirement, because of their frugalness and the sacrifices they have made during their working lives, they are denied. The fairest way is to have a universal flat rate pension. I would go one step further and say that with such a flat rate pension, people must pay the present level of taxes. If a hidden wage increase is available because employers or employees are contributing to a superannuation fund-or if the self-employed want to contribute to a fund-people should be entitled to a tax deduction only if its value is invested in their superannuation funds and made available to them on retirement as a stream of income. If that does not happen, no tax deductibility should be available to them. That is one area in which the Bill is deficient, because it does not define superannuation as a stream of income in retirement. At the age of 55, people can take out the tax benefits available on contributions to superannuation funds, spend them all and then come back to the next generation of taxpayers and say: `I am poor, I have no income, you pay me a pension'. High, middle and low income earners are, in increasing numbers, double dipping. While that happens, people will more and more expect the Government to provide the underpinning for their social security program. People should be able to opt out of paying tax provided that they opt out of receiving an age pension. For that reason, it is necessary that there be standards for superannuation funds, that retirement ages be set and that vesting provisions be laid down. As contributions to superannuation funds are part of the wages package, the vesting period should be very short indeed. The old-fashioned, paternalistic days where an employer could lock his employee into his employment have gone. Therefore, vesting should be short-12 months or even less. In some industries people move from employer to employer, to the benefit of all concerned. There should also be preservation until retirement, be it 65 or whatever age is set. It is now 65 for men and, perhaps, in these days of non-discrimination, it should be the same age for all. There should also be maximum opportunity for portability and, where that cannot be arranged, preservation within a number of funds should be guaranteed. It may well be asked why there should be government intervention in superannuation funds. It is for two reasons only. Firstly, I wish to talk about why there should be public policy for superannuation and private provision for retirement. Governments have a responsibility to assure every Australian of an income in retirement. If, as I believe, the taxpayers are tired of paying taxes, they must be given room to provide for their own retirement. In effect, the Government should set up a compulsory regime under which everybody would be required either to pay taxes or to provide for retirement. As tax exemptions are given on the contributions to superannuation funds and on the income of those funds, those resources should fulfil their public sector government policy purpose, namely, the assurance of a stream of income to the contributors and members of funds on the attainment of the age of retirement. The tax provision should be equitable and fair to all and the tax benefit should not be greater for a contribution by an employer than it is for a contribution by an employee. The tax exemption for savings in a superannuation fund and for the income of that fund should be no greater than the tax exemption-which currently does not exist-available to a private individual who saves privately for retirement. We must ask how, in those circumstances, we can assure that those funds are available as a stream of income in retirement. I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of this Parliament to devise ways and means whereby those who wish to save privately are required to give appropriate contingent security over assets-whether it be their homes or other investments-so that if they exhaust all other means of providing an income, there is an asset upon which the Government can call in lieu of the pension that it would then have to pay. We want neutrality in the tax system, but it does not exist today for individual private provision for retirement. Indeed, the present tax regime is not fair to the community because those on high incomes can obtain huge tax exemptions, where as those on low incomes obtain only low tax exemptions. In today's Australia, the middle and low-income earners are so heavily taxed by the Government-as they were by past governments-that they cannot afford to save for their retirement. In any event, if they can afford it, they recognise that they will be punished and penalised by the high withdrawal mechanisms of the present income test, with the assets test now to overlay that. They think that it is not worth it. Yet those with higher incomes-- Mr Tim Fischer —Many suffering unemployment cannot afford it. Mr WILSON —Many people cannot afford it because the taxes are so high and, indeed, because the penalty is so high when they do make the sacrifice. Many on higher incomes obtain huge tax benefits through the present deductibility of contributions by employers as well as by employees. Those who are penalised are the self-employed, the farmers and those who try to save privately. We need to examine our policy objectives, but this legislation fails to do that. We need to ensure that the taxpayers' role is to give encouragement to private provision for retirement in place of the public sector pension. I began my remarks by saying that I believed in a universal flat rate pension, and I do. Under the present arrangements it is the most sensible, rational and fair way to proceed. Then, we can progressively relieve government of that expenditure by encouraging individuals, through tax relief, to replace a tax-funded social security pension with their own private provision, whether it be through superannuation funds or privately by the development of the new security arrangements that I have briefly outlined. There is much that I would have liked to have said, but others wish to take part in the debate. I conclude by saying that until this country recognises that the cost of dependency will not go away while we continue to have the great expansion in expectation of life-nor would we wish it to do so-we must face the reality that an ever-declining proportion of our population will have to provide either directly or indirectly the resources for a stream of income to those in retirement. Even if we have private sector superannuation we will still find that the working population provides the retirees with the investment income that gives them their support. We need to develop a rational and fair scheme, a scheme that allows Australians to co-operate together so that whether they are in the work force, out of work or in retirement, an adequate standard of living is available to all-a standard of living over which individuals have some degree of choice as to whether they spend now or later; a standard of living which gives people an incentive and, having given them an incentive, rewards them for postponing expenditure until retirement. This would have many side benefits. It would not merely provide relief to taxpayers when they reach retirement; it would provide substantial investment funds which would help to enable this country to trade into more prosperous times. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(10.01) —The House is considering a package of superannuation legislation-the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill 1987, the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner Bill 1987 and the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1987. I will not delay the House for long in order to accommodate others who wish to speak during the adjournment debate. I would like to pick up some points that were made by the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson), particularly in regard to access to superannuation generally. I point out that many of the people listening to the broadcast of this debate or perhaps working on their tractors in the electorate of Farrer do not have access to superannuation because of their particular circumstance, be it self-employment or a circumstance related to the tough economic times which means that they simply cannot afford to go down the path, notwithstanding the will to do so of providing in a comprehensive way for their individual superannuation requirements in retirement. I believe, therefore, that the House ought to be reminded here and now in the closing stages of the second reading debate on this superannuation package, that this legislation does not even begin to apply to quite a large group of Australians, quite a large group of small business operators and quite a large group of primary producers who are bearing the brunt of the tough economic times which have been brought about by this Government. I refer particularly to high interest rates, but there is a range of other factors, some of which are beyond the control of government, I am quite prepared to admit, such as low commodity prices or the severe drought conditions which are re-emerging over much of South Australia, much of south-western New South Wales and indeed, many other areas of rural Australia. In considering this legislation the House ought to be conscious of the fact that so many fall through any net created by this package of legislation. The House ought to realise that point in terms of the end gain faced by so many when they get to their retirement phase. Of course, embraced by this legislation is the creation of yet another quango. I want to express some concern in relation to specific aspects. An assessment has been made that this legislation in itself will provide for the appointment of yet another 300 public servants to carry out some of the administration associated with the provisions of this package of superannuation legislation. Again, that is hardly a commendable way to go in terms of creating a climate of less government, less taxation, more incentive and more productivity, which this country needs so much and which I hope, following the election on 11 July, this country will receive. What this legislation does, of course, is to accommodate the sweetheart deal done by this Government with the Australian Council of Trade Unions, and with the trade unions generally, in the provision of a number of measures associated with bedding down superannuation. Other members who have spoken, including the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) and the honourable member for Sturt, have dwelt on this point. I will not go into details except to concentrate on two major areas. Again, I point out to the House that in this legislation we have government by Press release. We have legislation by Press release. Indeed, the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), in his second reading speech, referred directly to the Press releases of 11 June, 30 July and 22 December 1986 in which the Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced various operating standards which superannuation funds and approved deposit funds-ADFs-will be required to meet in order to be eligible for relevant taxation concessions. Press releases are being presented to the nation at large which will be made binding by subsequent legislation. I think this has gone on for long enough. This elected Parliament-the House of Representatives and the Senate-has been taken for granted. Governments issue Press releases and say `This is how the law will pertain to a particular area', be it in relation to media ownership, superannuation taxation concessions, or whatever. I sound a note of warning: After 11 July the new non-Labor government will not want to go down this path. It will be redeeming in terms of its application of the legislative procedures of the national Parliament. I think it is very regrettable-and I know that the Minister for Community Services and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford) is somewhat embarrassed by this-that yet again government by Press release is embraced by this legislation. The second area on which I want to dwell in the limited time available to me is the other unsatisfactory aspect of the whole package whereby so much will be left to provisions by regulation rather than specific provisions in the Bills that are before the House. My good colleague the honourable member for Richmond, who is heading for yet another record majority in his electorate, has drawn my attention to the wide provisions which will be dealt with by way of regulation, which is removed from the direct parliamentary process. Although the provisions will be able to be referred to the Parliament for further consideration and disallowance, in effect the bureaucrats prefer legislation to be dealt with in this manner so that they can have their way in the best Yes Minister tradition which has beset the Westminster system too often in both the United Kingdom and Australia. If time allowed I would refer, for example, to the 14 different provisions under clause 7 (2) of the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill with regard to what can be prescribed by way of regulation. They range over such subjects as the persons who may contribute to superannuation funds, the vesting in members of superannuation funds of benefits arising directly or indirectly from amounts contributed to superannuation funds, and so on. It is a frightening example of government by regulation, and legislation by way of regulation, rather than by specific provision. I know that even you, Mr Deputy Speaker, in your learned way, would be very conscious of these provisions in the Bill, but I know that I am not allowed to dwell on that point. The danger in the superannuation equation facing this nation is that this Parliament and this Government, by way of this legislation, are creating what will ultimately become a monster which will engulf small business, big business and the viability of this nation to provide for those in the retirement phase. I close by saying that I fully recognise the need for superannuation and the need for provisions to be made for retirement. But I also recognise the hundreds of thousands of Australians who fall outside the scope of this legislation and who are facing the most horrific economic times in that other economy, unbeknownst to the Treasurer who regales us day after day with the stories about the top end of the economy and fails to admit any knowledge or understanding of the other end of the economy-the economy in rural Australia. There is direct suffering in that sector. Families in that sector suffer from diet deficiencies as a consequence of the hardship that exists. There is a resurgence of drought conditions of the most horrific nature. This Government will lose office on 11 July because of its failure to recognise that there are two economies side by side in this nation-one that it has tried to deal with and one that it has ignored time and time again. I sound the note of warning that in this legislation there are a number of aspects of considerable concern. I look forward to their being dealt with in more detail at the Committee stage. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Community Services and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(10.10) —I thank all those honourable members who took part in what I can only describe as a very wide ranging debate. The premises on which almost all Opposition members have based their speeches are fundamentally flawed. Firstly, they have assumed that this legislation cannot get through the Parliament. They are wrong. It can get through the Parliament this week. The onus is on them to get it through. The Government would very much like to have this legislation passed. The trustees and management of 300,000 separate superannuation funds would like to have the legislation passed. The Opposition is not opposing this legislation. It has a few amendments that will be dealt with at the Committee stage. If the Government has the co-operation of Opposition members, I assert without any hesitation whatsoever that the nation can have this legislation which is desperately needed. My colleagues on this side of the House have not spoken in the debate in order to get this important legislation through the House and into the Senate so that we can ask honourable senators to make sure that the legislation becomes law. That was the first premise which was flawed. The second premise which was flawed is that Opposition members have assumed that this legislation results from some wish of the trade union movement. They are wrong again. There has been no pressure from the trade union movement for this legislation. I repeat that there are 300,000 separate superannuation funds in Australia that need this legislation for guidance. They require stronger monitoring. They require stronger administrative guidelines. They require some security for the members of their various funds. Some of those funds have trade unionists as members; many do not have trade unionists as members. The vast majority of people who know anything about the superannuation movement in this country know that this legislation will be of value to them. As the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), who led for the Opposition, said, the legislation is long overdue. I do not contradict that. Of course it is long overdue. There are limitations on the time of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel that have led to this being long overdue. It is up to the honourable member to use his good offices to make sure that this legislation gets through the Senate. I am still hoping that he will do just that. Those who will suffer, in addition to the fund members, if this legislation is prevented by the Opposition from going through the Parliament, are the trustees. I will explain why the trustees and management will suffer if that happens. Firstly, most of the operational standards have had to apply since 1 July 1986. We admit that the only guidance for trustees and management has been from Press releases. But requirements cannot be enforced without legislative backing. We need this legislation to enforce those requirements. Secondly, there is a need to counter industry concerns about the imposition of standards on the basis of the releases mentioned in the second reading speech read on my behalf by the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), particularly given that the Government indicated its intention that legislation to support implementation of the standards would be introduced in the 1986 Budget sittings. Thirdly, there is also a need to overcome the practical difficulties that the superannuation industry will encounter if it is required to effect necessary changes to trustees. Almost 300,000 schemes are involved. In some schemes the trust deeds will need to be altered. This is very difficult-indeed, impossible-ahead of precise legislation. In responding to criticism on this matter, I informed the House that the legislation would be introduced as quickly as possible, and we have introduced it as quickly as possible. Lastly, the legislation is also required to enable arrangements to proceed to integrate the insurance and superannuation regulatory functions as well as the actuarial functions to achieve savings expected from that process and to authorise collection of fees from superannuation funds and the approved deposit funds to recover the costs of supervision. Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Hurford-I require the question to be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Community Services and Minister Assisting the Treasurer) —The honourable member for Mackellar led for the Opposition and, as I indicated earlier, admitted that the legislation was overdue. I set the challenge before him again to work with me to make sure that the legislation goes through the Parliament. As most people know, the Government is in office-not in power, because it does not have the majority in the Senate. We require the co-operation of the Opposition. I appeal to the Opposition and set it the challenge to make sure that this legislation is through before next Friday. The honourable member for Mackellar, as did the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) and others in this debate, said that he was worried about standards being in regulations, not in legislation. But the honourable member for Mackellar did not make the mistake that the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) made when addressing himself to this subject. The honourable member for Parkes suggested that the regulations would not come before the Parliament. Of course the regulations come before the Parliament and the Parliament is given the opportunity to disallow those regulations. The honourable member has been here long enough to know that. Let me address the problem in greater detail. The matters to be covered by regulations will essentially give legislative effect to the standards that were announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on 11 June, 30 July and 22 December. The principles reflected in these standards are well understood in the industry generally. However, as with any complex and technical requirements of this kind, the Government knows that it can work much more constructively with the industry in implementing the standards if there is the flexibility to adjust readily the standards where practical difficulties arise or where they are proving unduly costly for industry. Once we have gone through those early stages of consultation with the industry and come up with these regulations, maybe at some later stage, if there is merit in it, we can put those regulations in legislation. But at this stage that greater flexibility is of great value to the industry. The key industry bodies are working with the Government to complete the regulations and have expressed support for this approach. As I have said to the honourable member for Parkes and others, the regulations will of course be open to scrutiny when they are made. Let me now say something about the standards because, as I have said, they are known and have been released. The Government's occupational superannuation standards are reasonable by any objective measure and the requirements involved represent little more than those which should in any case be observed by well managed superannuation funds. The requirements are very modest when compared with those under the Life Insurance Act which are applicable to life insurance companies. While the key industry bodies-I am referring to the Life Insurance Federation of Australia, the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia and the Institute of Actuaries of Australia-support the general thrust of the standards, it might be noted that they have been actively urging the Government to adopt more stringent requirements in some areas, particularly with respect to the vesting and preservation requirements. Of course, we are taking that into account. But some of the flexibility that we need at this stage, which is giving rise to making the decision to put the standards in regulations rather than in the legislation, may lead to our being able to accommodate the industry. On the other hand, there are some less responsible elements in the industry who are not interested in upgrading the role of occupational superannuation and who would prefer to impede implementation of these regulatory arrangements in order to allow scope for the development of tax based abuses such as the now outlawed cherry picker and loan-back schemes. We do not want the opportunity for these things to arise again. I therefore again urge the Opposition to work with us to make sure that this Bill becomes an Act before 1 July. Clearly, superannuation funds can perform their appropriate long term role only if their operations are more closely directed towards meeting the community's retirement needs. One or two honourable members mentioned the Life Underwriters Association. I have spoken with that body. For instance, I was with the Tasmanian branch in Launceston only the week before last. That body has not raised any substantive points against the standards as such. The issues raised by that body have been more concerned with existing tax provisions and these matters are for the Government to study in the context of the Income Tax Assessment Act and not in the context of this superannuation legislation. It is important to follow on with the administration of the standards in order to ensure that the interests of superannuation beneficiaries are adequately protected. The legislation will achieve this by making the trustees of superannuation funds much more accountable to their members and by imposing requirements, such as vesting requirements and preservation requirements among others, which will provide for superannuation benefits to be more closely directed towards meeting members' retirement needs. The honourable member for Mackellar and others also raised the cost of administration. The superannuation standards will be administered in the most cost-effective way. The Government knows that it has struck a reasonable balance between imposing worthwhile standards on the one hand and avoiding unduly burdensome and costly regulations on the industry on the other hand. Is anybody going to suggest that $30 per fund is unduly burdensome? The administration of this will be a major task with those 300,000 superannuation funds involved as they are. It is estimated that a total of 77 staff, not 300, the number that has been bandied around in this chamber, will be required to perform this week. However, most of the required staffing resources will come from the 66 positions devoted to this work in the Australian Taxation Office. That means an extra 11 staff as against the figure of 300 that comes from the imagination of some members of the Opposition. By some of their remarks we could be forgiven for thinking that they would want Rafferty's rules to continue. Perhaps they want the abuses to continue but I hope that is not the case. I hope indeed that they will want us to put into effect those minimum vesting standards, those minimum preservation standards, the portability of benefits, the security of benefits standards and the membership requirements of trustees boards. All superannuation funds established after 16 December 1985 are required to have equal participation of representatives, employers and employees on their trustee boards to encourage increased member participation and the management of superannuation funds. All this talk of coercion is hogwash. Members of the boards must be equal, representing employers and employees. I also trust that we will get on with something which arises from this Bill and which improves the reporting requirements. I could read out the details that are already in the statement made by the Treasurer on 11 June 1986 when he set out the details of these standards, but time is short in the Parliament. We have a Committee stage on this Bill, which I hope will be facilitated by the Opposition so that we can get the Bill through the House of Representatives tonight. I am pleased that the Opposition is not opposing this Bill. I trust that it will also facilitate the Bill going through the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 and 2-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 3 (Interpretation). Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(10.25) —I move: (1) Clause 3, page 3, at the end of the definition of ``superannuation fund'' add the following words and paragraph: '', but does not include: (c) a fund established as a result of an employee or employers being threatened, intimidated or coerced by a trade union or trade unions.''. Our concern in this clause is to insert in the Bill a requirement that no superannuation fund will be recognised for tax concession purposes if the money that is in the fund is there as a result of coercion or intimidation. Mr Robert Brown —Who will identify whether coercion or intimidation has been applied? Mr CARLTON —The honourable member for Charlton asked a very good question: Who will identify it? The people who have been coerced will be able to identify whether they put their money into a fund willingly. Mr Robert Brown —That is a provocative provision. Mr CARLTON —The honourable member for Charlton said that this is a provocative provision. I will explain exactly to honourable members what the provision means. It is perfectly simple. If an employee does not want his or her life savings to be invested in a particular fund, or if the employer does not want to make a contribution into that fund, he should not have to, and it is absolutely wrong that as a result of coercion from a trade union-it has happened and it is a real fact of life-people should be required to put their own life savings or people who are contributing towards the life savings of their employees should be required under law to place that money in a fund which is not of their choice. In the very same way that the Liberal and National parties believe in non-compulsory unionism, in other words freedom of association, a very basic human liberty-we will in office conduct a referendum to allow the Australian population to confirm that it would prefer voluntary unionism-we are simply not prepared to allow people to be forced to place their life savings in investment vehicles of which they do not approve. There is nothing unreal about this. There are cases all around Australia, particularly in the building industry, where people have been required to put money into a fund organised by a trade union and the requirement to put the money into the fund has been arrived at by force. Mr Robert Brown —That is recognised as a good fund. Mr CARLTON —The honourable member says that that is recognised as a good fund. It is not clear to me that the employers, who were required by bullying on sites and by intimidation, and the employees who were required to become members of the union in the first place by intimidation and who were required to participate in a fund by intimidation, are paying into a good fund. This is a matter of fundamental civil rights. If Government members believe that it is correct to force people in this manner, they simply do not understand what the Australian community is all about. I have investigated the way in which these funds have been set up. I have talked to people, to contractors on sites who were threatened with being put out of business if they did not force their employees to do this. I have spoken to contractors on sites who are required to contribute to these funds under threat of being put out of business. Do members on the Government side deny that this has been the case? People talk about agreement being reached between employers and unions within the building industry about the setting up of these funds. That agreement is arrived at under threat of loss of livelihood by those employers and the people working with them. I have chapter and verse on that. I have in fact appeared on public platforms, particularly in Queensland, with people who have been prepared to substantiate this in public, not under privilege, and in the presence of trade union leaders who have come along to the meetings to interject and heckle. They have been answered by people who have been prepared to quote chapter and verse what actually happened on sites and in working situations. We are fighting for basic human rights, the right of every person to plan for his retirement in a way in which he would want to; the rights of employers to contribute out of the profits and earnings of a business to provide for their employees safeguards in retirement in a way which they deem to be appropriate. The building union superannuation scheme in particular, set up by the building unions, is hardly an appropriate vehicle. Heaven forbid! Would most people freely choose to put their money into a fund controlled by unions that have the appalling industrial history of the building unions? Who on earth would know, over the period of 10, 20 or 30 years of the currency of these funds, how their management was going to be handled? Do people really have confidence that the continuity of management of those funds and the direction of them by the unions will be sufficient to safeguard their nest egg for their retirement? The fact of the matter is that if this matter is subjected to free, honest and open choice, those funds would not exist or, alternatively, they would exist in a much reduced form. The funds are there because of trade union thuggery and intimidation on building sites. Mr Hurford —You have no substantiation for that. Mr CARLTON —The Minister for Community Services says that I have no substantiation of that. That is absolutely incorrect. I have talked to the people concerned. If the Minister does not know what is happening on the sites and if he does not know the link-ups between the unions and the managers of the fund, he does not know what is going on on the sites. Mr Campbell —When were you last on a building site? Mr CARLTON —The honourable member for Kalgoorlie ought to understand-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member will not respond to interjections. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie will cease interjecting. Mr CARLTON —The honourable member for Kalgoorlie says that I have never been on a building site. He ought to know-- Mr Nehl —He is wrong, totally wrong. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for Cowper will cease interjecting. Mr Nehl —I have only just started. The CHAIRMAN —Order! I warn the honourable member for Cowper. Mr CARLTON —The honourable member for Kalgoorlie and other honourable members opposite throw these interjections and accusations in willy-nilly. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for Kalgoorlie has been called to order. The honourable member for Mackellar should address himself to clause 3 which is before the Committee at present. Mr CARLTON —Mr Chairman, I thank you for your intervention, but the honourable member for Kalgoorlie has raised a point which is quite pertinent to this-- The CHAIRMAN —All interjections are out of order. Mr CARLTON —I will ignore what the honourable member for Kalgoorlie said and merely say on this clause that I have certainly had a background in industry, in engineering works and in site works over a number of years. I have been on to sites and I know how they work. I know exactly how they have worked in more recent times and have talked very closely to the people involved. Members on the opposite side cannot deny what goes on in the building industry in Australia. Heaven forbid! Their own Government moved to deregister one of the unions and the other main union is not much better. These unions in this industry have forced employers and employees to put the workers' nest eggs into funds controlled by unions in which they have no confidence. The purpose of this amendment is to say, quite simply, that where a fund draws its funds as a result of coercion on sites and where there is not an agreement between the employee and the employer on the money going there in the first place, that fund, quite correctly, does not enjoy the tax concessions which are available to legitimate superannuation funds. What could be fairer than that? It is purely a question of people agreeing that their own life savings will go into a particular place. If they do not agree, that fund cannot be regarded as legitimate and enjoy the tax privileges that superannuation funds quite properly enjoy. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Community Services and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(10.35) —This amendment is nothing more, nor less, than an exercise in political gimmickry. The Opposition is seeking to prevent workers and lower income group people from generally having membership of superannuation funds and, more than that, it is seeking to have a say in the administration of those funds. I point out that no one on this side of the chamber wants coercion to take place in these circumstances. We are denying that there is general coercion in this particular field of conduct. There may be some funds where that might apply, but they are in the minority and there are ways of dealing with those particular situations. The interjection made by the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) was most pertinent anyway. How on earth could anyone make a decision arising out of legislation which would result from this amendment? Who would make the decision as to whether there was coercion? The Government has made it clear on many occasions that it does not support the use of industrial action or coercion in the operation of superannuation funds. We have made sure, in a practical way, that this does not happen. Our standards require that generally there will be equal sharing of management of superannuation funds between the interests of employers and employees. When I was summing up in the second reading debate, I made the point that our standards require equal representation on the boards of trustees on the part of representatives of employers and employees. The Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission stated in the last national wage case decision, which it brought down on 10 March 1987, that it would hear and rule on claims for superannuation funds where agreements could not be reached between employers and unions. Is that not addressing this problem of any coercion that may arise? It is up to employers to take the matter to the Commission if pressure is being applied by unions in the pursuit of any claims. The Government does not consider it appropriate that this aspect should be the subject of legislation establishing regulatory arrangements applicable to superannuation funds and, therefore, we oppose this amendment. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Progress reported. Motion (by Mr Hurford) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(10.39) —In the continuing saga of the events to which I have been drawing attention in Queensland, the last item I got to was item No. 30 which I referred to as the film studio. I referred to land having been made available to Dino de Laurentis Entertainment Ltd by the Queensland Government. The land was worth $1m and it was intended to make it available to the company for only $1 a year. The company was allowed to pick the land on which it wanted to build and it chose 40 hectares on the Pacific Highway between Brisbane and Surfers Paradise. The Queensland Government Development Authority has agreed to lend the company 75 per cent of the cost of building the initial $10m studio. It is understood that the concessional interest rate on the loan will be 25 per cent of the bank prime rate, or about 4 per cent. The de Laurentis studios are believed to be considering making a mini-series based on Sir Joh. Why would they not do so? I refer to item No. 31 as the lost opportunity. Early in April 1987 the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) believed that he had it all under control. He and his four business partners could see the money in the bag-the $458m resort on the Sunshine Coast. The resort plans included accommodation for 4,900 guests, a jet airport, a man-made lake, a convention centre, golf courses, a hospitality centre and a bridge across the Noosa River-not a small development proposal by any stretch of the imagination. The partners had the Co-ordinator-General's Department and the Department of Local Government on side. Those two departments recommended that the State Government rezone the land in Noosa Shire and that all stops be pulled to allow the proposal to go ahead. State Cabinet was on side and ready to approve and, most importantly, Sir Joh was a strong supporter of the proposal. Mr MacKellar —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. It is customary on these occasions for the speaker to warn the honourable member. I just wanted to check whether he had done that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Never mind about the 86 residents who have lodged formal objections; they could be silenced by covering the proposal by the Government's Integrated Resorts Act which would have prevented appeal to the Local Government Court. Then the honourable member for Maranoa went public and stated, in his usual forthright style, that he might not leave the Federal coalition as agreed by the Queensland Nationals at Hervey Bay in March 1987. The retaliation from the Queensland Premier was swift and brutal. He immediately withdrew his support for the proposal. It has been reported that it was the Premier's view that the Cameron proposal was as dead as a duck and that Cameron could go and jump. By late April 1987 Cabinet sent the proposal back to the Noosa Shire Council for further examination and consideration. The question is: Who needs enemies when one has a leader like Sir Joh? Item 32 concerns Joh's oratory. Joh has his own special linguistic construction, his own special form of syntax. Early in his push for Canberra he advised that he was racing ahead as fast as Australia's great Olympic swimmer, Betty Cuthbert. When asked about his foreign policy he responded that he would not be caught out by trick questions like that. When he was in Perth for the great yacht race he said: `I am here for one thing only-the Melbourne Cup'. When he was retreating from his Joh for PM campaign in March he said: `I wasn't the one that put up Joh for PM'. He said: `What I'm refraining to do is to create the impression the media would like to create, that my only objective is to become Prime Minister of the Lodge'. He went on to say: I want to turn the economy upside down and go the other way. That's all I want. Not to become Prime Minister. That's just consequential and I don't want to emphasise that because that's not the objective I want. On further tax reforms he said: `We've got to throw out that very, very evil FBI, the fringe benefits tax. From the first day, it's going to go'. When he was asked in March how he guards against eavesdropping by scanners on his car telephone Joh delivered this memorable response: `I always talk in a way that doesn't mean anything'. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(10.43) —In November last year I issued an invitation to all school students in the electorate of Fisher to compete in an essay competition, with the prize for the winners in the secondary and primary school categories being a trip to Canberra to see the Federal Parliament in action. Students were asked to write an essay briefly describing themselves, their interests and the area in which they lived. The response was excellent. I am pleased to have the winners present in the Speaker's Gallery tonight. They are Con O'Brien of Woodford, who attends the Caboolture State High School, and Paula Davies of Strathpine, who attends Bray Park State School. I now wish to read the winning entries. First, the essay by Con O'Brien: Twenty-five million years ago, at an area about half way up the eastern seaboard of Australia, the volcanoes ruled. The entire region was alive with the smell and sound of molten rock exploding from the Earth. However, the mysterious geological forces controlling the eruption soon shifted away, leaving ten mountains as a permanent legacy. As the eras passed, the mountains wore back, until only the hard rock cores remained, jutting out of the plain. It was this group of monoliths that James Cook saw during his 1770 voyage of discovery, and named the Glasshouse Mountains. The settled volcanic ash from the ancient volcanoes made the surrounding soils very fertile, and when white man settled the area, many farming townships were established. One of these towns is now called Woodford, and has now been my home since 1983. Woodford, a community of about one thousand residents, could be called a typical country town. There are the shops, the hotel, and the people you soon identify with a home town. While there is not much in Woodford itself that is unique, the surrounding area is such that anybody appreciating the challenge of reaching the top of a mountain, or who likes the relaxation of a bush swimming hole, can find much to enjoy. So far, I have reached the peaks of six Glasshouse mountains. Most have only been about two hours cycling from town, and the difficulty of the climbs has ranged from a simple walk to places where one slip could mean the end. However, in all cases, the rewards are worth the efforts. My bushwalking experiences have taken me further afield than the Glasshouse region. Indeed, since my parents are teachers, I have lived in many different areas of the State in the last seventeen years. I was born in the granite-belt town of Stanthorpe, and since then I lived in areas as the Gulf of Carpentaria, as well as an Aboriginal Community near Cairns, and the metropolis of Townsville. I have seen a lot of the best of this State, but I hope to always be able to continue broadening my outlook. My other major interests involves doing this without leaving home. I love to read, whether it is flying into the future with the latest from my favourite science fiction author, or simply trying to keep up with the world through daily newspapers. My interests and lifestyle, summed up, involve trying to learn more about and understand my surroundings, and trying to appreciate as much as I can of the world in which we live. Con O'Brien Year 12 Caboolture State High School I shall now read the second essay: G'day. My name is Paula Davies. But you can call me P.D. as I am called by my friends. I consider myself to be a typical Australian eleven year old. I love my vegemite. I lead an extremely busy life and have many interests. I am a keen gymnast and I play the clarinet for the school Wind-Ensemble and in the Pine Rivers Junior Band. I am also a member of the school Recorder Band, for which I am Drum Majorette. I play Softball and Netball for the school. I am fortunate enough to be attending one of the biggest and best schools in Queensland. That is Bray Park State School. It has over 1000 students and about 60 teachers. Our school has won the Tidy Schools Competition for the last few years. Our school is a progressive school with many other activities outside normal schoolwork. These include computers-instrument music, including our School Band, Choir and the Wind-Ensemble, the Writers' Club and a large variety of sports. We have enthusiastic teachers who are willing to give us a helping hand whenever we need it. I live in Strathpine, situated in the Pine Rivers Shire north of Brisbane. Strathpine began in the 1880's as a dairy farming area and logging camp. During World War II it was used by the Army and the Air Force. Streets near the old airstrip are named after the planes that used them. For example, Spitfire Avenue, Wirraway Street, and Lincoln Street. Since then it has become a residential area that contains a large number of young families; consequently there are many schools in the area. The Council has developed our area with parks and picnic areas. I think I was lucky to be born in this State and as a possible leader of tomorrow, I hope to continue to help the State grow. I am sure that honourable members will appreciate the effort put into this competition by both Con and Paula. As possible leaders of tomorrow I sincerely wish both of these young Australians from the electorate of Fisher every success in the future. I thank my colleagues. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -On behalf of the Parliament this evening, I think we should welcome the two young people to the chamber tonight, as well. Mr KENT(Hotham)(10.48) —During the adjournment debate on 28 May I brought to the notice of the House certain matters concerning the Gippsland Institute of Advanced Education. I informed the House that I received information that there was a case of anti-semitic victimisation against a lecturer at the Institute. I also called for the establishment of an impartial external commission of inquiry into the administration of the Institute. Yesterday, during the adjournment debate, my colleague the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) defended the Institute and questioned the authenticity of the information on which I based my comments. I do not want to take issue with my colleague the honourable member for McMillan, who is an excellent local member, and the Gippsland Institute of Advanced Education is in his electorate. I also wish to acknowledge his statement that I may have acted in good faith and would like to assure the House in this respect. I also emphasise that I do not take parliamentary privilege lightly and I have not used it often, if at all. However, the allegation of anti-semitic victimisation at the Institute revolted me. In addition, let me state that I received my information from senior academic circles and I have no reason to doubt its veracity. However, be that as it may, now that the cat has finally been let out of the bag, only an impartial external inquiry can establish the facts and I have asked the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) to establish such an inquiry. If a properly constituted inquiry finds that my information was inaccurate and that there are no intrigues and that there is not anti-semitism or other kinds of victimisation at the Institute, I shall be only too happy to hear it. Mr EVERINGHAM(Northern Territory)(10.50) —In my period in this Parliament I have watched the Hawke Government treat my electorate of the Northern Territory not with national reconciliation and reconstruction, not even with consensus, conciliation and consultation, but with confrontation and contempt. If this treatment had been merely political point scoring, if it had been simply the cynical use of power to punish an electorate that would not and will not vote Labor, that would be bad enough; but it has been more than that. The actions of the Government have hurt Territory families, undermined Territory business, victimised Territory students, created community disharmony and dashed the hopes and aspirations of people who believe and continue to believe in the future of the Northern Territory. This is no exaggeration. Let me quote to this House what the former Labor leader in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly and Australian Labor Party Senate candidate, Bob Collins, said about this Government's treatment of the Territory in April 1985: The Deputy Leader, and I, have acknowledged . . . the absolutely appalling, inexcusable behaviour of the Federal Government. . . . the Prime Minister of Australia has an obligation . . . in respect of the non-stop, vitriolic attacks on the Northern Territory . . . to make it clear that there is no question of the Northern Territory being singled out for particular attention by the Federal Government. That statement was made in mid-1985. Let us look at the list of dashed hopes, broken promises and deliberate victimisations that have continued since then. There was the broken promise of the railway; the breaches of faith on the Darwin and Alice Springs airports; the decision, without consultation, to hand over Ayers Rock to a few, against the wishes of the majority; the savage funding cuts of successive years-this year the cut is 10.1 per cent; the breach of commitment on superannuation for public servants; the decision to tear up Commonwealth-Territory agreements on the electricity subsidy; the continued discrimination that prevents Territory uranium mines from going ahead while mines in Labor States can proceed; the obstruction of the Territory's legitimate desire to establish its own university college; the victimisation of Territory university college students who, by ministerial decree, are not eligible for the same entitlements as other Australian students; the extension, again without consultation, to create the world's largest political park-Kakadu-with an area twice the size of Israel; the broken promise of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to spend $70m or more on tourist facilities in that park; and the failure to amend the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act to prevent claims on stock routes and other public purpose areas. In almost every area of endeavour the Territory's people have received from this Government only obstruction, confrontation, and what has been plainly political victimisation. I quote again the former Labor leader in the Territory. I suggest, with all due respect to the Federal Labor Government, that if it is foolish enough to single out the Territory, and demonstrate afterwards that the Territory was singled out . . . it will cost a great deal of electoral support-not just in the Northern Territory but elsewhere as well. So much for the Prime Minister's much vaunted reconciliation. Well, that time has now come and it will cost this Government. It is conventional political wisdom to see the Northern Territory as a marginal seat, but I can tell honourable members that after four years of Hawke government it is no longer marginal. The Country-Liberal Party candidate will win by a substantial majority and my successor is a man who will fight for the Northern Territory. The difference is that he will be on the Government benches-part of the Liberal-National coalition government. I sat in this chamber at the first national summit and I believed the Prime Minister. Now I realise that he is no better than any other cheap political huckster. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen)(10.54) —Tonight I want to draw the attention of the House to the activities of a group known as D. F. Johnson Syndicate Corporation Ltd whose office is situated in Chandos Street, St Leonards in New South Wales. I suppose that the modus operandi of this investment group is best exemplified by referring to one of its typical prospectuses which was issued in 1981. The prospectus referred to Winston Gardens townhouses and resulted in trust No. 126 being formed. The modus operandi was very simple. The company issued prospectuses which were very promising on capital growth in private trusts. It encouraged people to invest in unit trusts and guaranteed quite considerable returns. For example, for trust No. 126 the groups promised a $221,000 capital growth in a five-year period. It was suggested that, for a $385,000 capital investment, there would be a growth rate of 75 per cent in a five-year period which was, of course, tax free. It is fascinating to note that in the first year of operation this group took $66,500 out of a $385,000 investment for manager expenses, trust formation fees, formation costs, legal fees and stamp duty. I repeat: The group took $66,500 out of a total public investment of $385,000. The group made a great number of promises to people who trusted it to do what the prospectuses said it would do. It promised that in trust No. 126 they would receive a percentage increase on their equity of 74 per cent over a five-year period. This was estimated as a capital appreciation of $221,000. In a letter to all members of unit trust No. 126, the group stated that the trust had been `seriously affected, partly by the downturn in the market over the first four years but mainly by regulations introduced by the New South Wales Corporate Affairs Commission in July 1982'. It went on to say that regulations were imposed on private trusts to stop the uncontrolled sale of units and that the abolition of negative gearing had affected that particular trust. I wrote to the firm and asked how that affected capital growth on a block of flats. Of course, it cannot answer that question. It is now telling investors whose money it has had since 1981 that they will not receive any capital return on their money. The group has already taken $66,000 out of the trust and it is now saying to the investors: `We are sorry. You will not get your 74 per cent capital growth. What we want you to do is to let your unit become a shareholding in a public company which we will manage'. The group, having made all the promises in the world and having told people that they will not make their big profits because of the abolition of negative gearing, is now saying: `Trust us again'. That is like the Opposition when it says: `Trust us again at the next election. We will not make as much of a mess as we did last time'. We know that that is a lot of baloney. What the group has told investors about the effects of the abolition of negative gearing is a straight-out untruth. That is the best way one could describe it. The group has told an untruth to the aged, widows and other investors who have put their life savings into these trusts by suggesting that capital growth has not been achieved because of the abolition of negative gearing. The abolition of negative gearing has not affected the ability of any of those unit trusts, private or public, to gain capital growth. I intend to issue a Press release tomorrow and I hope that the matter will be picked up by the national media so that everyone involved with this darned group will find out the truth-that it has failed. It was not very accurate in its original forecasts. It has pocketed the $66,500 and now, five years down the track, when the unit trusts do not have the capital growth, it says: `Okay, we will now form a public company and transfer your unit into a share in the public company. Then you might be able to sell it'. When I wrote to the group I asked it whether it had made a valuation of trust No. 126. I asked it whether it could inform the investors of trust No. 126 of the capital growth. The group wrote back and said that it could not do so. It cannot even tell the investors, despite asking them to go into a public company, whether their individual trust has achieved a capital growth. When I return to this House after 11 July I will pursue the matter further. I give notice to D. F. Johnson Syndicate Corp. Ltd that I intend to pursue its activities. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(10.59) —The five Tasmanian members of the House of Representatives are ready for the election. We will get elected for the sixth time in a row. I issue a bit of a warning to Tasmanian senators. I rarely become involved in the Liberal Party's affairs. I just run for Franklin and represent the people. I am neither a member of the Left or the Right nor a wet or a dry. I warn Tasmanian senators that they had better buck up and get right behind the five Tasmanian members of the House of Representatives. They had better stop their squabbling in Tasmania; otherwise I will get involved. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! It being 11 p.m., pursuant to sessional order, the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following notice was given: Mr West to move- That in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of Department of Aviation Central Training College, A.C.T. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 2 June 1987: Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 93. Australian Citizenship Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, Nos. 87, 88. Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 89. Companies Acquisition of Shares-Fees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 81. Companies (Fees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 82. Criminology Research Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 84. Customs Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, Nos. 97, 98. Family Law Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 85. Futures Industry (Fees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 83. Income Tax Assessment Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 92. Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 91. Migration Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 86. Navigation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, Nos. 95, 96. Public Service Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 90. Securities Industry (Fees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 80. Sugar Cane Levy Collection Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 94. Superannuation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 99. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 5009) Mr Hodges asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 17 February 1987: (1) What word processing or computer equipment has been introduced into the Minister's Department and statutory authorities responsible to the Minister since 1982. (2) Why was the equipment purchased and were any specific targets set in terms of time or cost savings and improved efficiencies. (3) What has been the cost of purchasing the equipment. (4) Has the introduction of the equipment necessitated the purchase of new office equipment; if so what have been the costs of the additional purchases. (5) Has the introduction of the equipment led to changes in work practices; if so, what has been the nature of the changes. (6) What has been the incidence of repetition strain injury (RSI) in the Minister's Department since 1982. (7) How many lost working days have been caused by RSI related illnesses since 1982. (8) How many persons have been forced to retire from the Minister's Department or statutory authorities responsible to the Minister as a result of RSI and what have been the compensation costs of this early retirement. (9) Has introduction of the equipment: (a) saved money; and (b) improved efficiency in the Minister's Department or the statutory authorities responsible to the Minister. Mr Hurford —The Minister for Finance has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Details of equipment DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (CENTRAL OFFICE) Word processing equipment This Department's Word Processing System is entirely comprised of Wang equipment. Since 1982 the Department has introduced an additional OIS 140 Central Processing Unit (CPU) which was upgraded to a VS100 CPU in 1985. Additional workstations, printers, personal computers and other associated hardware items have also been purchased together with appropriate software. Computer equipment The Department of Finance has used large-scale computer facilities to aid in the processing of its major, Service-wide accounting systems for many years and the purchases since 1982, for the most part, were for the continuation, expansion or improvement of those systems and replace or supplemented functionally similar equipment previously in use. Computer equipment purchases since 1982 which form part of the Department's Central Computer facilities include an Amdahl mainframe computer, IBM compatible disk storage, laser printers, terminal equipment, microcomputers and microfiche equipment. Purchases for the Regional Office network computer facilities have included Nixdorf-based data entry and computer systems, terminal equipment and mini computers. AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT RETIREMENTS BENEFITS OFFICE (AGRBO) A Wordplex 8000 word processing system comprising 16 workstations and 7 printers was purchased during 1985. Computer equipment purchases since 1982 have included terminal equipment, microcomputers, disk drives and a Nixdorf 8890 Network Node Computer and associated software. SUPERANNUATION FUND INVESTMENT TRUST (SFIT) SFIT uses IBM personal computers for all its word processing requirements. Computer equipment purchased by SFIT since 1982 falls into two main categories: Personal Computing 78 personal computers (nearly all IBM or IBM compatible); 32 printers and associated printer equipment; and 2 plotters. Mainframe Computing Upgrade kits taking the main SFIT computer from a Hewlett-Packard 3000 model 40 to a model 42XP, including 4 extra disc drives, 2 extra tape drives and associated air-conditioning equipment; 4 extra terminals to the HP 3000; 3 extra printers; and 11 modems and associated communications equipment. Some computing equipment associated with a new PABX system has also been purchased. (2) Reasons for purchase. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (CENTRAL OFFICE) With the growth of the Department and the outposting of word processing equipment to Departmental executive areas, there has been an ongoing requirement to expand and update the Word Processing System in order to provide an efficient service to the Department. The original OIS 140 was operating at full capacity in 1981 which necessitated the purchase of a second OIS 140 CPU. By 1984 both OIS 140s were operating at full capacity which significantly reduced the response time of work being generated and limited further expansion of the System. This then necessitated the upgrade to the present VS100 System which was purchased in July 1985. Since that time the VS100 has adequately handled the work load and improved the efficiency of the Word Processing System. Its use has avoided any increase in turn around time in producing material, particularly in the need to meet Cabinet and Parliamentary Committee Schedules. Micro computers were introduced into the Department since 1982 to facilitate the use of information systems, management decision systems, econometric modelling, production of graphics output and similar management aids. Their acquisition has been in response to increasing demands for quick but detailed analysis for resource evaluation and management purposes. The allocation of computer workstations (microcomputers, terminals and printers) since 1982 has been based on the demonstrated needs of individual areas within the Department, and allocation priorities have been agreed by an ADP Planning Committee comprised of senior officers. Specific targets and cost savings have not been defined for the purchases, which were generally undertaken chiefly to meet work load growth or needs for analytical capacity. While many of the benefits gained relate to the quality of decision making there have also been benefits in output/staff ratios and in timeliness and accuracy of results. AGRBO Word processing equipment was purchased to replace existing outdated equipment and to improve the Office's capacity to meet increased workload demands. Targets were to achieve a 24 hour turnaround in keyboard activity and to meet increased workload demands through increased productivity. Computing equipment purchases were made to improve the delivery of service to clients, to facilitate access to the Department of Finance network and to meet increased workload demands through increased productivity. SFIT The equipment was purchased for two reasons: to provide an appropriate environment for systems developed to meet criticisms of SFIT's operations by the Auditor-General; and to improve information services in support of investment analysis, transaction processing, financial reporting and office systems. (3) Cost of purchases. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (CENTRAL OFFICE) $ Word processing equipment... 1,492,000 Computer equipment... 14,856,000 AGRBO Word processing equipment... 161,915 Computer equipment... 567,500 SFIT The cost of purchasing computer equipment has been approximately $1,168,000. (4) Associated equipment. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (CENTRAL OFFICE) AND AGRBO The furniture and equipment replacement program for the Department has included ergonomic and better designed items where appropriate but this was not directly linked with the purchase of new word processing and computer equipment in that it would have been necessary even with existing keyboard and computer equipment and to meet usual replacement requirements. SFIT Ergonomic desks, chairs and footrests totalling some $78,000 have been purchased to support the personal computing environment. However, approximately 40% of this cost would have been incurred in any case because of growth in staff numbers. (5) Change in work practice. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (CENTRAL OFFICE) AND AGRBO Word processing equipment Given that this Department already had word processing equipment prior to 1982, there have been no changes in work practices as a result of the purchases made since 1982. Computer equipment Within the Department there has been a ready acceptance of computer workstations and there is evidence of steadily-increasing usage, in terms of clerical procedures and management/information applications. The most significant changes in work practices can be seen in non-ADP areas of the Department, where computer workstations provide facilities for non-technical staff to perform financial and statistical analysis and modelling work. SFIT The introduction of computing equipment has led to significant changes in SFIT's work practices and the way in which staff perform their functions. Examples are: significantly faster and more detailed analyses of investments are now possible; production of reports is faster and the end product is of a higher quality; control and production of SFIT accounting records and reporting has improved substantially, including the preparation of quarterly financial statements on a full market value basis; and most staff have been trained in computer usage with the result that personal computers and terminals are now regularly used by the majority of staff. (6) RSI. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (CENTRAL OFFICE) The incidence of new cases of RSI in the Department of Finance since 1982 is shown in the following table. Financial Year Central Office A.C.T. N.S.W. Vic. Qld S.A. W.A. Tas N.T. Total 1981-82... . . . . . . 2 . . 1 . . . . . . . . 3 1982-83... . . . . 8 3 1 1 . . . . . . 13 1983-84... 12 2 11 2 3 2 1 1 . . 34 1984-85... 23 8 3 2 2 3 4 1 . . 46 1985-86... 7 4 8 6 . . . . 1 1 . . 27 1986-87 to 27.2.87... 4 . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . 5 Total... 46 14 30 16 6 7 6 3 . . 128 AGRBO Since 1982 there have been 28 reported cases of RSI. SFIT Since 1982 there have been three reported cases of RSI. 7. Lost working days. Department of Finance (Central Office)-11,832 days. AGRBO-3,758 days. SFIT-298 days. (Note: The figure for the Central Office of the Department includes some working days lost prior to 1982. Because of the nature of the available records, it is not possible to determine the exact number of days lost prior to 1982 but it is not considered to be large). 8. Retirements. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (CENTRAL OFFICE) Eight people have retired from the Minister's Department as a result of RSI. The compensation costs of this early retirement are as follows: Compensation Weekly payments $ 1983-84... 848 1984-85... 22,979 1985-86... 50,982 1986-87*... 52,180 126,989 Medical expenses 1983-84... . . 1984-85... 693 1985-86... 1,092 1986-87*... 464 2,249 Superannuation Pension Payments 1983-84... 1,989 1984-85... 26,661 1985-86... 41,042 1986-87*... 42,384 112,076 Final Entitlements (R/L, Leave Bonus, LSL) 1983-84... 3,774 1984-85... 17,346 1985-86... 6,315 1986-87*... 19,117 46,552 Total... 287,866 * Year to date for 1986-87, i.e. to 4 March 1987. AGRBO One officer retired on invalidity grounds due to RSI. Compensation costs to date have totalled $18,349.11. SFIT No persons have been forced to retire from SFIT as a result of RSI-related injury. 9. Savings and efficiency. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (CENTRAL OFFICE) AND AGRBO (a) Word processing equipment Given that the Department has expanded and the work load has increased considerably, it is difficult to objectively determine monetary savings on a comparative basis. However, the introduction of word processing equipment has resulted in a more efficient and effective service to the Department, with a significantly improved workload response time and a higher standard of output. In the absence of the equipment, staff growth would have been considerable or, alternatively, the quality and timeliness of the functions performed by the Department would have been substantially degraded. (b) Computer equipment No attempt has been made to quantify the overall benefits achieved through the introduction of computer workstations and microcomputers in Finance, although consideration is given to cost-effectiveness arguments when the ADP Planning Committee allocates priorities for the installation of computer workstations. Opportunities for further efficiency improvements are offered via the ``bureau'' service provided by the Department (Finance Ledgers, Budget Management, Public Service and General Payments Systems etc) with the increasing interfacing of computer workstations which are being installed in other Government agencies. Savings that have been made result from improved efficiency and, as previously stated, cannot be readily quantified, but the improved efficiency has been rated as significant. SFIT SFIT's objective is to maximise the rate of return on the Fund having regard to the need to make provision for payments, the need for equity between contributors and the need to exercise care and prudence. SFIT is also required to observe other obligations specified in the Superannuation Act 1976 such as external reporting to the Parliament and contributors, planning, record-keeping and the maintenance of efficiency in its operations. Investments in information systems are evaluated against these criteria and SFIT is satisfied that the investments made since 1982 have contributed to the achievement of its objectives, including efficiency. (Question No. 5128) Mr Wright asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 23 February 1987: (1) What Government subsidies, benefits or financial assistance is available to the primary industry sector? (2) What assistance is available to primary producers in terms of excise duties on fuel and the availability of subsidised interest rates through rural schemes? Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The rural sector benefits from measures directed not only to primary producers but also to the wider rural community. Those measures which are specifically directed to primary producers include measures designed to address on and off-farm costs, and to encourage greater efficiency in all aspects of rural sector activities from production to marketing. Steps taken to reduce on-farm costs embrace a wide range of inputs including agricultural chemicals, fuel, fertilisers, agricultural machinery, soil and water conservation measures, and fodder storage. They take various forms-rebates, tax concessions, direct subsidies-and include: (i) removal of the 2 per cent general revenue duty on imported agricultural chemicals thus giving a tariff concession to the farm sector. Tariffs on all chemicals and plastics, including agricultural chemicals, are to be phased down over the next 3-5 years from current levels of around 30 per cent to a maximum level of 15 per cent. This will reduce farm input costs by an estimated $2-4 million per annum in agricultural chemicals alone. Rural producers will also benefit from the effects of the reduction of tariffs on other inputs. (ii) payment of a subsidy under the Petroleum Products Freight Subsidy Scheme on the cost of freighting eligible petroleum products to country locations. The level of subsidy is equal to the difference between the actual freight cost and the maximum consumer contribution. Currently the maximum consumer contribution is 5.7 cents per litre. In 1986/87 these subsidy payments are estimated to cost $24 million. (iii) full rebate of the excise on diesel used off road. Further information about this is given in the answer to question 2. (iv) subsidies on locally produced phosphatic and nitrogenous fertilisers to encourage local production and use of fertilisers. New rates introduced on phosphatic fertilisers in August 1986 were $153, $163 and $188 per tonne of phosphorous where phosphorous content is less than 10 per cent, 10-15 per cent and more than 15 per cent, respectively. This represents an increase over the previous rate of $138 per tonne of phosphorous. The rate on nitrogenous fertilisers has continued unchanged at $20 per tonne of nitrogen. The cost of the subsidy on both items is estimated at $43m in 1986/87. (v) grants made to the States to offset the cost to farmers of dumping duties on imported fertilisers. Payments are made to importers to refund the dumping duty collected by the Australian Customs Service and corresponding payments are made to local manufacturers of those fertilisers. In 1986-87 these payments are estimated to cost about $40 million. (vi) substitution of bounties for tariffs on grain harvesters, cultivation equipment and tractors at a cost of around $4 million, $17 million and $2 million a year respectively. (vii) exemption from sales tax on most agricultural machinery and equipment and also on certain (4-wheel drive) vehicles used off-road (viii) special depreciation rates on some forms of expenditure grain, hay or fodder storage facilities are depreciable over 3 or 5 years the capital cost of a telephone line is depreciable over 10 years. (ix) special tax deductions soil conservation and land degradation expenditure is immediately deductible expenditure on conserving or conveying water is deductible over 3 years As regards off-farm costs, primary producers receive assistance through: (i) subsidisation of export inspection costs. The Commonwealth meets at least 50 per cent and, in some instances, more than 50 per cent, of the cost of inspection services at a cost of around $56 million a year. Products covered are meat, wool, grain, fruit and vegetables, fish, dairy products, eggs and livestock. Further benefits will flow to producers through the Commonwealth's initiative to rationalise and streamline the Export Inspection Service and to establish a single national meat inspection service, with the Commonwealth having responsibility for inspection of all meat for domestic and export markets. This will avoid duplication of effort, making inspection services more cost efficient. (ii) subsidisation of fisheries management. Of the effective Australian Fisheries Service budget of $12.2 million for management and policy formulation purposes, $10.3 million relates to fisheries management. The Commonwealth pays 56 per cent of the operational costs incurred in the management of the Northern Prawn Fishery and Southern Bluefin Tuna Fishery, where management plans exist, and 100 per cent of the operational costs for the South Eastern Trawl, Southern Shark, East Coast Tuna, West Australian Offshore and Great Australian Bight fisheries, where no management plans currently exist. Additional benefits will flow from Government action to reduce regulation, increase the efficiency of transport services, and to establish a Royal Commission to inquire into the costs and efficiency of the national grain transport, storage and handling systems. In addition to the above, the rural sector benefits from a number of broad-ranging measures designed to encourage greater industry efficiency in both production and marketing and, where appropriate, to, provide direct assistance to protect industry returns. These include (i) measures which address the problems arising from the fluctuating nature of primary producers' incomes income tax averaging indefinite carry-forward of losses Income Equalisation Deposits Scheme (IEDS), which offers an attractive rate of interest to encourage farmers to save in good years to provide a source of liquidity during poorer years. Deposits are currently in the order of $50 million. underwriting schemes which apply to wheat, apples and pears, dairy products and dried vine fruits. While no payments are expected to be made in respect of these products in 1986-87, they nonetheless involve a substantial contingent liability for the Commonwealth and play an important role in stabilising farm production and incomes. (ii) discriminatory pricing schemes maintained for certain dairy products, sugar, dried vine fruits, canning fruit and eggs. (iii) the sugar adjustment plan which is designed to ensure the long term efficiency of the industry in Queensland and New South Wales. In 1986-87, the first year of the three year plan, the Commonwealth Government is providing $22.6 million to the industry, and will provide up to $100 million over the three year plan. Of the initial $22.6 million, $14.6 million is allocated for price support and $8 million for adjustment assistance. (iv) adjustment assistance provided to the dried vine fruit and wine grape industries. In 1986-87 the Commonwealth has appropriated $1.4 million and $5.3 million respectively for these industries, mainly as vine-pull grants with costs being shared between Commonwealth and the States on a $2: $1 basis. (v) the National Fisheries Adjustment Scheme, which aims to restructure fisheries by reducing existing fishing capacity and under which the Government will contribute $3 million in 1986-87. (vi) concessional funding for adjustment assistance under the Rural Adjustment Scheme. Under Part A of the Scheme, concessional loans are provided to farmers who will be viable in the longer term for purposes of farm improvement, farm build-up and debt restructuring. Commercial finance is provided to farmers through an interest subsidy provided by the Commonwealth equivalent to 50 per cent of borrowings and associated costs. The interest subsidy determined for new lending in any one year is provided for a further six years. Commonwealth expenditure on continuing and new loans in 1986-87 is estimated at $26.9 million; $21.5 million of this figure is reserved for new lending and should facilitate new loans of around $245 million in 1986-87. In addition continuing assistance is being provided in respect of the $95.4m of loans approved for subsidy in 1985-86. (vii) subsidisation of the Brucellosis and Tuberculosis Eradication Campaign. The Commonwealth provides 75 per cent of the cost of compensation and matches State funding on additional special assistance measures. In 1986-87 the cost of these measures to the Commonwealth is estimated at $16 million. Producers also benefit from special tax provisions enabling profits obtained from the compulsory disposal of animals to be offset for income tax purposes against the cost of replacement stock, giving them greater flexibility in restocking. (viii) the provision of $6 million in 1986-87 in financial assistance to State government for soil conservation under the National Soil Conservation Program. (ix) assistance for the better management of Australia's scarce water resources under the Federal Water Resources Assistance Program involving an allocation of about $48 million to the States in 1986-87. (x) concessional loans for a range of disasters including bushfire, flood, drought and related occurences. The Commonwealth reimburses part of the amount to the State according to a formula under the National Disaster Relief Arrangements. After State expenditure reaches a trigger level, the Commonwealth provides a 50 per cent subsidy until a further trigger level is reached where the Commonwealth share increases to 75 per cent. Conditions vary from State to State but loans are generally made available at a low interest rate, typically for a maximum value of $30,000 to $60,000 depending upon the State, the nature of disaster and the applicant's particular circumstances. Loans are generally only made where the applicant is unable to obtain further finance from commercial sources. (xi) matching $1 for $1 industry contributions to 14 rural industry research funds (RIRFs) which are established under the Rural Industry Research Act 1985. The Government has also revamped the RIRFs to increase their effectiveness and to ensure research funds are more efficiently used. In 1986-87 direct Commonwealth funding for these RIRFs will total $15 million. Assistance is also provided for research through the Fishing Industry Research Trust Account (FIRTA) and the Fisheries Development Trust Account (FDTA). Over $7 million in Commonwealth contributions is available through FIRTA in 1986-87 for research and education in Australian fishing. Under FDTA $300,000 is available in 1986-87 to fund developments which because they are less commercially attractive may not otherwise be funded. Total Commonwealth outlays on rural research in 1986-87 are estimated at $44 million, which includes research moneys for the fishing, meat and wool industries whose research funds are not covered by the Rural Industry Research Act 1985. In addition, the Commonwealth directly funds the CSIRO and the BAE, and more recently has created the Bureau of Rural Science within the Department of Primary Industry in further recognition of the need to incorporate advanced technology in rural industries. Primary producers will also benefit indirectly from the tax deduction of 150 per cent on private sector research and development in such areas as biotechnology and food processing. (xii) provision of substantial funding for wool promotion, estimated at $36 million in 1986-87. (xiii) allocation of $5 million a year for five years to an Innovative Agricultural Marketing Program to sponsor innovative projects. (xiv) funding of research on meat markets and consumer satisfaction with meat products through the Meat Marketing Innovation Grant which the Government introduced in 1985-86, and which will provide $7 million over 4 years. Expenditure from the Grant is expected to be around $2 million in 1986-87. (xv) reform of statutory marketing authorities to increase their flexibility and efficiency and to improve their professionalism in management, finance, marketing and promotion. Similarly the membership of industry policy councils has been revised. While such measures do not provide immediate or tangible benefits, their beneficial effects over the longer term are likely to far outweigh the direct financial outlays or subsidies enjoyed by the rural sector. The Government has also established the Rural and Allied Industries Council consisting of industry, union and Government leaders, to research issues of concern to the rural and related sectors of the economy and provide a forum through which the members can resolve potential conflicts and work jointly toward the removal of impediments to progress in all aspects of primary production and marketing. (xvi) the allocation of $0.5 million for feasibility studies of the scope for developing processing plants for wool, cotton and hides, together with a commitment to provide substantial funding for such projects, subject to the outcome of the feasibility studies. (xvii) the provision of National Interest Cover for substantial rural exports (particularly grain) to countries where there is a relatively high risk of default and insurance facilities normally available through the Export Finance Insurance Corporation are not available. Notwithstanding the assistance provided by these industry-specific measures, primary producers have perhaps benefitted most from more general developments at the macro-economic level. In particular (i) the devaluation of the Australian dollar has boosted returns to agriculture well above the level they would otherwise have been. (ii) deregulation of the financial system and increased competition in the banking system has ensured an adequate flow of funds to all sectors, including the rural sector. (iii) the Government's policy of wage restraint has substantially eased inflationary pressures thus restraining cost increases and reducing real unit labour costs. (iv) the reduction of protection in key industries-steel, chemical and plastics, motor vehicles, textiles, clothing and footwear-will enhance overall economic efficiency and reduce input costs. The Government's approach to the rural sector is not, however, limited to assisting only primary producers. Rather, it takes a holistic approach, reflecting its concern for the well-being of the rural community generally. It is therefore concerned that rural communities are not disadvantaged in comparison with urban communities. To this end it: (i) subsidises by 50 per cent the cost of employment of rural counsellors in areas requiring the service. (ii) provides substantial funding under Part C of the Rural Adjustment Scheme (RAS). As outlined above, the RAS provides financial assistance to assist industry adjustment. Through Part C of the Scheme funds are provided to assist farmers suffering financial hardship to ``carry-on'' while they consider whether to leave farming and to assist those who have left farming. Estimated expenditure under Part C in 1986-87 is $5 million. This assistance complements unemployment benefits available to farmers who meet the eligibility requirements. (iii) subsidises regional air services. In 1986-87, the Government has provided a rebate of 50 per cent ($2.3m) of aircraft movement charges payable by the commuter airlines to assist in the transition to the new method of charging this financial year. Also, a rebate of 15 per cent of annual Air Navigation Charges is provided to the registered owners of aerial agricultural aircraft and a further 50 per cent rebate is provided to the owners of general aviation aircraft which are not normally domiciled at Commonwealth funded aerodromes. A significant proportion of the benefits of these rebates is received by primary producers. (iv) subsidises a number of rural services including the Royal Flying Doctor Service and education for isolated children. (v) grants remote area allowances in social security payments and taxation zone allowances and rebates. (vi) subsidises communications facilities to rural Australia. (viii) provides Commonwealth assistance to the States and NT under natural disaster relief arrangements. In 1986-87 the Commonwealth contribution is expected to be well in excess of the Budget estimate of $24 million. (2) Primary producers receive a full rebate of the excise paid on diesel fuel used off-road. This recognises that the cost of diesel fuel, as an input to production, influences the price of farm output and thus its competitiveness in world markets. Diesel is therefore available to the rural, fishing and forestry industries at world prices. On the basis of present estimates of consumption of diesel by primary producers and the current operable rate of rebate, this assistance will save primary producers around $260 million in 1986-87. As set out in the response to Question 1 concessional finance is made available through the RAS. The Commonwealth also facilitates the availability of finance to the rural sector through the Commonwealth Development Bank, which because of its operating arrangements, is able to provide loans at very competitive rates, and the Primary Industry Bank of Australia, which provides re-financing loans to major lenders and directly lends to farmers at very competitive rates. (Question No. 5209) Mr Sinclair asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 20 March 1987: (1) Has his attention been drawn to reports that a former officer of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Mr P. B. F. Agee, plans to visit Australia in 1987. (2) Is he able to say whether (a) Mr Agee served with the CIA from 1958 to 1969, primarily in Latin America, (b) Mr Agee first established significant contact with a KGB officer, Mr V. P. Semenov, in Montevideo in 1964 (c) Mr Semenov served as chief KGB adviser to the Cuban Intelligence Service from 1968, (d) Mr Agee visited Cuba 3 times between 1971 and 1974, ostensibly to undertake research for his book Inside the Company: CIA Diary, published in 1975 and (e) publication of this book, which named many CIA officers, was followed by the murders or unexplained deaths of many of those named. (3) Has his attention been drawn to a statement by Mr L. Bittman, a former active countermeasures and disinformation specialist in the Czech Intelligence Service who defected in 1968, that Mr Agee is the most effective collaborator and anti-American propagandist that ever worked for the Soviet disinformation service; if so, is he able to say whether that assessment is correct. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the right honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) and (3) It has been the established practice of successive Australian Governments to avoid providing information that would confirm or deny speculation on intelligence and security matters. (Question No. 5443) Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 13 May 1987: (1) Is he able to say which Aboriginal communities or organisations receive foreign aid and which organisations provide the aid. (2) Is he able to say how much the Aboriginal communities or organisations receive and how this money is spent. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) No. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs is not in a position to check the source of all non-Commonwealth funding that an Aboriginal community or organisation may receive. However, all Federal funding provided to Aboriginal organisations is subject to strict audit requirements and is required to be devoted to the purposes specified in the approved Budget. It is to be expected, therefore, that any unusual injection of funds from private sources would be readily detected by the Department in the course of its regular administrative activities. (Question No. 5530) Mr Sinclair asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 28 May 1987: Have any officers of the Minister's Department or statutory authorities under his responsibility visited Libya since March 1983; if so; (a) when did each visit take place. (b) what was the purpose of the visit, and (c) who incurred the expense of the visit. Mr Howe —The answer to the right honourable member's question is as follows: No. (a), (b) and (c) not applicable.