Thursday, 4 June 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Assent reported. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests: Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill 1987 Customs Tariff (Commonwealth Authorities) Amendment Bill 1987 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 Local Government (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill 1987 Consideration resumed from 3 June. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 1, clause 2, line 7, after ``operation on'', insert ``the sixtieth day after''. No. 2-Page 8, clause 14, line 41, leave out ``92a'', insert ``91aaa''. No. 3-Page 14, clause 16, proposed section 94h, lines 35 to 41, leave out the proposed section, insert the following section: `` `94h. (1) An approved market shall be taken: (a) if 2 or more of the licensees in the approved market give notice to the Minister under section 94g that they wish to proceed immediately towards aggregation in the approved market-to be proceeding immediately towards aggregation; or (b) if paragraph (a) does not apply-to be proceeding towards aggregation via multi-channel services. `(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), where: (a) 2 or more of the licences in an approved market are specified in the Indicative Plan as being eligible for consolidation with one another; and (b) the licensees of those licences give notices to the Minister under section 94g that they wish to proceed immediately towards aggregation in the approved market; those notices shall be deemed to be a single notice under that section given jointly by those licensees.''. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(10.02) —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. Briefly, agreement has been reached with both the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), as the spokesman for the Liberal Party of Australia, and the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp), the spokesman for the National Party of Australia, that because these matters have been debated at considerable length, not only in this place but also in the Senate, there is no need for the matters to be debated again this morning. However, I did undertake-- Mr Macphee —Mr Deputy Chairman, on a point of order: I want to make it very clear that no such agreement has been made as far as I am concerned. I do not in any way feel bound by any arrangement made by three people-- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —Order! There is no point or order. Mr DUFFY —I note the concern of the honourable member for Goldstein, who has had many opportunities to put his points of view on these matters. I wish to take this opportunity to reiterate the Government's commitment to a remote commercial television service for the eastern States. The Government is disappointed that the two consortia which currently hold the licences in the south-east and north-east service areas have not been able at this stage to fulfil their commitment and sign a service contract with Aussat. However, I assure the Committee that it remains the Government's firm intention to ensure that an RCT service will be available to the people in all remote parts of Australia. There is nothing further that I wish to add on that matter other than to request that the amendments be agreed to. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein)(10.04) —This is a shameful piece of legislation. It really is outrageous. It is a nail in the coffin of the Australian democracy. They have handed over 60 per cent-- Motion (by Mr Duffy) proposed: That the question be now put. Mr Macphee —Mr Chairman, this is a shameful day for democracy. They have handed over control of 60 per cent of the viewing-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! I warn the honourable member for Goldstein. Mr Macphee —It hands over control of 60 per cent of the viewing-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for Goldstein does not want to be ejected on the last day of sitting, does he? Resume your seat! Mr Macphee —I am outraged by this legislation and the gagging of it! Question resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Mr Macphee —Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask that my dissent be recorded. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —That is noted. Consideration resumed from 3 June. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 7, paragraph 18 (h), lines 1 to 6, leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraph: ``(h) by inserting after subsection (6) the following subsections: `(6a) For the purposes of this Division, a newspaper shall be taken to be associated with the service area of a commercial television licence if, and so long as, the name of the newspaper is entered in the Associated Newspaper Register as a newspaper that is associated with the service area of the licence. `(6b) For the purposes of this Division, a commercial television licence shall be taken to be a non-competitive licence if: (a) the licence is in an approved market and an MCS permit is in force in respect of the licence; or (b) the licence is not in an approved market and the service area of the licence is not wholly, or almost wholly, within the service area of another commercial television licence.'; and''. No. 2-Page 11, paragraph 22 (1) (a), proposed paragraph 92 (1) (a), line 16, leave out ``75%'', insert ``60%''. No. 3-Page 11, paragraph 22 (1) (a), proposed subsection 92 (1aa), lines 22 to 26, leave out the proposed subsection, insert the following subsection: `` `(1aa) A person contravenes this section if, and so long as the person has a prescribed interest in: (a) a commercial television licence (in this subsection called ``licence A'') that is in an approved market and in respect of which an MCS permit is in force; and (b) another commercial television licence (in this subsection called ``licence B'') that is a non-competitive licence; unless: (c) licence B is not in an approved market; and (d) all the person's interests in licence B are interests of one or more of the following kinds: (i) interests in the company holding licence B of which the person became the holder before the day on which the Minister gave notice under section 94j that the approved market referred to in paragraph (a) was proceeding towards aggregation via multi-channel services; (ii) interests in licence B due to other circumstances that came into existence before that day; (iii) interests in the company holding a licence B resulting from the allotment or issue, on or after that day, of shares in, or debentures of, a company to a person where: (a) the person, immediately before that day, held shares in, or debentures of, that company; and (b) the person received or receives the shares or debentures so allotted or issued in accordance with rights of a kind enjoyed by the person in common with other holders of shares or debentures of the same class as the shares or debentures that were so held.''. No. 4-Page 12, after subclause 22 (2), add the following new subclauses: ``(3) A person shall not be taken to be in contravention of section 92 of the Principal Act (being a contravention by virtue of the operation of subsection 92 (1aa) of that Act) in relation to any licences by reason only of one or more of the following: (a) if the person held any of the licences immediately before 2 June 1987 and the holding of that licence did not, immediately before that day, result in a contravention by that person of section 92 of the Principal Act-the holding by the person of that licence (including that licence as renewed); (b) the holding by the person of interests in any of the companies holding the licences, being interests of which the person became the holder before that day, or other circumstances that came into existence before that day, where: (i) the holding of those interests or the existence of those circumstances did not, immediately before that day, result in a contravention by that person of section 92 of the Principal Act; or (ii) on or after that day action has been taken which, if it had been taken before that day, would have caused the holding of those interests or the existence of those circumstances not to result in such a contravention; (c) the holding by the person of interests in any of the companies holding the licences, being interests resulting from the allotment or issue, on or after that day, of shares in, or debentures of, a company to a person who, immediately before that day, held shares in, or debentures of, that company, where the person received or receives the shares or debentures so allotted or issued in accordance with rights of a kind enjoyed by the person in common with other holders of shares or debentures of the same class as the shares or debentures that were so held. ``(4) Subsection (3) does not apply in relation to a person at any time when the person is the holder of any interest (other than an interest referred to in paragraph (3) (c) ) in the company holding any of the licences concerned if the person became the holder of the interest on or after 2 June 1987. ``(5) The operation of subsection (4) is not affected by the fact that, on or after 2 June 1987 and before the person became the holder of the interest, there has been a reduction in the amount of the interest held by the person in the company. ``(6) Subsection (3) ceases to apply in relation to a person if at any time the person has a prescribed interest in 3 or more licences that are in an approved market or approved markets and in respect of which MCS permits are in force.''. No. 5-Page 12, clause 24, proposed subsection 92c (1), line 34, leave out ``75%'', insert ``60%''. No. 6-Page 12, clause 24, proposed subsection 92c (1aa), lines 35 to 40, leave out the proposed subsection, insert the following subsection: `` `(1aa) A person contravenes this section if, and so long as, the person: (a) is a director of a company that is in a position to exercise control of a licence that is in an approved market and in respect of which an MCS permit is in force; and (b) is a director of another company that is, or 2 or more other companies that, between them, are, in a position to exercise control of another commercial television licence that is a non-competitive licence; unless; (c) the licence referred to in paragraph (b) is not in an approved market; and (d) the person has continued to hold the directorships from a time before the day on which the Minister gave notice under section 94j that the approved market referred to in paragraph (a) was proceeding towards aggregation via multi-channel services.''. No. 7-Page 13, clause 24, proposed subsection 92c (1ac), line 16, leave out ``subsection (1ab)'', insert ``subsections (1aa) and (1ab)''. No. 8-Page 13, clause 24, at end of clause, add the following new subclauses: ``(2) Where: (a) a person holds directorships the holding of which would, but for this subsection, constitute a contravention of section 92c of the Principal Act by virtue of the operation of subsection (1aa) of that section; and (b) the person has continued to hold the directorships from a time before 2 June 1987; the person shall not be taken to be in contravention of that section by reason only of the holding of the directorships. ``(3) Subsection (2) ceases to apply to a person if at any time the person is a director of 2 or more companies that, between them, are in a position to exercise control of 3 or more licences that are in an approved market or approved markets and in respect of which MCS permits are in force.''. No. 9-Page 17, subclause 27 (1), after proposed subsection 92fad (1), insert the following new subsection: `` `(1a) a person who contravenes this section is guilty of a separate offence in respect of each day (including a day of a conviction under this subsection or any subsequent day) during which the contravention continues.''. No. 10-Page 19, after subclause 27 (4), insert the following new subclauses: ``(4a) Where: (a) immediately before 28 November 1986, a company (in this subsection called the `holding company') was in a position to exercise significant control over the company (in this subsection called the `licensee company') holding a commercial television licence; and (b) on or after 28 November 1986, the holding company became or becomes the holder of a loan interest in the licensee company; the following provisions have effect: (c) subject to paragraph (d), the loan interest shall be disregarded for the purposes of the application of subsections (3) and (4) in relation to the holding company; (d) paragraph (c) does not apply in relation to the holding company if: (i) the holding company ceased or ceases, at any time on or after 28 November 1986, to be in a position to exercise significant control of the licensee company; or (ii) subsection (2) ceased or ceases, at any time on or after 28 November 1986, to apply in relation to the holding company; (e) subject to paragraph (f), if immediately before 28 November 1986, a person, by reason of being in a position to exercise control of the holding company, held an interest in the licensee company, the loan interest shall be disregarded for the purposes of the application of subsections (3) and (4) in relation to the person; (f) paragraph (e) does not apply in relation to the person if: (i) the holding company ceased or ceases, at any time on or after 28 November 1986, to be in a position to exercise significant control of the licensee company; (ii) the person ceased or ceases, at any time on or after 28 November 1986, to be in a position to exercise control of the holding company; or (iii) subsection (2) ceased or ceases, at any time on or after 28 November 1986, to apply in relation to the holding company or in relation to the person. ``(4B) for the purposes of subsection (4a), a company shall be deemed to be in a position to exercise significant control of another company if, had the references in section 92b and 91aac of the Principal Act to 15% been references to 50%, the first company would, in accordance with that section, be deemed to have been in a position to exercise control of the second company.''. Motion (by Mr Duffy) agreed to: That the amendments be agreed to. Resolution reported; report adopted. Consideration resumed from 2 June. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 2, clause 7, proposed subsection 46c (1), definition of ``debt dividend'', after subparagraph (a) (i) insert the following new subparagraph: ``(ia) if the share was issued before 8 May 1986-the share was not issued pursuant to an obligation: (A) that was in existence at the commencing time; and (B) a breach of which would result in a substantial liability for damages;''. No. 2-Page 3, clause 7, proposed subsection 46c (1), definition of ``debt dividend'', after subparagraph (b) (ii), insert the following new subparagraph: ``(iia) if the short-term finance arrangement was entered into after the commencing time-the arrangement was a short-term finance arrangement only because of paragraph (a) of the definition of `short-term finance arrangement';''. No. 3-Page 3, clause 7, proposed subsection 46c (1), definition of ``debt dividend'', leave out subparagraph (c) (ii), insert the following subparagraph: ``(ii) the dividend was paid under a short-term finance arrangement that: (A) was entered into after the commencing time; and (B) was a short-term finance arrangement only because of paragraph (a) of the definition of `short-term finance arrangement';''. No. 4-Page 3, clause 7, after proposed subsection 46c (1), insert the following new subsections: `` `(1a) for the purposes of this section, the mere payment of a call in respect of a share after the commencing time does not, of itself, constitute the entering into of a short-term finance arrangement after that time. `` `(1b) For the purposes of this section, the mere transfer of a share, or the mere obtaining of a letter of credit, or both, after the commencing time does not, of itself, constitute the entering into of a short-term finance arrangement after that time. `` `(1c) Subsections (1a) and (1b) are enacted for the avoidance of doubt.''. No. 5-Page 13, clause 16, after proposed new subsection 221yba (1), insert the following new subsection: `` `(1aa) Nothing in this section requires the payment of instalments of provisional tax by a taxpayer in respect of income of a year of income, being: (a) the actual taxable income from primary production of the taxpayer of the year of income, as defined in section 156; or (b) the abnormal income, as defined in section 158c, of a taxpayer to whom Division 16a applies.''. No. 6-Page 20, clause 20, proposed new paragraph 221ydaa (4) (b), line 41, leave out ``$2,000'', insert ``$5,000''. Motion (by Mr Cohen) agreed to: That the amendments be agreed to. Resolution reported. Adoption of Report Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment)(10.09) —I move: That the report be adopted. The Government reluctantly accepts the three amendments made to this Bill in the Senate. I say `reluctantly' because in the Government's view none of the amendments is justified and in particular one amendment is simply nonsense; that is, the amendment defies sensible interpretation. In relation to short term redeemable preference shares, the Senate supported an Australian Democrats amendment to let certain transactions and instruments out of the measure announced by the Government on 7 April 1986. In the Government's view, there is no need for this amendment. Its chief effect is to confer an unwarranted benefit on a small group of eagle-eyed tax accountants and their clients who deliberately tried to frustrate the intention of the Treasurer's announcement. The Government sees no reason to condone this sort of behaviour but recognises that, given the present make up of the Senate, it has little option but to accept the amendment. The Bill introduces a quarterly system of provisional tax instalments. This was one of the tax reform measures announced on 19 September 1985. The system will begin operation on 1 July this year. The Australian Democrats moved two amendments in the Senate and obtained the support of the National and Liberal parties for those amendments. The first amendment acts to lift the threshold below which taxpayers may elect not to pay by instalments from $2,000 provisional tax to $5,000 provisional tax. This amendment will add $50m to the 1987-88 Budget deficit and at least $25m a year thereafter. Whilst the Government does not think that the amendment is warranted, at least it is not technically deficient; it merely replaces the figure of $2,000 with $5,000 in the legislation. The same cannot be said for the second amendment. The second amendment is fundamentally flawed in a technical sense. It is not clear from reading the amendment exactly what is intended by it, but it would seem that the intention of the Democrats in moving this amendment now was to confer a benefit on a mere 5,000 taxpayers with average taxable incomes of $40,000 a year. The amendment suffers from the following technical defects: Firstly, it contemplates the possibility that a taxpayer will pay part of his provisional tax in a lump sum on 1 April and part by instalments before and after that date. The Bill as introduced was drafted on the basis that one or other payment system applies to a particular taxpayer but not both. The Bill as drafted and the amendment are therefore incompatible. Secondly, the Bill as drafted prohibits payment of provisional tax in a lump sum if instalments are payable. It follows that if a taxpayer has both primary production and other income, provisional tax will not be payable at all on the primary production income. Thirdly, the amendment cannot be applied in its present form because, at the time of its application, it depends on there being an actual taxable income from primary production abnormal income of the year of income, a figure that is not available because, by definition, the year of income would have only just begun at the relevant time and, even if that figure were known, the amendment does not provide a legislative formula for determining how much of the provisional tax for the year of income is to be treated as being in respect of the actual taxable income from primary production abnormal income or which part of the total taxable income it comprises. Fourthly, it is not clear whether the seasonal income, two-instalment, option would remain available in respect of the income not affected by the amendment. Fifthly, the operation of section 221ydb-that is, the penalty for underestimate of a provisional tax variation-is unclear where the penalty calculation refers to tax payable on taxable income. In other words, for those who do not understand, how much of the tax payable ought to be attributed to the actual taxable income from primary production abnormal income? Sixthly, it is not clear whether section 221ydb should apply where primary production abnormal income is overestimated to escape from instalments, and other income is correspondingly underestimated without an overall underestimate. Seventhly, it is not clear whether the $5,000 threshold is to apply to all provisional tax or only to that part that is attributable to income other than primary production abnormal income. The first and second defects are fundamental and likely to require extensive drafting to overcome. Additionally, the process of determining the part of the provisional tax to escape instalments or early instalments will have to be legislatively addressed. Because actual primary production abnormal income for the current year of income is not known, consideration will have to be given to giving the Australian Commissioner of Taxation a discretion to determine a reasonable amount, perhaps on certain grounds set out in the law, or making the determination by reference to actual figures held by the Commissioner of Taxation; for example, for the year on which the instalments of provisional tax are based. This figure could change during the year and that is a situation which will have to be dealt with in the legislation. Either approach would require significant additional resources to design and implement the further computer system requirements. By passing this Bill into law the Government recognises that, due to the gross and rank incompetence of the three Opposition parties in the Senate, we will have a provisional tax system which cannot be properly administered and which has no sensible interpretation in some crucial areas. Whilst this is an outrageous outcome it is preferable to not having any quarterly provisional tax system legislated before 1 July 1987. However, I say now that at the very earliest opportunity in the new and more competent Parliament, the Government will introduce an amendment to this legislation which removes the grotesque provisions introduced by the present upper House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 14 May. Consideration of Senate's amendment. Senate's amendment- Page 4, after paragraph 8(1) (g), add the following new paragraph: ``(h) a member nominated by the Consumers' Health Forum of Australia.''. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(10.16) —I move: That the amendment be agreed to. The Government has agreed to amend clause 8 of the Australian Institute of Health Bill to increase the membership of the Australian Institute of Health from 11 to 12 members. The amendment provides for the inclusion in the membership of a nominee of the Consumers Health Forum of Australia. The Consumers Health Forum is an umbrella group of consumer organisations which have an interest in health matters. I established the Forum last year in response to recommendations of a review of community participation in health matters by the Department of Health. Representation of the Consumers Health Forum on the Institute of Health will provide consumer and community input into its decisions. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Consideration resumed from 3 June. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 15, Part 1 of Schedule 1, proposed amendments of the Social Security Act 1947, proposed amendment of subsection 6 (1) definition of ``de facto spouse'', leave out the proposed amendment. No. 2-Page 16, part 1 of Schedule 1, proposed amendments of the Social Security Act 1947, proposed amendment of subsection 6 (1), after definition of ``Reserve Forces'', insert the following new amendment: ``Section 6: Add at the end the following subsections: `(10) Where: (a) a person who is living with another person of the opposite sex as the spouse of that other person on a bona fide domestic basis although not legally married to that other person; and (b) either of those persons is under the age of consent applicable in the State or Territory in which those persons are living; neither of those persons shall be treated as a married person for the purposes of this Act. `(11) The rate of a pension, benefit or allowance under this Act payable to a person to whom subsection (10) applies shall not exceed the rate at which it would be payable to the person if the person were married to the other person.'.''. Motion (by Mr Cohen) proposed: That the amendments be agreed to. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(10.17) —The amendments before the Committee today are a consequence of matters that were raised in this chamber during the debate on the Social Security Amendment Bill. In that debate I pointed out that the Bill would allow a de facto spouse under the age of consent to be legally considered as a de facto spouse. The Bill sought to set aside State and Territory laws relating to the age of consent in order to enable payment of a spouse benefit in a de facto situation where one or both of the parties was under the legal age of consent. The age of consent is, of course, a matter for State and Territory laws and is a matter of the criminal law. In the debate the implications of the proposed amendment to the definition of de facto spouse were pointed out. At the time I moved an amendment that would have prohibited the payment of a spouse benefit where one or both of the parties was under the age of consent. In debate on that amendment, the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) argued that a real point had been raised, but the Government was not prepared to accept my amendment at that stage. I then pointed out to the Minister that it was open to the Government to adjourn debate on the Bill-to report progress of the Committee-until such time as an acceptable amendment to the proposal could be proposed. My suggestion was not pursued by the Government and, in the event, the Committee divided and the Government voted against my amendment. The next day, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), who is the spokesman for the Liberal Party on social security, asked the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) the following question: Does the Government endorse the fundamental principle of law that one should not be permitted to benefit from the commission of a criminal offence, which is precisely the argument put by the Commonwealth to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in the case involving payment of spouse benefits to under-age de facto spouses? Will he explain why the Government is now legislating to compel the Department of Social Security to pay married rate benefits to girls as young as 14 years of age who establish a de facto relationship and who are under the age of consent in the various States and Territories? Is this the first time ever that a Commonwealth government has legislated to reward those who have breached the criminal law? In his answer, having directed some gratuitous personal abuse at the honourable member for Barker, the Prime Minister said these words: I had my attention drawn to this question this morning. It is worthy of note by this chamber that it had had a Bill put to it for consideration which had presumably been considered by Cabinet and for which the Prime Minister, as the head of Cabinet, must share collective responsibility. The Prime Minister cannot claim, after the Bill had been voted on and the Government had voted against an Opposition amendment, that it was only the day after that vote that his attention was drawn to the matter. He was responsible for it from the time that it came into this chamber. So the attempt of the Prime Minister to wriggle out from under should not be allowed to go without notice. The effect of the Prime Minister's answer was to fool most people. On that same day the Minister for Social Security issued the following Press release: The Minister for Social Security, Brian Howe, today announced he would not pursue the clause relating to under-age spouses in the Social Security Amendment Bill currently before Parliament. `The provision was proposed to clarify administration of rates of payment following Administrative Appeals decisions last year in the Kennison case. `I intend to consider further the implications of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision on the rates of payment for under-age de facto spouses'. The Minister was not indicating at that stage what direction his consideration would take. In the event, those who report to the nation on these matters were utterly fooled. The Daily Sun of 2 May in a report on the subject of payment of supporting parents benefits to under age girls and boys contains the following words: The statistics follow criticism of the Federal Government's short lived legislation which allowed increased benefit payments to under-age children living in de facto relationships. Changes to the Social Security Act passed on Thursday night, but quashed yesterday after strong public reaction, meant under-age parents living together in de facto relationships would have received more than $200 a week in benefits. The Age newspaper carried the following report on the same day: The Federal Government will not proceed with legislation to allow de facto spouses under the age of consent to receive social security benefits at the married rates, the Social Security Minister, Mr Howe, said yesterday. After discussions yesterday morning with the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, Mr Howe agreed to drop the clause from the bill containing various technical changes to the Social Security Act. As I said, at that point certainly the Press and, I think, many of the public were fooled about the implications of that move. On 5 May, the next sitting day, in the House of Representatives, I asked the following question of the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security: Does his statement of last Friday that the Government will not proceed with its proposal to change the definition of de facto spouse in the Social Security Act mean that the Department of Social Security will continue to determine eligibility of a social security recipient for a spouse benefit in accordance with the 25 November 1985 determination of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, namely to pay spouse benefits in a case where the de facto spouse is under the age of consent? The Minister representing the Minister for Social Security in his response said: I am able to tell the honourable member that it is my understanding that the administration will remain the same as it was prior to the Minister's announcement. In other words, the effect of the announcement by the Minister, and the words used by the Prime Minister the previous week, had been to indicate to people that benefits would not be paid. Under the ruling of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, to have dropped the proposed definition of de facto spouse straight out would have meant that benefits would have been paid in those cases. It was only because of the persistence of the Opposition in this matter-- Mr Cadman —No, it was the fight you put up. Mrs SULLIVAN —I thank the honourable member very much. I am very flattered by his words. I certainly did it with the full support of the Liberal Party. It is only because of the persistence of the Liberal Party in that matter that this amendment comes before us today. The Liberal Party supports the amendment, the effect of which is to prohibit the payment of a spouse benefit where a person is under the age of consent according to State or Territory laws so that the previous ruling of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is overturned. The Tribunal went on to make the point that two people cohabiting in a state of marriage, where one or both are under the age of consent, at present could receive a higher benefit if each is in receipt of some sort of benefit. For example, if the fellow is in receipt of unemployment benefit and the girl is in receipt of, say, a special benefit there will now be a prohibition, under the amendment we are considering, on their receiving a higher payment. The Opposition welcomes the amendment. It is extremely regrettable that the original proposal ever appeared in the Social Security Amendment Bill. We have not had an explanation from the Government as to how it got there. There was no reference to it in the Minister's second reading speech when he introduced the Bill in the first place. We have had no explanation as to why today's amendments have been introduced. I have my own suspicions as to how all of this happened. It may have been partly inadvertence and a lack of alertness on the part of certain government members-certainly on the part of the Cabinet, including the Prime Minister. I believe that the effect of the amendment as it previously stood would have had most benefit for certain public servants who must have felt a little uncomfortable about having to approve payment of benefits in a de facto situation where one of the partners was in breach of the criminal law. The previous amendment would certainly have protected their position. As I have said, we support today's amendments. We regret that the provision ever appeared in the Bill in the first place and that it has taken such a struggle to get to the point we have reached today. I know that many people in this country will be relieved that the amendments are being passed, judging by the number of letters I have received, particularly from parents, expressing concern about the further deleterious effect this would have had on family life in Australia. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 2, subclause 2 (4), line 3, after ``21,'', insert ``23a,''. No. 2-Page 2, subclause 2 (4), line 3, leave out ``39,''. No. 3-Page 2, subclause 3 (5), lines 20 to 22, leave out the subclause. No. 4-Page 3, clause 6, at end of clause, add the following new subclause: ``(2) Notwithstanding the repeal of section 135td of the Social Security Act 1947, subsection (7) of the repealed section continues to apply, on and after 1 September 1987, to a garnishee order to which that subsection applied immediately before that day.''. No. 5-Page 11, after clause 23, insert the following new clause: Manner of payment etc. ``23a. Section 135tc of the Principal Act is amended by adding at the end of the following subsection: `(5) Where: (a) an order of a court in the nature of a garnishee order or an order for attachment comes into force after the commencement of this subsection in respect of an account maintained by a person (whether alone or jointly or in common with another person) with a financial institution, being an account to which money received on deposit is credited; and (b) instalments or payments of a pension, benefit or allowance that is payable to the person under this Act (whether on his or her own behalf or on behalf of another person) are being paid to the credit of that account; the order shall be deemed not to apply to an amount equal to the sum of the amounts of that pension, benefit or allowance paid to the credit of that account in the period of 4 weeks before the time when the order came into force in respect of that account reduced by an amount equal to the sum of the amounts withdrawn from that account during that period.'.''. No. 6-Pages 15 and 16, paragraph 27 (c), proposed subsection 140 (3), line 34 (page 15) to line 4 (page 16), leave out the proposed subsection. No. 7-Page 19, clause 39, lines 1 to 12, leave out the clause. No. 8-Pages 20 and 21, paragraphs 42 (d) and (e), line 39 (page 20) to line 13 (page 21), leave out the paragraphs. No. 9-Page 21, paragraph 42 (f), proposed subsection 205 (6), lines 26 and 27, leave out the proposed subsection. No. 10-Pages 23 and 24, paragraphs 45 (d) and (e), line 35 (page 23) to line 10 (page 24), leave out the paragraphs. No. 11-Page 24, paragraph 45 (f), proposed subsection 55a (6), lines 23 to 25, leave out the proposed subsection. Motion (by Mr Cohen) agreed to: That the amendments be agreed to. Resolution reported; report adopted. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 3, clause 7, proposed subsection 163 (1c), line 12, leave out ``the regulations referred to in''. No. 2-Page 3, clause 7, proposed subsection 163 (1d), lines 16 and 17, leave out the proposed subsection, insert the following subsection: `` `(1d) A fee is not payable under subsection (1c): (a) in the circumstances specified in paragraphs 126 (a), (b), (c), (d), (f), (g), (ga), (h), (j), (k), or (m) of the Customs Regulations as in force at the commencement of this subsection; (b) where an officer assisted in making up the entry in respect of which the application for a refund of duty is made; (c) where an officer assessed the duty payable; (d) where the duty was paid under protest; (e) where the duty was paid as a consequence of advice given, or a ruling made, by an officer; (f) where all duty amounts were paid in good faith; (g) where the overpayments of duty was beyond the control of the applicant for the refund; or (h) in such other circumstances as may be specified in the regulations.'.''. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science)(10.29) —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. The Government accepts the amendments made by the Senate to the Customs Excise Legislation Amendment Bill 1987, the effect of which will be to place a series of exemptions to the proposed $200 fee for refund applications into the Customs Act 1901. The Government had no problem in principle with the spirit of this amendment, as I said last week when it was moved and we considered it, and recognises that there are legitimate circumstances in which an exemption from the proposed $200 fee should apply. The Government still believes, however, that regulations are the appropriate vehicle in which to place matters such as those covered by the amendment which has been made. Actually, I think it is likely to be more flexible rather than less flexible if one has to come back and legislate each time that one wants to change something. Indeed, as has been indicated in this House, and again in the Senate last night, regulations have been prepared for presentation to the Governor-General and the Federal Executive Council tomorrow covering precisely those circumstances noted in this amendment, which in turn were based on the proposed exemptions from the fee notified in Australian Customs Notice 87/80, which I tabled during debate on this Bill last week. However, as this Bill gives effect to several initiatives announced in the May economic statement, the Government considers its passage essential and has thus agreed to this amendment to ensure that result. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Debate resumed from 13 May, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(10.31) —The Cash Transaction Reports Bill 1987 seeks to control the distribution or laundering of criminal profits by imposing checks on large cash transactions and facilitating the monitoring of financial accounts with financial institutions. The principal object of the Bill is to prevent tax evasion, but the Bill is also intended to support the enforcement of Commonwealth and State laws generally-for example, the offence of money laundering recently created by the Proceeds of Crime Bill 1987. Mr Costigan, Queen's Counsel, during his Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, encountered a difficulty in following what he called the `money trail'. Among other things, he criticised his inability to gain access to financial records, both domestic and international, and the length of time for which records were kept. He made recommendations regarding these matters and recommended the introduction of reporting requirements. This Bill, in part, is a belated response to some of Mr Costigan's recommendations. It will be remembered that Mr Costigan's recommendations were made some years ago. The Proceeds of Crime Bill, debated in this place last week, contains other provisions in dealing with financial records. The Cash Transaction Reports Bill sets up the Cash Transaction Reports Agency, to which cash dealers are to report cash transactions involving more than $10,000. Where such transactions are not conducted in cash, the theory is that they will be detected through the improved access to financial records given to law enforcement agencies through the Proceeds of Crime Bill. So on the one hand, the Proceeds of Crime Bill provides access to non-cash records-that is, records of transactions not made in cash-and, on the other hand, we have this Bill. The information collected by the Agency set up under this Bill is to be made directly available to the Australian Taxation Office and, with the permission of the Director of the Agency, to the Australian Federal Police, the State or Northern Territory Police, the National Crime Authority and the Australian Customs Service. In addition, the Bill requires financial institutions to obtain from prospective account holders statements containing identification details. This information must also be obtained over a period of time from all existing account holders and also when signatories to an account are changed. Failure to comply with the provisions of the Bill attracts a number of penalties provided therein. The Bill itself is based on the American system which operates under banks secrecy legislation. Whilst there are conflicting accounts as to what has been achieved under that legislation, which came into being some years ago, in the report of 12 June 1986 to the Committee on Governmental Affairs Permanent Sub-committee on Investigations of the United States Senate, the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Enforcement, Mr Francis Keating, said: The Bank Secrecy Act has proven beyond all doubt its effectiveness as a law enforcement tool against drug trafficking, organised crime, and the illicit financial activity that supports it. The investigations that the Departments of Justice and Treasury have conducted, particularly those under the President's Organised Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force Program, have relied on the Bank Secrecy Act data and the analysis of this data that Treasury has prepared. In approximately three years of full operation, these task forces have initiated 1,350 cases and resulted in the indictments of 8,649 individuals, 3,678 of which have been convicted. The Opposition welcomes the Government's final Bill before this Parliament, in its belated attempt to deal with organised crime. The package is certainly not perfect, and significant recommendations by royal commissions still remain in the too-hard basket or have been ignored. However, we have had some action, and some of the recent legislation is supported by the Opposition. There are particular problems with this Bill in relation to its regulatory impact. In saying that I do not in any way qualify the Opposition's determination to root out organised and serious crime, but when legislation is presented to this House we must understand what it does. The Australian Bankers Association and the Australian Association of Permanent Building Societies have provided estimates of what they calculate to be the costs involved in complying with the Bill, especially the requirements for opening accounts. Officers from the Attorney-General's Department have informed me that there has been some consultation, but it is obvious that the financial institutions still disagree with what the Government proposes. I have received representations from the financial institutions and, no doubt, the Attorney-General has also receive them. The major spread of financial institutions through the Australian Bankers Association, the Australian Association of Permanent Building Societies, and the Australian Federation of Credit Union Leagues claim that some 60 million accounts will be affected at a cost of $180m, and that more than 15 million new accounts being opened each year will be affected at a cost of $75m. They also claim that the Bill will be ineffective in combating organised crime. In its submission to me, the Australian Bankers Association recommended that the Bill be referred to a parliamentary committee for consideration of its cost effectiveness, the determination of alternative strategies for inhibiting criminal use of legitimate financial intermediaries and the detection of money launderers. Alternatively, it recommended that a provision for the reporting of cash transactions over $10,000 be passed and the issue of personal identification be deferred until resolution of the broader issues of the Australia Card and other personal identification systems. It is plain that I am not in a position, the Opposition is not in a position and, without a full inquiry, the Government is not in a position, to reach a conclusion one way or the other on the claims made by the financial institutions about the cost involved. On any reading of the Bill, however, it is obvious that it imposes a substantial regulatory burden. Where that is imposed, the sensible course-and one that we understand to be in accordance with the Government's policy-is to refer the proposal to the Business Regulation Review Unit for an assessment of the cost involved. That applies not only to legislation of this nature, but to all legislation, unless we are dealing with something that has obvious urgency and where, for reasons beyond the Government's control, it cannot be referred to the Business Regulation Review Unit. But, whilst this is an important piece of legislation, and in principle we wish to see legislation of this kind in place as soon as possible, there seems to be no good reason why after all these years there should not be a speedy examination of the way in which the Bill will work, the costs involved in implementing it and whether there is a better way of going about things. It is very difficult to understand the Government's persistent failure to have the Business Regulation Review Unit check out the cost effectiveness of its legislation. I understand that the Attorney-General's Department takes the view that in the case of legislation of this kind, which is directed to stamping out or curbing evasion and cash transactions involving the proceeds of crime-we entirely support that objective, as I have made clear-it is thought to be unnecessary to refer it to the Business Regulation Review Unit. I make the point that, regardless of the kind of legislation with which we are dealing in this House, we need to know the costs involved. While supporting the legislation in principle, I propose an amendment to the motion for the second reading to the effect that the Bill be referred to a parliamentary committee for detailed examination of its cost effectiveness. I move: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `the Bill be referred to a select committee of both Houses to report to Parliament as soon as possible'. The Parliament is about to rise. We will resume some time after 11 July and we could have a speedy examination of the way in which the Bill will operate. If there is a better way of achieving the objectives, we need to know what it is. If the costs are as high as the financial institutions claim, we want to know. Let us get the financial institutions to substantiate their costs. I certainly do not assume that their claims as to the order of magnitude of those costs are correct. But certainly it is a matter that should go to the Business Regulation Review Unit. The institutions could put their proposal to that Unit; if the Bill is sent to a committee as we propose, the same could be done. It may be that we could have a proposal which was very much better one for the purposes of achieving the laudable objectives that this Bill is designed to achieve. I do not think it necessary to say much more about the detail of the Bill. As I have said before in this House, organised crime and serious crime are major threats to our society. They continue to increase. The law enforcement authorities have been given some new tools, slowly, by this Government. But they still labour under problems of resources, personnel and a failure to implement, or to bring out for public examination in a statement of the Government's position, a whole host of recommendations that have been made, for example, in relation to the taxation system and the way in which the taxation system could be used to pursue organised crime. While these problems remain-problems of law enforcement will always remain with us-organised crime will flourish. We all believe that, if there were an opportunity to float on the Sydney Stock Exchange an organised crime company, people would be killed in the rush to take up shares. The truth is, as everyone who looks at the figures knows, that crime does pay. Serious crime pays very well, and the most serious of crimes pay extraordinarily well. Drug trafficking is an investment for criminals conducting the business of drug trafficking, and for a relatively small amount of money they can reap huge fortunes. We all have a common interest in stamping that out. This is the last occasion on which I shall be facing the Attorney-General from this side of the table before the next election. Whilst we have had our disagreements from time to time, we have managed to maintain a sense of humour. I wish him happy campaigning but only the success that the Hawke Government deserves. That means that he will be either taking up a new occupation or addressing Parliament from this side of the House. As the new Attorney-General I will look forward to the kind of co-operation that can be expected from a shadow Attorney-General of a party that has been thrown out of power by the decision of the Australian people, which will be given by them on 11 July. So happy campaigning, Mr Attorney. I look forward to the times when, in the very near future, we can once more gaze at each other but from different positions in the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Cadman —I second the amendment. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen)(10.47) —May I say firstly that I do not like the chances of the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). The reality is that the consistency and the stability that this Government has given the Australian people as well as the economic control and the economic and financial responsibility, will ensure that the honourable gentleman will remain on the other side, and that his Party, which has done so much damage to this country in the past, will not get that chance again. The Cash Transaction Reports Bill is an important Bill. It does not need to be referred to a committee as that would simply waste time, and the proposal to do that is pretty typical of the attitude of the Liberal Party generally. It did little in government and now, when in opposition, it still wants to waste time and not pass this necessary legislation. I think it is important in speaking to the Bill that we refresh our memories as to exactly what Mr Costigan, QC, said in his report of the Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. I will refer fairly consistently to the words that he used, because they will explain the great necessity for the Bill, why it should not be delayed and why it should be passed into law as soon as possible. He said: Criminal organisations profit in large amounts of money. Criminals engaged in petty crime use cash. Some of their bolder colleagues use a lot of cash. Criminal organisations also employ large quantities of cash. But additionally, the amounts being so large, they make use of the banking system in the country. Even the active sole criminal tends to do so. It is all very well to use cash for the daily necessities, for shouting all to a drink, to sport the generous bank roll. Criminals associate with other criminals and the latter are only too ready to take for themselves the ill-gotten gains of others. The cash concealed in a wall, under a mattress, or in a car, is as susceptible to theft as any honest citizen's possessions, and is perhaps more so. Thus financial institutions such as banks are resorted to for much the same reason as any businessman finds their facilities convenient. Banks are not the only institutions preferred by criminals. There is considerable evidence of building societies being employed to meet their ends; and there is no doubt that gambling institutions such as the TAB are employed in the unfamiliar role of banker. An account is opened and over a period of time money is paid in so that it is in substantial credit. Some of the money may be employed in gambling but the greater percentage is simply left there. After some months it is all withdrawn by a cheque drawn by the TAB. Should any question arise about the source of funds the criminal refers to the cheque and, if he does not say so explicitly, allows the inference to be drawn that he won the money on one or more races. Nor is this type of dealing limited to financial institutions. There is no doubt, on a great deal of the evidence before Mr Costigan, that certain solicitors have allowed their trust accounts, if not their strong rooms, to be employed as repositories for moneys the source of which, on any rational view, could only be illegal enterprises. By depositing moneys with such solicitors, some hope or expectation is held that law enforcement agencies will have difficulty in locating the funds and in seeking explanations for them. In all of these cases the criminal employs false identities. A bank manager or other custodian willing to accommodate such preference attracts criminals to him like flowers attract bees. From my investigations it seem that such corrupt managers-they are not limited to banks; they are to be found in branches of building societies and so on-are more likely to be encountered in small branches rather than large. This facilitates investigation, for once such a person is identified in respect of one criminal, there is every prospect of other criminals being found employing him. The operation of false accounts muddies the waters for an investigator. It makes difficult the tracing of moneys if the starting point is a criminal activity. The criminal, conscious of the need to cover his tracks, takes every precaution to ensure that the proceeds of the crime cannot be traced to him. But if the starting point is different, if it is at the point where the criminal commences to enjoy the possession of the money, the tracing exercise is far easier. Criminals, and their organisations, are no less, and may be far more, fond of the usual manifestations of wealth than any other rich person. They seek to possess wealthy homes, land, expensive cars, and yachts, and they incur high living expenses. In all of these cases they use money in large quantities. They may pay for much by cash; but ultimately, and especially as the detection-free years pass by, they find the normal financial institutions far more convenient and seemingly no less safe to use. What is more, the ill-gotten gains tend to be employed fully in satisfaction of their lust for the good life. This often leaves little to finance further criminal ventures. By their nature, though not universally so, criminals show little self-restraint and have little financial ability. With their success in crime they plan bigger and more expensive criminal ventures. These require capital. There is little doubt that as a result, they seek out loans to provide the moneys required. Sometimes the loans are on the fringe money market involving financiers who well know that some illegal enterprise is planned and who exact their return accordingly. Yet on other occasions the financiers are legitimate, being persuaded to advance the money for seemingly honest ventures. This has the advantage from the criminal's point of view in that the return to the financier is more modest. However, in such cases the criminal must employ apparently legitimate business techniques, and this means using the normal banking system. For all of these reasons criminals in organised or large scale crime do make use of the banking system. This leads to the creation of large accounts with many taxation vouchers. Once located, those vouchers provide a fertile source of intelligence to the investigator. They permit accurate assessments of cash flow and allow comparison with suspected but unsolved crimes. They facilitate investigation for the purposes of recovering tax and assist in identifying the other parties in the criminal organisation. However, as any investigator in the Australian Taxation Office, the Australian Customs Service, or any office of the Corporate Affairs Commission will confirm, the seizure of a large account poses difficulties in handling it in the investigation. Costigan refers to one account seized by the Task Force Zebra of the Victoria Police Force in the early days of the Commission. It was a large account operated by a well known starting price bookmaker. Its analysis revealed the identities of most major bookmakers in Australia. Yet the resources of the Victoria Police Task Force allowed the analysis of no more than one year of that account. It was simply too big to handle by manual means. The data could not be readily manipulated so as to extract its full value. Problems of size beset other law enforcement agencies. Investigators in the corporate affairs offices and in the Australian Taxation Office are confronted daily with immense tasks. It is not generally appreciated that upon it being announced that an investigation will be undertaken, the number of people allocated is sometimes merely two and often only one person. In the case of a major corporate investigation where a special investigator is appointed, the most significant impact is the imposing title rather than the allocation of substantial resources. Often a special investigator is on his own or is supported by merely one or two officers. The result is a grossly deficient investigation. The investigators do their best but they are constrained by time and the pressures of new investigations requiring their attention. Consequently, they do that which little time allows and no more. The most vulnerable area to such restrictions is the analysis of cash flow. Yet that is the very area where the principals behind the sophisticated criminal activity are likely to be discovered. It is also the place where the most telling remedial steps may be taken. The effect of hamstringing the investigators by inadequate allotment of resources is to permit the more serious offenders to escape and to limit the effectiveness of legal recourse. The Opposition, by moving its amendment today, is simply saying that it wants to hamstring the effective passage of this legislation; it wants to slow down the processes by which laws may be passed by this Parliament which will tackle this very serious problem of the cash resources of criminals and the use of legitimate financial institutions in depositing those cash resources. Most honourable members who have had professional experience in other areas know full well that occurs. From my experience as a solicitor, I know of a bank manager in Victoria who was well known for approving mortgages in cases in which the lender was certainly very doubtful when most other bank managers would refuse a mortgage on rational and reasonable grounds. The particular bank manager I had dealings with was well known for the ease with which he would lend money. Consequently, he built up a small branch to a very substantial branch. No doubt he was patted on the back by his employers because of the increased business at that small branch. Of course, the result was that many people who borrowed money ended up in bankruptcy or foreclosure, because they should have been refused the loans in the first place. The same branch was well known for the ease with which accounts could be opened in false names there. People I know and clients of mine in the criminal area I know full well had large accounts and large numbers of accounts with this branch all in bodgie or false names. By delaying the passage of the Bill and referring it to a committee we are simply saying that that sort of dubious practice, that sort of straight illegal activity, will be continued while the politicians in this place sit back and in their usual forthright manner spend many months, and probably years, trying to resolve the problem. There is a cost attached to the prevention and investigation of crime. The cost of crime is a cost to the entire community. People suffer as a result of crime. Lives are lost, murders are committed, large sums are made, but ultimately the cost is to the community at large. We all pay individually the cost of crime. If there is a cost to prevent the use of banks in the manners described by Costigan, that cost surely must be borne by the entire Australian community, as rightly it should be. The banks for years have known that they have been the means by which criminals have operated large cash transactions. The banks have known for years that the tax frauds which occurred in this country under the Opposition when it government were possible only by the use of the banking system. The banks have known for years that round robin cheques were being used simply to mask the real nature of a transaction. The banks have known for years that their facilities were used to create dubious and false loans-simple paper transactions-for the purposes of tax fraud. The banks have done nothing about that. They have no rules and regulations even today to scrutinise those sorts of transactions. The banks today in Australia do not require evidence of the name of a person opening an account. The banks are there to make money, and I do not criticise them for that. That is their legitimate role. They have shareholders and their main aim is to get money in, to run commercial accounts and their normal commercial transactions, and to make a profit. I suppose it is fair to say: `Why should the banks worry if people are using facilities'. The use of those facilities will enable the banks to make a greater profit in the long run, so why should they care?'. Provided there is no obvious discrepancy or criminal activity by the use of bank facilities, of course the banks will allow it. I do not criticise them for that, but this Parliament should not be taken in and should not, by referring this Bill to a committee, allow, that situation to continue. I listened with interest to the honourable member for North Sydney. He intimated that it was about time this Government took action; it was about time this Government introduced such a Bill. Good heavens! For the last 30-odd years, who has been in government in this country? For the last 30-odd years what has the Opposition done to tackle serious crime in this country? I invite the next speaker from the other side-no doubt the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman)-to tell this House and the Australian people what legislation passed in the Liberal Party's years of government seriously tackled crime. Perhaps he could remind the House of what legislation members of his Party produced. Perhaps he could remind the Australian people of what they did about tax fraud, about extradition treaties, about the proceeds of crime, about mutual assistance and about cash transactions and the use of banks for criminal and dubious purposes. He might tell the Australian people what his Government did over 30 years. He knows and I know that the answer is nothing. The honourable member cannot point to one piece of legislation in that long term of government that represented a serious attempt by the Liberal Party or the National Party to tackle organised crime in this country. They were dragged screaming into the public arena by the Costigan inquiry-and let us face it they set that up to have a go at unions; it was not to find tax fraud; it was not to find criminal fraud; they set it up strictly speaking so that they could kick a union to death. It backfired on them as Costigan disclosed for the first time the massive tax frauds and rorts which were going on under their Government and which anyone in private practice, as I then was, knew about. I still have in my home, my old filing cabinet from practice-a four-drawer filing cabinet, fully indexed, of published tax schemes. I have them still and one of these days I will bring them into the House. Some of the honourable members opposite should look at them, because they were operating publicly when they were in government. Any person who practiced in the areas of tax, accounting or law was on a mailing list and could sell these schemes to their clients. They were the most dubious schemes. In fact, some of them were just outright shameful and criminal. Yet the Opposition, in government, did nothing. They were published all over the place but the former Government did nothing. It has taken this Government, in the four short years that it has been in office, to tackle in a most serious range of legislation this enormously difficult problem. I remind the House of just some of the things that the Attorney-General has done in the four short years he has been in the chair. The Proceeds of Crime Bill, which has now passed this House, will prevent the continued enjoyment by a criminal or his family or associates of assets that result from crime. Those proceeds will be taken back from the criminal and be put into the Treasury, and the criminal and his family and associates will not be able to enjoy the fruits of crime. Under the Mutual Assistance Bill, Australia, for the first time, is agreeing to provide mutual assistance to neighbouring countries that are also concerned about organised crime. We will have mutual assistance with other countries to tackle the international criminal. That is an enormously important Bill. This Bill, the Cash Transactions Reports Bill, will enable the tracing of cash to ensure that full identification procedures are adopted by Australian banks so the criminal cannot use false identities or use a financial institution and profit from his crime. The Telecommunications (Interceptions) Amendment Bill is also a very important Bill. Under very strict guidelines and regulations Australian police forces, State and Federal, now will have the chance to tap into the private conversations of criminals and bring them to heel more quickly and maybe prevent serious crime. The reform of the extradition laws is also a most important reform. When we came into office we did not have extradition treaties with most of the major countries of the world. The extradition laws had not been brought up to date and again the Attorney-General quite properly and rapidly brought the extradition laws to account. The Government has reformed the taxation laws to prevent the taxation rorts that have been occurring, and we have stopped them all. We have made changes to the Crimes Act. There is no doubt, Madam Deputy Speaker, that no other government in Australia's history, in such a short time, has passed in such quantity legislation to tackle crime in the way that this Government has done. I have said it before and I will say it again: The Attorney-General rightly deserves the title of the Eliot Ness of Australian crime. In the time he has been here he has done more as an individual than any other Attorney-General has done in the long history of this Parliament to tackle the major crime, the major tax frauds and the major commercial frauds, and he has done it very promptly. So I reject the concept put forward by the honourable member for North Sydney that this Bill should not get a speedy passage through the House. If the banking association does not like the cost involved, so be it. Let its members stand up and say what they will do about it. Let them stand up and say today what they will do to prevent the use of bodgie accounts, false names and the use of banks for cash transactions to facilitate criminal activities. Of course, there is a cost, but quite frankly I do not accept the figures that have been put up. I think they are blown out of all proportion, as they usually are. But the cost is a proper cost for the Australian community to bear, because crime costs us all. It costs each and every one of us large sums of money and, if we are to have the proper laws to stop it, we, as a community, must pay that cost. It is the only way we will stop crime. It is the only way we will bring the criminal to justice and it is the only way we will make sure that criminals do not profit from the proceeds of crime through use of our standard financial institutions. It is very sad that the Opposition is, as one of its usual tactics, moving to defer the legislation. That is just a way of opposing it. They can say it is deferral, but if the Bill does not pass today, it simply means that there will be a continuation of the matters that Costigan raised and other criminals will now be able to use the financial institutions. If the Opposition defers the Bill, it will allow that to happen. It is a typical Liberal way of opposing, to support their rich mates, to support their friends in the white-shoe brigade in Queensland. That is what it is all about and I think that proposal should be totally thrown out. Mr COBB(Parkes)(11.07) —We are debating here today the Cash Transaction Reports Bill. I wish to pay tribute to the great work done in our Party by the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) who, unfortunately, because of electoral duties, cannot be here today to deliver this speech. Mr Griffiths —His job is in this chamber. What is he doing at home? Mr COBB —We will have many more members in this chamber after the next election and we will be sitting on the Government benches. In conjunction with the Proceeds of Crime Bill and the Mutual Assistance Bill, this legislation seeks to counter the underground cash economy, tax evasion and money laundering. The Bill will set up a Cash Transaction Reports Agency which will make information available on a direct and unrestricted basis to the Commissioner of Taxation. Other law enforcement agencies, including the Australian Customs Service, the National Crime Authority and State police could seek access to the cash transactions reports information, which could be used as evidence in courts and for investigations. The Bill takes into account recommendations by a number of royal commissions in recent years for stronger measures to deal with the widespread abuse of the facilities of financial institutions in relation to tax fraud and other criminal activities. The legislation is based, in part, on the recent United States legislation which has opened for four or five years. The Bill has four major purposes: Firstly, to require the reporting of certain domestic currency transactions in excess of $10,000 to the Cash Transaction Reports Agency-- Mr Griffiths —What do you say about that? Mr COBB —The honourable member will hear in a minute if he listens. Secondly, to require the reporting of certain currency transfers to and from Australia in excess of $5,000 to the Cash Transaction Reports Agency; thirdly, to establish a Cash Transactions Reports Agency to collect, compile, analyse and disseminate information relating to transaction reports and to perform other functions under the legislation in consultation with the Commissioner of Taxation; and, fourthly, to impose obligations on financial institutions in relation to the verification of identity of persons seeking to open accounts with financial institutions and of signatories to existing accounts. As for the financial impact on the public sector, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has estimated annual agency running costs of approximately $2m with an extra $1m for establishing computer facilities. According to the Australian Taxation Office, this cost will be offset by a projected increase in tax revenue of $30m per annum. The financial impact in the private sector is a little more vague. The Attorney-General, in his second reading speech, states that the Bill will have only `a modest impact' on cash dealers required to report cash transaction information as there is sufficient flexibility in the legislation to enable the Director of the Agency to develop the most cost-effective measure for cash dealers to record and communicate information to the Agency. The Australian Bankers Association, which is opposed to the legislation on a number of grounds, has estimated that the costs involved in the identification process will, conservatively be, in excess of $60m-that is way above `a modest impact', as the Attorney-General said-and that the inclusion of building societies and credit unions will raise the figure to about $180m. Those costs would be passed on to the customer. The legislation will require the reporting of certain domestic currency transactions in excess of $10,000 to the Cash Transaction Reports Agency. The figure of $10,000 is based on a similar figure in the United States and it is estimated that approximately 200,000 transactions per annum would be involved in Australia. The Australian Bankers Association expresses its concern at moves in the United States to reduce the threshold to $3,000 and envisages a similar reduction here at some time in the future with consequences for both the right to privacy of ordinary citizens and the cost of it. The Association has further added that information from the American Bankers Association has indicated that the United States legislation is ineffective as a means of combating organised crime; in other words, it is not doing the job that everybody intended or envisaged. The Government's response to such a statement is that this legislation is seen as a trigger or merely another tool which, taken in conjunction with other sources of information, will assist in following the money trail of tax evasion and laundering. Clause 7 (1) of the Bill requires a cash dealer who is a party to a significant cash transaction to prepare a report and submit it to the Director of the Cash Transaction Reports Agency unless an exemption applies. Exemptions under clause 8 may be made to certain high cash flow businesses, to employers for payroll withdrawals and to government agencies. There is also an exemption where the amount of currency in the transaction does not exceed an amount that is reasonably commensurate with the lawful business activities of the customer. Financial institutions will be required to maintain an exemption register to which the Director of the Cash Transaction Reports Agency will have access and will be able to direct a financial institution to remove or amend an entry. The Agency is also given a monitoring role in relation to the export of foreign currency and the import of any currency. This provision is in addition to the currency restriction of the Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations. An important requirement of the legislation provides for the Director of the Cash Transaction Reports Agency to make the information available to the Commissioner of Taxation on a direct and unrestricted basis. In addition, the Australian Customs Service, the National Crime Authority and State law enforcement agencies may also seek access to this information. Provisions exist in the Bill for the verification of the identity of persons opening and operating accounts with financial institutions. The Australian Bankers Association is again opposed to this aspect of the legislation and argues that the planned requirements will cause widespread inconvenience and cost to customers. The Association further contends that the practical effects and community resentment that will be generated have been underestimated by the Government. The information so obtained will need to be manually recorded by the banks and other financial institutions. The Bankers Association feels that the present guidelines issued by banks in opening accounts already meet the needs of the legislation in terms of effectiveness. Enforcement provisions attract a series of fines. Failure to provide information can result in a fine not exceeding $1,000 for a person and not exceeding $5,000 for a body corporate. Further provisions exist for providing false or misleading information, incomplete information or the conducting of transactions so as to avoid reporting requirements. The maximum penalty for a person is a fine not exceeding $10,000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding five years, or both, or if the offender is a body corporate, a fine not exceeding $50,000. When this Bill goes to the other place, the National Party of Australia will move to have the matter referred to a Senate committee to determine the cost, effectiveness and practicality of the proposals. The National Party is not satisfied that, firstly, the identification system will be either successful or worth the cost to consumers-bearing in mind the estimate of $180m that I mentioned earlier-and, secondly, the Cash Transaction Reports Agency will operate effectively. Quite frankly, very little is explained in the Bill as to how the Agency will operate. The National Party is at the forefront of the fight against tax evaders and organised crime. In principle, naturally we support legislation of this kind. However, too many questions as to cost effectiveness are left unanswered. In these circumstances, having regard to the need for certainty in the law, the National Party foreshadows an amendment to be moved in the Senate referring the Bill to a committee to report as a matter of urgency. This is the only responsible course of action to adopt. Otherwise, we are left taking legislation on faith only and not certainty. The many questions of the ABA, the Australian Association of Permanent Building Societies and the Australian Federation of Credit Unions, on behalf of their millions of clients, deserve to be answered. The National Party has adopted the only responsible stance possible-that is, to refer the Bill to a parliamentary committee for report quickly so that the fight against tax evasion and crime can continue in the most effective way possible. If the Bill becomes law, ordinary people will become subject not only to the scrutiny of the Taxation Office but also the Cash Transaction Reports Agency and the National Crime Authority. All cash dealers will be bogged down with reporting cash transactions. This includes not only banks, building societies and credit unions, as I have mentioned, but also insurers, cash management trusts, property trusts, unit trusts, securities and futures dealers, bullion dealers and so on. The list is never-ending. Each must prepare a report of the transaction, sign the report, have it signed by the other party to the transaction and forward a copy to the Cash Transaction Reports Agency within 15 days or, if it is to do with a foreign currency, within 24 hours. One wonders whether the Government has any idea of the number of reports that it will receive. It could easily run into hundreds of thousands. If every report is to be followed up by the Agency, it will need a veritable army of public servants to check on what is going on. Under the guise of hitting the criminal and the tax evader, which we would all support, I fear that many of the rights which we take for granted are being stripped away. The legislation has been prepared in far too hasty a manner and should be rewritten, after proper consideration by a Senate committee. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(11.19) —The Opposition, in moving an amendment that would effectively delay the implementation of the legislation, is swimming against the tide of its public contributions in this chamber since the election of the Hawke Labor Government. I refer to the chronic inability of the Opposition, when it is forced to support the substance of legislation, to do anything other than to continue its time worn refrain that the Government has not done its job quickly enough. It seems somewhat ironic that on the occasions when it has to look desperately for points of disagreement with the Government, the avenue by which it embraces its responsibilities as an opposition is to delay very important legislation. In this case, this legislation has gone through the normal processes of the Government. The Government Caucus was involved in the Bill; there was long and quite vigorous debate about its implications and the effectiveness of it. It has gone through a very difficult process, and it is very important that we acknowledge that, now it is before the House, it is important legislation and it certainly ought not to be delayed. Were one to embrace the view of the Opposition that it should be slipped off to a parliamentary committee, then that course, given the fact that we are facing an election on 11 July and considering the normal delays inherent in the Labor Party's return to government, would constitute a substantial delay. The reality is that such a committee could not be put in place on an urgent basis and, to that extent, we must accept that the Opposition's amendment is a mechanism which would constitute a severe delay in the passing of the legislation. The Opposition would have to bring into this House more substantive criticisms of the substance of the legislation before the Government would even consider that delaying tactic. I do not believe it is intended to be anything other than an effort by the Opposition-a fairly lame effort-to be seen to be having a point of disagreement with the Government. The Opposition is in substantive agreement with a whole raft of government legislation, and that has been indicated in this House on a number of occasions. The Opposition is looking for a feather to fly with in opposing this legislation. The cost involved has been a matter of some controversy. I will make a couple of points in relation to that matter. Figures of $180m and yearly administrative costs of $75m, I think, have been bandied around. If financial institutions are going to bandy around those figures, it is encumbent upon them to provide a proper and detailed analysis of how those figures come to pass. It is simply not good enough for those institutions to throw their figures around in a wild and uncorroborated way and expect a government to significantly delay legislation that is very much part of the whole raft of legislation, to which I have referred, which constitutes this Government's organised crime fighting armoury. As to costs, the first point I make is that the blocking of the Australia Card Bill by the Opposition is, of course, implicated in this legislation. Mr Lee —It is outrageous. Mr GRIFFITHS —As my colleague the honourable member for Macarthur has pointed out, it is outrageous. It is an outrageous position for the Opposition to have adopted. It is based on a very weak foundation of outrage. The reality is-as the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) well knows-that most members of the Opposition privately support the Australia Card Bill. Mr Hodgman —Rubbish! It is a Moscow card. Mr GRIFFITHS —I am not so sure about the honourable member for Denison. I am glad he has come back into the chamber, because I make this prediction: The honourable member for Denison has the ability to attract publicity. His sensitivity to the need for publicity directly increases as the election date comes a little closer. I hope I am mistaken, but I think the honourable member for Denison is in this chamber not to discuss the merits or otherwise of the legislation but to interweave into his contribution, under the protection of the Parliament, slanderous and cowardly observations on other individuals in this chamber, as he has done on a number of occasions. I hope he does not do that. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! I point out to the honourable member for Maribyrnong that he must not make any personal reflections upon members of this House. Mr GRIFFITHS —I will certainly be guided by you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Mr Hodgman —Particularly in your last speech in the House! Mr GRIFFITHS —I add that the honourable member for Denison and I have been involved in many debates together. I have had a close look at his margin and his contribution to Denison over a period, and a maelstrom from the north will descend upon the honourable member for Denison on 11 July. However, that is of little import. As to the issues before the House, I have reflected on the Opposition's attitude to the Australia Card, and that is a matter of public record and a position that is totally inconsistent with the Opposition's alleged sensitivity towards issues of fighting organised crime. I have already indicated that it is incumbent upon those financial institutions that bandy around figures to provide a more detailed analysis of the alleged figures that they have proposed to date. In any event, as I understand it, the financial institutions have implemented voluntary procedures, or at least recommended them, such voluntary procedures being subject to relevant administrative costs. To some extent at least, their suggested costs must be offset against the normal voluntary code. If the voluntary code is not being adhered to, in my view, that constitutes a lack of public duty on behalf of those institutions. A strong case can be made for this legislation; a strong case can be made for not delaying the legislation on the basis or excuse of criticisms by those financial institutions. One could talk about a range of issues in the context of this legislation. I would like to raise the genesis of it. In the United States of America, the Bank Secrecy Act came into public prominence quite recently when the extent to which it had impacted upon organised crime in the United States was indicated. I will give some indication of that. In an operation referred to earlier in this chamber, called Operation Greenback, the United States Treasury, on a major drug trafficking investigation, targeted a whole range of individuals. It is worth running through the type of people involved in this very significant drug trafficking organisation: Attorneys-lawyers and solicitors, in our terminology- accountants, money brokers, money couriers, bankers, and major banks. They were directly involved in the laundering of illicitly obtained moneys. It is not only the fact that they were involved in a major criminal transaction, but also that these bastions of decency-as they seek to describe themselves-were involved in some $2.6 billion of documented laundered funds. I ask the House to reflect on the enormity of that sum of money-$2.6 billion in one related criminal transaction. That gives some indication of the extent to which this legislation, while not a direct corollary, should, in the future, have a major impact in Australia. It ought to be another reason why the Opposition's suggestion that this legislation be effectively delayed ought not to be embraced by this House. The legislation before the House today constitutes the last piece of the armoury that the Government has brought to bear for this session of Parliament to fight organised crime. I shall briefly run through the others. The establishment of the National Crime Authority-I have the honour and duty to be chairman of the parliamentary committee overseeing that body-is a significant contribution of the Government and one which is, I think, acknowledged even by members of the Opposition, even having regard to the fact that it is very close to an election. Other pieces of the armoury are: The Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill that was recently brought into this House; and the Proceeds of Crime Bill, which will effectively attack the very motivation for people being involved in criminal activity-the accumulation of large amounts of private moneys, and other resources and assets. I also refer to the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill, the finalisation of extradition arrangements with a significantly increased number of countries, the expansion in the role of the Australian Federal Police and, as a corollary, the making available of significantly increased resources to the Australian Federal Police. It is a matter of some degree of consensus in the community that the reorganisation of the Australian Federal Police has made it a significantly more potent organisation. A rudimentary overview of the record of the Australian Federal Police in recent times would tend to support my view that it is much more effective in fighting crime than it was when we came to government. An increase in resources has been made available to the Australian Bureau of Criminal Investigation. The Australian Customs Service also has been restructured. That organisation has not received much attention in the past, but obviously it is at the forefront in the prevention of the importation of illicit narcotics. It is a very important link in the chain in opposing organised crime. Of lesser moment in some ways-it is certainly not known or acknowledged widely-is the institutionalisation within government processes of a higher responsibility on organised crime issues. My colleague the honourable member for Denison, who probably has another appointment, is asking me to wind up my speech, which I will do shortly. I will give the House an example of this higher responsibility. Because of the higher profile taken by the Attorney-General's Department, because of the bureaucratic changes, we now have institutionalised a section which has the prime responsibility of fighting organised crime. Hopefully, over time and over parliaments, that will keep organised crime at the forefront of government consideration. My colleague the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland) has had a distinguished role in regard to much of this legislation as chairman of the Caucus legal and administrative committee. He raised the issue of a whole range of criminal tax avoidance schemes that had come to his attention when he was working as a solicitor. We ought not forget that this Government has gone a very long way towards preventing those sorts of schemes from operating. It is a sad indictment on some members of the Opposition parties that our tax avoidance measures-our bottom of the harbour legislation-that we introduced a considerable time ago were blocked in the Senate. As the Australian people know, the result of the blocking of that legislation is that criminals in this community are now very much richer. The effective opposition to such legislation really goes some way towards minimising the impact of the Opposition's criticism of the whole gamut of our legislation. It is on record not only as trying to delay the legislation as in this case but also as blocking legislation such as the Australia Card legislation. It failed to support a mechanism which would have gone a considerable way towards addressing the problems within financial institutions. Sadly, the Opposition's attitude to issues such as our bottom of the harbour legislation has allowed criminals to retain many hundreds of millions of dollars that rightly is the property of the Australian taxpayer. I conclude my comments by making some very brief points. The genesis not only of this legislation but also of a whole range of other Government legislation was in the outcome of the Costigan and Stewart commissions and reports by Gyles, Redlich and others. It would be churlish of anyone in this chamber not to acknowledge the significant contribution of those people who brought these very important issues before the eyes of the public. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), who, in the whole scheme of things, has had a relatively brief tenure in that office, has managed to bring in the greatest range of very potent organised crime fighting legislation this country has seen not just in the last few years but since Federation. For the first 83 years of Federation, this Parliament effectively did nothing in this area; but in the four years we have been in government we have brought in some very important and very effective legislation. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(11.35) —I say from the outset that the Opposition rejects the claim by the Government that the amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Cash Transaction Reports Bill moved by the shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), is a move to defeat the legislation. That is not so. The Opposition believes that it is better to get it right than to get it soon. The Opposition believes that the only way in which the Parliament can be properly informed on a number of crucial issues relating to this important legislation is by referring the Bill to a select committee of both Houses and asking it to report to Parliament as soon as possible. Why on earth would the Hawke socialist Government so violently oppose a move for a parliamentary inquiry? The point made by the honourable member for North Sydney is fundamental; that is to say, we have to be assured in our own minds, and the community needs to be assured, that the Bill will do that which it has been brought to this Parliament to achieve. Let me put the record straight. It can be fairly said that on both sides of this House all honourable members are totally committed to the fight against crime. Mr Martin —Hear, hear! Mr HODGMAN —I thank the honourable member who made that interjection. I believe it is correct to say that on both sides of the Parliament every single member is committed to the fight against organised crime. Mr Goodluck —Hear, hear! Mr HODGMAN —I thank the honourable member for Franklin. The difference is in the way in which one goes about it. I would not for one moment believe that even the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths), who has just resumed his seat, is in any way impugning the integrity of the honourable member for North Sydney. But there is an argument about whether this is the proper course of action to take. I am speaking to the amendment to emphasise this point: It is not to defeat the legislation; it is to ensure that before the legislation passes through the Parliament we are properly advised by a select committee representing members from this House and from the Senate, from both sides of the political scene, as to the most efficacious way in which this legislation can be implemented. That it is far reaching legislation is, I think, accepted by all. It will impact on cash transactions domestically-that is, within Australia-in excess of $10,000. It will impact on cash transactions outside Australia of amounts in excess of $5,000. Those amounts are big to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to me, but in the world of business and in particular in the world of legitimate business they are not regarded as large amounts. The impact in cost to the Australian economy, particularly to the private sector, will be very substantial indeed. I do not quibble with the estimate of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) that the cost to the public sector, namely, the cost of establishing the Cash Transaction Reports Agency and of providing for running costs, will be of the order of $2m per annum, with an extra $1m for establishing computer facilities. I agree with the assessment that it will be cost effective in that the revenues that are recovered in taxation may well be of the order of $30m. So, on a straight mathematical analysis, an outlay of $3m to recover $30m-if those figures are approximately correct-is good. There is no argument about the public sector aspect and, in an annual expenditure of $90 billion plus, the expenditure of $3m is minuscule. It is the impact on the private sector which concerns this side of the House and, I can say from discussions I have had, a number of members of the Government. The impact on the private sector, according to the Australian Bankers Association, will be in excess of $60m. That is not just a once-only cost. That is a continuing expenditure; again, a cost imposed on private enterprise by the Hawke socialist Government. If one were to include the building societies and the credit unions, that annual cost would become $180m. That might not mean much to those who occupy the Hawke socialist Government bench, but I assure them that a private enterprise sector that is already overtaxed by their Government, that is already overregulated by their Government, is getting pretty fed up. It is starting to watch every extra dollar and every extra cent that is imposed upon it, because the dollars and cents that they put on the backs of Australian enterprises are making it harder for them to continue, making it almost impossible for them to profit, and placing in jeopardy the jobs of hundreds of thousands of Australians. We on this side of the House, totally committed as we are to the fight against crime, say to Government members that they seem to want to rush through this legislation in a manner which raises my suspicion as to why they do not want it to be the subject of an inquiry by a joint select committee. This legislation, as the honourable member for Maribyrnong and the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland) said, is part of a continuing package of legislation which has been brought in by the Attorney-General. I have made it clear in the past, and I repeat today, that I do not quibble about the Attorney-General's integrity, honesty or ability. Let me put that on the record. Mr Goodluck —Wish him the best. Mr HODGMAN —I do wish the Attorney-General-he is also our Deputy Prime Minister-all the best. But I must say that I get rankled at the lecturing we get from the other side of the House about our alleged immorality. I am sick and tired of people such as the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) and others repeatedly claiming that members on this side of the House are the friends of tax cheats, criminals and people who rip off the system. It is an unworthy and disgraceful allegation. The fact is that even today the suggestion has been made by innuendo that because we propose that this matter should be considered by a joint select committee, in some way we are shielding the white shoe brigade, or whatever. I do not know members of the white shoe brigade. I have nothing to do with them. I would not shield any person-I never have, during 20 years in parliament, State and Federal-in the commissioning of any crime. Government members have double standards because of the way in which they put this argument. It is almost as if the State of New South Wales never existed. It is almost as if the crime and corruption in New South Wales under Australian Labor Party governments never occurred. I would like to have seen the looks on the faces of some Australian Labor Party members if this legislation had been in place at the time of the inquiry into the Nugan Hand financial transactions, involving the coffers of the bag men of the ALP. I would like to see what the reaction would have been, because in that case we were dealing with much more than $10,000. I would like to see what would have been the impact of this legislation in relation to the running of illegal casinos in New South Wales and the payment to a Government that has been in power since 1976 in that State and which is not of our political persuasion. I will not take the matter much further because the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) is to make a statement in a moment. But Government members should not preach morality. The State of New South Wales has been under a stench of corruption for over a decade. That has occurred in the mother State of Australia at a time when it has been under Labor administration. The Labor Party was the party which killed the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union; no ifs and no buts. Mr Costigan QC asked for an extension of six months. That extension was granted by Premier Cain and the Victorian Government-a Labor government-but was refused by this Government. It killed the Costigan inquiry when he was on the brink of possibly the greatest breakthrough in major crime investigation that this country has ever seen. It has never explained why it did it. People have a suspicion as to why it did it. Perhaps Mr Costigan was getting too close for comfort. Mr John Brown —I don't think you even believe that. Mr HODGMAN —I do believe it. I say to the Minister that I did not meet Mr Costigan during his inquiry, but I met him afterwards, and I spoke to him. I have reason to believe that this Government killed the Costigan inquiry at a crucial time when a six months extension may well have enabled him to complete the net which would have ensnared and brought to public light, trial and conviction, some of the major figures in Australian crime. I say to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) that I do believe it. I look him right in the eye and tell him that one of the great question marks of the history of his Government is this: Why did it kill the Costigan Royal Commission when Premier Cain gave it a six months extension? Mr Lionel Bowen —You would not table the report. Mr HODGMAN —One day the secrets will be open to all. One day we will find out. I put it on the line. I do not endorse and embrace Costigan chapter and verse in every respect, but what the Government did then was something for which I think it will never be forgiven. We have undertaken to keep to a time limit. I would like to table details of a case dealing with a cash transaction relating to crime. I refer to a New South Wales police department report 82/1104 into the robbery at the Boulevard Hotel-- Mr Griffiths —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I indicated in my contribution that the honourable member for Denison was most likely, having regard to past practice, to use the opportunity of this coward's castle in some respects to cast improper imputations. Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask you to rule under standing order 76 whether it is not an abuse of the procedures of this House for him to continue along this slanderous line of imputation. Let him go outside this chamber and put it before the public if he thinks there is any merit in it. Let him do it outside. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) — Order! The Chair wishes to rule on that point of order. I uphold the point of order, as I did during the contribution of the honourable member for Maribyrnong, that one should not make imputations or personal reflections. As the honourable member for Maribyrnong ceased to do so, I also ask the honourable member for Denison to cease. Mr HODGMAN —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will talk about a hypothetical situation on which this legislation would impact. I will make the point and then sit down. If a sum of $3,600 in Commonwealth bank notes, along with the sum of $1,000 in United States currency and a quantity of travellers cheques-bank and number unknown, but said later to be $1,000-were stolen, that gives a total of $5,600. If the proceeds of that crime were then taken out of the country-- Mr Griffiths —On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker: With the greatest respect I find the honourable member's cowardly way of trying to avoid the Standing Orders of this House grossly offensive. Prior to the honourable member getting up to speak, I predicted-accurately, as it turned out-that he would use the veil of this legislation once again to use this chamber to make what constitutes a most outrageous attack on another member of this House. I think it is outrageous, and he knows that it is. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I was not aware that the honourable member was referring to a member of this House. If this is an attack on a member of this House, I rule that the honourable member for Denison is out of order. I ask him to change the subject. Mr Hodgman —Madam Deputy Speaker, can I reply to the point of order? There is no coward's castle. I will release this document, which is a New South Wales police report, outside this Parliament. The honourable member for Maribyrnong should not make comments about a coward's castle. I say nothing in this House that I am not prepared to repeat outside it. What I did say-it got very close to the honourable member for Maribyrnong-is that I have referred specifically to a particular robbery which took place on 21 February 1982. I said that if this legislation was introduced it would apply. Dr Klugman —You're a liar. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison is referring to a member of this House. He is ruled out of order and I warn him not to repeat any further points of accusation about a member of this House. Mr Carlton —On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Prospect called the honourable member for Denison a liar. I hope that he will be asked to withdraw. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member for Prospect to withdraw the unparliamentary language. Dr Klugman —I withdraw. Mr HODGMAN —In conclusion, I note that once again I have got under the Government's skin. If a domestic transaction involves more than $10,000, it comes under the provisions of this legislation; and if more than $5,000 is sent outside Australia, it comes under the provisions of this legislation. I leave the honourable member for Maribyrnong with this thought: If a robbery occurs involving $5,600, as I indicated, made up of various currencies and it is sent out of Australia, it would be subject to the provisions of this legislation. If the honourable member disputes that, let him stand up and say so. I conclude by saying that there are many in this Parliament and many outside who would wish that this legislation had been on the statute books on 21 February 1982. I will now go outside the House and publicly release the New South Wales police report which I have in my possession. Everyone will then see what it relates to. I thank the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Martin) adjourned. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services) —by leave-Local government forms part of the system of representative democracy in Australia and part of the public sector of the nation. Local government undertakes a range of significant functions in response to local needs. It also shares responsibility with the Commonwealth and the States for a diversity of programs. We need competent local government, participating as a partner with the Commonwealth and the States, contributing to national development from the grassroots up. We will not only get more value for the public dollar by taking advantage of the attributes of local government, but also achieve integration of government efforts at the local level. The development of local government is important in improving the responsiveness and effectiveness of public administration and in strengthening democracy. Since the election of the Hawke Labor Government in March 1983 I have had the privilege of serving as the first Federal Minister for Local Government-initially as Minister for Territories and Local Government and, following the 1984 election, as Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services. My involvement and interest in the development of local government goes back many years. In the course of my experience with local government I have seen it grow in sophistication, evolving into a multi-functional level of community government, contributing in various ways to the social and economic development of our nation. I have worked with a diverse range of elected representatives and officials at the Federal, State and local government levels. I have generally been able to work with them co-operatively across the political spectrum; and for that I am grateful. I am proud to report on some of the achievements we have made; and I say `we' because it has been a collective effort. What I have to report is a product of co-operation and a process of gradual evolution. I am confident that we have built an enduring foundation for the continuation of local government development in this country. There are five broad areas of achievement on which I can report. The first is the creation of a local government portfolio at the Federal level and the strengthening of the Office of Local Government. I know that local government values having a focal point of contact at the Federal level-listen to its concerns and understand its needs and capacities, to argue its case within the Federal bureaucracy, and to promote co-ordination of policies affecting local government. This has also proven valuable to the Commonwealth in improving programs and in developing more sensitive and effective inter-government relations. The second area of achievement has been the continuation and improvement of the program of general purpose financial assistance for local government. In 1984 the Government Commissioned the first national inquiry into local government finance under the chairmanship of Professor Peter Self. The purpose of the inquiry was to review the operations of the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976 which had been introduced by the Fraser Government. I have stressed time and time again that I congratulated the Fraser Government on continuing that role and that legislation after the Whitlam Government developed the Local Government Act in 1974. As honourable members would know, the Whitlam Labor Government gave local government direct access to untied grants from the Commonwealth. The Self Committee recommended continuation of general purpose assistance for local government, and proposed ways of improving the allocation of grants, so that the equalisation objective of the program could be more effectively realised. Following consultations with the States and local government, the Government adopted the thrust of the Committee's recommendations and introduced the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1986. The new Act provides for a more stable, more predictable, more accountable and more equitable allocation of funds for local government. The Act is significant in treating local government no less favourably than the States in terms of annual changes in funding levels. In fact for 1986-87 and 1987-88, the Act provides local government the benefit of a real terms guarantee. Some $590m is being made available this financial year under the program and the projected level of funding in 1987-88 is of the order of $640m. I think that that is some progress since the first year of the program, when the Whitlam Government made $56m available. The Act is also significant in that it is the first piece of Commonwealth legislation requiring local Government to be consulted on the principles governing the allocation of funds. And, with the inclusion of the Northern Territory in the program, eligibility for funds has been opened to local governing bodies of Aboriginal communities. I believe that the breakthrough in the Northern Territory will occur in the States in following years. The Act represents another step forward in the development of local government. The third area of achievement concerns the success of the local government development program. Some $13.5m has been provided since 1983 for more than 500 projects involving more than 350 local councils and other local government bodies. That program is an important investment in research and development for the local government sector. It contributes to improved practices, inter-governmental co-operation and the spread of cost-effective innovations. It is a responsible role for the Commonwealth to seed local innovation and to disseminate positive results. And the results achieved through that program reflect well on the capacity of local government. The program has aided and improved resource management practices, more effective planning, new models for the co-ordination and delivery of human services, new approaches to infrastructure maintenance and the development of local economic strategies. Participating councils have been willing to share their experiences, and the office of the Local Government has provided access to documentation through an extensive publishing program throughout local government all over Australia. The local government development program has also supported the national awards for innovation in local government which were inaugurated in 1986. These awards have captured the imagination of local government, given recognition to excellence in local government, helped to inspire and spread improved practices, and helped broaden community understanding of what local government can do. The 1986 awards were presented by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in Adelaide. Entries for the 1987 awards are now open and the winners will be announced later this year in Perth. Another important contribution of the local government development program has been its support for the work conducted by the Local Government Ministers Conference. This has included major documentation of trends and issues related to the roles of local government in community development, and economic development. The reports emerging are now the subject of consultation between Federal, State and local governments with a view to clarifying functional responsibilities. Yet another initiative, commenced this year, is the national review of local government labour markets, designed to ensure that local government has available to it an adequate supply of skilled personnel for its future tasks. The review is examining ways of reducing rigidities which prevent staff mobility, and of matching training programs to emerging requirements. I have been particularly pleased to see the increasing participation of the Australian Council of Local Government Associations in the Local Government Ministers Conference and its servicing committees. This represents a further extension of the local government voice into national decision-making and consultative forums. It builds upon the recognition given by the Hawke Government to ACLGA, in inviting that body to the economic and taxation summits, and including it in the membership of the Economic Planning Advisory Council. The fourth area of achievement concerns the success of innovative programs involving local government. There are two programs which I would like to mention briefly. The first is the natural areas enhancement scheme which formed part of the community employment program, and to which local government throughout Australia made a magnificent contribution. Some $17.6m has been provided since 1984, for 78 projects, to create jobs and improve passive recreation amenity, beautifying the foreshores along the waterways of capital cities. Social facilities of enduring benefit to local communities have been established, and new environmental landscaping and management techniques have been developed. Second, the country centres project, undertaken in 11 rural areas, has been a successful and exciting pilot program. The project has helped local communities to improve their organisational capability, to identify realistic development opportunities and to formulate their own strategic plans for managing change. Some 58 export opportunities have been identified, some of which are now at the business planning stage. Even more importantly, the participating communities are working together more effectively, pursuing a direction for development in which they have had a say, and to which they are committed. Federal and State agencies are listening to what the local communities know about their own areas, and are providing information and technical assistance to them. The fifth area of achievement concerns the momentum for constitutional recognition of local government. I recall the Whitlam Government initiating a referendum on this matter in 1974. The referendum proposal was defeated. In fact, it was defeated only narrowly-47 per cent of Australian people voted to support the proposal. The strange thing was that the worst enemy was local government itself-it was against what it then thought was a centralisation of power in Canberra. Since then, local government itself has pushed from the bottom up for constitutional recognition and the Hawke Government has responded to that grass roots pressure and encouraged that approach. At the Constitutional Convention in Brisbane in 1986, I was pleased to be able to second, on behalf of the Australian Government, a motion moved by a representative of the Australian Council of Local Government Associations in support of constitutional recognition of local government. That motion gained the support of the majority of delegates to the convention. Since then, the Constitutional Commission has been formed by my colleague the Attorney-General, and its terms of reference include the matter of recognition of local government. The Office of Local Government has made a submission to the Constitutional Commission, arguing the case for recognition of local government in the Australian Constitution. I commend the submission to the House, and seek leave to incorporate a summary in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- The Commonwealth Office of Local Government (OLG) prepared a submission to the Constitutional Commission putting the case for constitutional recognition of Local Government from a Commonwealth point of view. This brochure summarises OLG's submission. Why is constitutional recognition of Local Government important? Two facts make constitutional recognition vital: (1) Local Government is an elected and publicly accountable sector of government; and (2) Local Government is an integral part of the Federal system of public administration. These facts have not been adequately understood in the past. Formal acknowledgment of these facts through constitutional recognition is not only desirable but essential. Having the status and functions of Local Government go unrecognised has meant that: the Commonwealth and the States have tended to ignore its rights and responsibilities; its capacities have been neither sufficiently developed nor utilised; and its distinctive attributes of representativeness and responsiveness have not been fully exploited. The absence of constitutional recognition has meant that Local Government has been unable to make its full contribution to the public benefit. The main impediments have been: negative attitudes towards Local Government by other governments and the public; and institutional procedures of other governments excluding Local Government participation. Constitutional recognition must be more than `symbolic'-it must have the practical effect of overcoming the difficulties arising out of these perceptions and practices. The basis of Commonwealth support for Local Government The Commonwealth wants to help Local Government strengthen its ability to respond to local community needs and provide effective services. The Commonwealth also wants to raise the status of Local Government to make it a genuine partner within the Federal system of Government. The Prime Minister, the Hon. R. J. L. Hawke, AC MP, emphasised this in his speech to the Institute of Municipal Management in May 1984: The Government has a strong commitment to raising the status and strengthening the capacity of Local Government. Our aim is a genuine partnership of the Commonwealth, States and Local Governments . . . We want Local Government as a genuine partner in our three sphere system of government, co-operating in a broad range of functions to build a vigorous Australian community and economy from the grass roots up. It is Commonwealth policy to achieve national economic and social objectives through developing effective and productive relations with Local Government. These relations should be developed in co-operation with the State and Territory Governments. Such relations are essential to effective public sector administration. They also enable public benefit to be pursued with responsiveness and accountability. To achieve this, OLG believes that these relations: ought to be based upon mutual respect for the authority and responsibility each sector of government derives from the communities which elect them to govern; and need to be characterised by consultative decision-making where the powers exercised by one sector of government impact upon another. Governments also need to work together where functional responsibilities interact or overlap. Commonwealth support for constitutional recognition Within the broad policy of support for Local Government, the Commonwealth is committed to achieving constitutional recognition of Local Government. In his speech at the August 1986 presentation of the National Awards for Innovation in Local Government the Prime Minister said: We have also encouraged and assisted Local Government in its rightful claim to be included in the Australian Constitution, supporting your representatives at the Brisbane meeting last year and ensuring that Local Government is adequately represented on the Constitutional Commission we established recently. We were heartened by the outcome for Local Government of the Brisbane convention. I am hopeful that firm recommendations will now come from the Constitutional Commission, enabling us to proceed to changes to the Constitution which will give Local Government proper recognition. There is no doubt in my mind that such recognition is long overdue. Arguments for constitutional recognition OLG's argument is based on two inter-related purposes. Constitutional recognition is needed: to help strengthen the democratic potential of Local Government and to strengthen the system of representative government in Australia; and to help clarify the roles and responsibilities of the different sectors of government so as to develop a more integrated, flexible and effective public sector. Acknowledging democratic rights and responsibilities Local Government bodies are distinguished from other authorities and agencies established under State or Territory legislation because they have the power to levy taxes and make by-laws. More importantly they are democratically elected, while other bodies are appointed. These characteristics define them as a sector of government. The need for the Constitution to acknowledge Local Government's rights and responsibilities stems from its status as a sector of government. Such a status has an important implication. While Local Government bodies have powers devolved to them by State and Territory legislatures, they also derive authority from the communities that elect them, to whom they are accountable, and whom they represent. As a result, they have rights and responsibilities, which deserve special recognition within a democracy. Constitutional recognition would authorise Local Government as a sector of government and establish its status as a party with which Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments ought to consult and negotiate. Inclusion in the Constitution would obligate Local Government to adhere to the same democratic principles and practices governing elections of Commonwealth, State and Territory governments. In a democracy with interlocking legislative structures, all sectors of government should have a common democratic base regarding the value of each person's vote, each person's voting eligibility, and each person's voting obligation. This would mean changing the Local Government electoral system in some States. Acknowledging Local Government in the Constitution would give it more involvement in designing, co-ordinating and delivering government policies and programs. Recognition would ensure that Local Government's distinctive attributes could be used to the benefit of all sectors of government and the nation as a whole. These attributes, which stem from Local Government's democratic base, are its ability to: be flexible, and use its discretion in local decision making; be responsive, both in providing services and in representing local conditions, needs and opinions; and integrate and target public services locally, thereby increasing their effectiveness. Enabling improved effectiveness in Government administration Local Government has a significant role in the public administration of the nation. It accounts for about 6 per cent of total government outlays, collects about 4 per cent of total taxation revenue and employs about 9 per cent of the total government civilian work force. Local Government has traditionally provided local property-related services. Increasingly, Local Government has been expanding into a broader range of social and economic functions, partly through its own initiatives and partly in response to State and Commonwealth initiatives. Local Government presently shares responsibility with the Commonwealth and the States for a diversity of programs. It receives direct and indirect funding for these, including Commonwealth funds passed through the States under section 96 of the Constitution. These funds currently exceed $1000m per annum, including general purpose assistance and specific purpose payments for roads, child care, aged persons care, employment generation and other activities. Changing social and economic conditions will continue to place pressure on Local Government to become involved in a wider range of social and economic functions. These pressures are likely to result from several factors: governments are looking to cut public spending. At the same time economic and social infrastructure backlogs continue to increase; community groups which perceive that other sectors of governments are not meeting their needs for services and facilities, are making more vocal claims for Local Government support; and economic change is compelling Local Government to take initiatives to protect local communities. Local Governments' responses to local community demands may conflict with State or Commonwealth objectives or programs. In addition, inter-government relationships are often characterised by overlaps and unclear responsibilities for program delivery, planning and administration. Commonwealth programs frequently fail to acknowledge the capacities and responsibilities of Local Government. Such difficulties in relationships harm overall effectiveness. The functional responsibilities of the different sectors of government are changing, yet there is little, if any, co-ordination of local efforts with State and Commonwealth efforts. It is vital that the nation's system of government administration takes advantage of the attributes of Local Government. This would improve effectiveness, responsiveness and accountability, i.e. provide cost effective and better targeted programs. Constitutional recognition of Local Government would enable the public sector to integrate its administrative effort by harnessing the contribution Local Government can make. Suggested changes to the Constitution OLG has recommended that the Constitution should recognise Local Government along the following lines: (1) a requirement that Local Government be democratically elected should form part of any democratic rights provisions to be incorporated into the Constitution. (2) a new clause be inserted into the Constitution in the following terms: Subject to such terms and conditions as the Parliament of a State or the Northern Territory or in respect of any other Territory the Parliament of the Commonwealth may from time to time determine, every State and Territory of the Commonwealth shall provide for the establishment and continuance of Local Government bodies elected in accordance with such laws and empowered to administer and to make by-laws for their respective areas, to the extent and in accordance with the laws prescribed by the respective Parliaments in that behalf. In effect this would: acknowledge that Local Government's structure and powers should be matters for the State, Northern Territory and Commonwealth (in the case of other Territories) Parliaments to provide; potentially allow Local Government wide ranging executive powers incidental to undertaking their statutory duties; and by implication, provide Local Government with a degree of protection against arbitrary dismissal. (3) a new clause be added to the Constitution which specifically defines the nature of Commonwealth-Local Government financial relationships in the following terms: The Parliament may, after consultation with the relevant State or Territory Government, grant financial assistance to any Local Government body on such terms and conditions as Parliament thinks fit. Such a clause would be additional to the current section 96. In effect this would: give the Commonwealth power to make financial grants to Local Government after consultation with the States, and potentially allow the Commonwealth to consult with Local Government over providing such financial grants. It is considered desirable that the preceding two clauses be inserted into a new Chapter of the Constitution dealing with Local Government. Mr UREN —I wish to conclude with a few personal remarks. I have been a Minister in four Governments-two under Whitlam and two under Hawke. I have had an opportunity that few Ministers have had, namely, to create two new bureaucracies. The first was the Department of Urban and Regional Development in the 1970s. It was a magnificent body, even though it was destroyed by the Fraser Government. At least 15 of that Department's officers have been or are now permanent heads either in the Federal or the State bureaucracies, and they are carrying out progressive urban and regional development programs. The second bureaucracy was developed under the Hawke Government, and it is the local government and regional section within the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services. It is a body which will survive and its officers are efficient, dedicated, committed public servants and I have no doubt that they will go far in the Public Service. In 1984, the Prime Minister gave me the responsibility of Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services. I was quite surprised, but delighted. It was the second time that, as a Minister, I had the administrative authority over Commonwealth properties. It is an important weapon which if properly used can be a catalyst in the development of our urban and regional communities. I tried to use that opportunity when I was the Minister responsible for the Commonwealth urban land use program. The permanent head was Ken Jones, who was a great public servant. It was a privilege to work with him. When he retired, I appointed Graham Glenn, who I believe will also become a great public servant. I have had the loyalty and commitment of the staff of DOLGAS right across the board-and it has been a great delight-from the top executives through to the Commonwealth drivers. It is interesting to note that I have been driven by Commonwealth drivers for 29 years, and I have had a blue with only one driver during that period. I am pleased to say that in the 2 1/2 years that I have been their Minister, there have been no strikes by Commonwealth drivers. They have always been able to consult with me and we have worked together in a progressive manner. In all the years that I have been a Minister, my personal staff have been a strength and have worked with me. If a Minister is to make any impact in the administration or is to be briefed to go to Cabinet to make a real contribution, he needs a good Department and a good staff behind him in his struggle for what he believes to be justice for his Department. The staff can also assist to give him a broader overall vision. I have always been lucky to have good personal staff. In a personal vein, I wish to place on record the contribution of the Prime Minister in his commitment to local government. He was the first Prime Minister to decide that there should be a local government department. However, it goes beyond that. The House knows that I am not pretending that the Prime Minister and I have not had our differences over the years, but in the matter of local government nobody in the Cabinet has been a stronger supporter of my local government portfolio. He has been able to understand and support our philosophical position and has supported the broadening of the base of local government-to give it greater breadth, to help its evolution and development and to strengthen it as part of the democratic process that is needed if we are to have a healthy society. I speak to the elected representatives of local government whether they be Liberals, Nationals or independents; whether they be town clerks, engineers or people employed by local government-while Bob Hawke remains Prime Minister, local government will have a great supporter and will know that local government will progress under his leadership. My last point is very personal. I am stepping down as a Minister. I made that decision more than two years ago. I was not pushed; I made the decision myself. I made the decision because I thought it was the right time for me to step aside. There are younger-I stress the word `younger'-people on the back bench who deserve a go, an opportunity to work as a Minister in the third Hawke Ministry. I believe that these younger members will inspire the third Hawke government after the election. They will make a fresher, more driving, more inspiring government. The third Hawke government will be a more progressive government. I will go on to the back bench-but not to have a holiday. I have been a part of the leadership of our Party, the Australian Labor Party, for nearly 20 years. Being part of that leadership does inhibit one in some ways. I am not saying that when I am on the back bench I will take excessive liberties or freedoms. I have too much respect for the collectivism of the struggle of our Party and our movement. The labour movement has been good to me in all the years that I have been in politics. For the next three years in Parliament, and for the rest of my life, I will commit myself to the people. I believe the issue of nuclear disarmament is the most important struggle for the human race. That will be my important struggle. I will use the back bench and the forums open to me to fight for nuclear disarmament and peace in the world. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —by leave-I do not wish to respond to the statement but just to make a short statement in response to the latter part of the statement from the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren). In due course the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) will respond to the statement. As one of those who came into the House not long after the Minister, and one who is probably as diametrically opposed to him as anybody in this House in the areas of philosophy and politics, I would like to pay credit to the Minister for the remarks that he has made and for the contribution he has made for those people he represents. The Minister has made a valedictory with a difference. As he has just asserted, he is not leaving the Parliament; he is leaving the Ministry. While I suggest to him that all of his colleagues in the Hawke Ministry are about to do that, he at least has the decency, honesty and openness to acknowledge that he is now saying farewell to the front bench in government. Tom Uren is a remarkable Australian. He is one of the members of a generation who served their country during World War II. Having been imprisoned as a prisoner of war and having been through all the horrors of the Burma railroad and all the horrors of the four years of his life that he gave to the service of this country, he then came as a returned serviceman to stand for the Australian Labor Party. Of course, he has been successful as a Federal member for so many years since then. There was quite a generation of people who came here after World War II and made their contribution. Tom Uren from this place and Senator Sir John Carrick, who is about to retire from the Senate, are the two who remain in Parliament from that generation of Australians who were prisoners of war, who came to this place and who not only gave their service during wartime but have significantly made a contribution during peacetime. On behalf of the National Party of Australia, and I believe of all members on this side of the House, I pay credit to you, Minister, for the way in which you have committed your life to Australia's cause. Whilst we might disagree with you on so many issues, we respect the fact that you have done so much in the exercise and towards the fulfilment of your beliefs. Obviously, we wish you well, albeit that we hope that it will not even be on the back bench as I would far prefer to see one of the coalition parties represent your seat. But, even in your seat, I rather doubt it. I wish you well. Mr REITH(Flinders) —by leave-I endorse the remarks of the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) on behalf of all my colleagues in the Liberal Party of Australia. Today the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) has brought down a statement on local government. I will say something about the detail of that in a moment. But the Minister started by talking about the importance of local government. In his last address as a Minister, he talked about an important institution in Australia and, by putting that emphasis in his last remarks, he places on record the fact that he has been concerned about Australia, its institutions and where we are going in the future. Of course, as we go into an election campaign, there will be many arguments about what we all want for Australia. We can debate those issues. But there are times such as this when we can recognise that there is much that joins all of us together as Australians. I conclude my introductory remarks by paying our respects to the Minister and acknowledging the service that he has given as a Minister of the Crown. Those people listening today should be pleased to know that so many members of the House have been present to hear the Minister's remarks and the responses. Turning specifically to the statement, it paints a fairly rosy picture of local government. I want to address some remarks to some of the issues raised by the Minister because, whilst we may both emphasise the importance of local government, there are matters of considerable disagreement between us about how we should proceed on that course. The Minister talked about constitutional reform. In that regard, I have to say that in Victoria, the State from which I come, no amount of constitutional reform would have stood in the way of the proposals of the Cain Government to amalgamate local councils against their will. When we talk about local councils, we are talking about participatory democracy at the grass roots level. I know that that is a cliche in some senses but, as one who has participated as a councillor for a number of years in a small rural municipality, I know the importance of local government and I know what great significance it can have and be to the people residing in the respective municipalities. The attitude of the Australian Labor Party to local government has had some considerable deficiencies. As an example of that, I cite Victoria, where small municipalities were to be done away with by a government determined on amalgamation against the wishes of the people. It was only the great campaign run by the Leader of the Opposition in Victoria, Mr Kennett, and the shadow Minister for Local Government, Mr Cooper, that finally brought the Victorian Cain Government to its senses and to back down on its proposals to amalgamate local government. The Minister referred to a number of other policy areas of which this Government claims to be proud as it goes into the next election. Honourable members will not believe it, but the first achievement for which this Government claims pride is that it established another Federal bureaucracy. That is nothing to be proud of. Under this Government, we have seen nothing but more bureaucrats in the Federal bureaucracy, all paid for by the taxpayers. We have seen much too much in the way of extra commissions, sporting commissions, health commissions and all of those things with functions which had not been the responsibility of Federal government and which have led only to massive duplication and additional bureaucracy in Canberra. So, I do not welcome that statement and it does not have any support from the Liberal Party. The Minister also said that this Government would provide stability and predictability in funding for local government. Well, I nearly fell off my chair when I heard that one. It was this Government that introduced legislation to abandon the commitment of 2 per cent of income tax receipts for local government. Where is the stability and predictability in that? This Government left local government high and dry, not knowing what the commitment would be from the Federal Government. This Government cannot get away with statements about predictability and stability. But it is not just a question of the 2 per cent commitment. Even in the last few weeks, with the May economic statement, the Government has saved a few dollars for itself at the expense of local government. Twenty-seven million dollars is required to finance the costs that the Commonwealth has passed on to local government. As we move into this election campaign, local government councillors around Australia will not sit down and accept easily, this Federal Government talking about predictability of funding, after they have just had this slap from it in pulling back its cash. In the May economic statement this Government withdrew not just the financing costs but a whole range of other activities in which local government plays an important role. We saw a cutback in the forward Estimates for the home and community care program. People who have been in local government will know of its important role in some help. That role is now being cut back by this Government. Roads are also an important part of local government. My grandfather was a councillor, a municipal engineer and the first Shire President on Phillip Island. In those days, of course, local government had a primary responsibility, as it still does, for road funding. What have we seen from this Federal Government? Nothing but cutbacks in road funding. This is not the sort of issue that might go on the front pages of the local papers, but the people who drive on our roads, and that is most people in Australia, will know, recognise and even feel, as they drive on unsealed roads or on roads that have not been repaired, that this Government has been cutting back on road funding. In the May economic statement $180m was sliced off the Forward Estimates for road funding. That was just a continuation in the drop in real funds for roads. In 1983-84, $1,359m was spent on roads in real terms, and in 1986-87 only $1,152m was spent in real terms; a big drop. No wonder we are having an early election. Where is the Government's Budget? Why are we going to an election early? Is it to avoid revealing the Budget? Of course it is. Mr Martin —Where is your tax policy? Mr REITH —The Government will see our tax policy but we will never see its Budget. The one good thing about its next Budget is-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member will address the Chair and be less provocative in his speech. Mr REITH —The one good thing about Labor's 1987-88 Budget is that the Australian people will never see it, because on 11 July they will cast their votes to throw the Government out of office. There is no question about that whatsoever. Who started the bicentennial road development program? It was not the Australian Labor Party. It is not interested in roads. It was started by the Fraser Government with a 2 cents per litre levy. Labor indexed it, but what did it do with the money? Did it go towards roads? No, Labor pinched that and it went into general revenue to establish the bureaucracies which the Minister has been talking about. In fact, with the indexed amount we have seen another $192m pinched from vital road funding projects around Australia. The Minister also talked about the need for skilled labour. That is another issue in this election, because one of the major issues in Australia today is the extent of union power. One of the problems we have with this Government is the extent to which the Australian Council of Trade Unions controls everything that it does. I am surprised that the Minister pulled that one up. Mr Martin —Did Joh tell you to say that? Mr REITH —Joh has not spoken to me. I do not believe there will be a Joh candidate in Flinders, but if there is a National Party of Australia candidate I will welcome him, because we work very much hand in hand with the National Party. We have a great record of working in co-operation with it and I took forward to a coalition with the National Party after the next election. The Minister talked about funding for foreshore developments and the beautification of recreational areas on our foreshores. That is a sore point in my electorate of Flinders because of a proposal concerning an area of Point Nepean, which was supposedly to be transferred from the Commonwealth Government to the State Government. That proposal is not floating around in the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services but in the Department of Finance. The proposal is to chop up an area, which is to be part of a national park, and to flog it off as a subdivision. The Minister will hear more about that from the people of Flinders because they will not sit back and see this Government attempt to fix its deficit problems, caused by its own massive spending, by flogging off pieces of real estate in their electorate. There are many other issues where the impact of Federal Government decisions on local government has not been advantageous to the ratepayers of Australia. I mention as an example interest rates. In the last election campaign the Government promised that there would be a reduction in interest rates and they have gone up ever since. Interest rates are a major component in the costs of many councils. I remember the classic statement of the Minister that he would do something about the fringe benefits tax for disadvantaged councils. This is another area where decisions of the Federal Labor Government have impacted adversely on local government. Lastly, I mention the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations. That important body was established by the Fraser Government in 1977 as a result of an election promise which we kept. It provided a forum for the three levels of government, local, State and Federal, to get together and talk about joint problems on an equal footing. In fact, the Minister was a member of that council. It was a sad day when this Government scrapped the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations. I conclude by saying this: Local government is important. We on this side of the House genuinely believe in its development. We strongly believe in providing decent, reliable and predictable support for local government. It may not be a big issue in the forthcoming Federal election, but we on this side of the House will continue to stand strongly by local government and to give it the support and recognition that it deserves. Mr KATTER(Kennedy) —by leave-May I first of all say how very much we-and by `we' I mean the members of the Canberra Committee on Local Government-have appreciated the fact that we could always approach the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) and his departmental officers. We realise that there was a genuine acceptance of the fact that we had a fairly heavy responsibility. The Canberra Committee was appointed by the local government movement in each State. It has been in existence for many years and I have had the privilege of chairing it for the last 12, as the Minister would know. We feel that it has been a fairly valuable means of liaison on a strictly non-political basis, and I say that in all sincerity, between the local government movement and this place and all that happens at a senior government level. I would like to pay tribute to two successive directors of the Australian Council of Local Government Associations, Andy Walls and the present director, Llois Cutts. She is a highly dedicated person. I think her staff and her research officer have done a really splendid job. I also want to pass on my thanks to the people who are out on the hustings; that is those in local government, particularly those who constantly attend regional conferences and who do everything possible to establish a meaningful decentralisation of government. I do not think we ever pause long enough on this. I am sometimes very distressed to find that in all parties there seems to be not so much a lack of appreciation but a lack of understanding of the huge contribution that people in local government make to their own communities, to their own regions and, more particularly, to the nation, because in the aggregate they do a fantastically wonderful job. I would like to dwell briefly on a matter mentioned by the Minister in his statement, and that is the constitutional recognition of local government. Just how long are we going to have to wait for this? Surely to goodness if we are sincere, if any party is sincere, in our desire to have genuine decentralisation and to keep our fingers on the pulse of what is really happening in this nation, we should realise that recognition should flow to the people who are responsible for that activity. The activity I refer to is the decentralisation of government. We who have been in local government-I have spent my entire life in local government in one capacity or another-realise that local government representatives are like firemen or politicians; they are on the job 24 hours a day. I conclude by mentioning one or two other points. I get very concerned when I see promulgated policies which would have outside contractors come into an area in which the local work force is so dependent on the local authority for work. The argument has always been that one gets much more efficiency from some great contractor than from the local work force. I will argue against that till the end of my days. I could quote local authority after local authority-honourable members should keep in mind that my finger is on the pulse of the local government movement throughout Australia-which is highly efficient and gets the best day's work for a day's pay from its employees. When outside contractors come in to do the job they bring in strangers and displace half the local work force. If a little place such as Barcaldine lost its work force it would almost close the town down. I could mention other specific cases also. I stand very firmly by the principle that local government should employ local people and not go for outside contractors. We should not listen to the argument about efficiency; it is nonsense. The local government movement throughout Australia is distressed by the May economic statement not only because of the $27m reduction in funds for local authorities but also because of the flow-over of other measures. We are all very curious to know how this $1 billion that the States must save will affect local authorities. I must say to the Minister that our Canberra committee that liaises between government and the local government movement appreciates the fact that there has not been a great rush to bring in the requirements of the report of the Self National Inquiry into Local Government Finance. The committee expressed to the Minister a wish that any action on various recommendations of the Self report be steady as you go because it is very necessary to assess how the regions and individual local authorities feel. It is working out that way and we hope it continues. May I express a personal view, as did the Minister. It has been my great privilege to serve as chairman of that committee for the last 10, 12 or 14 years. I am very happy to have contributed to this debate. Mr BEALE(Deakin) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr BEALE —I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —He may proceed. Mr BEALE —In moving this morning the amendments to the two media Bills, the Broadcasting Amendment Bill 1986 and the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill, be agreed to, the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) said that he had reached agreement with me on the way in which those amendments would be progressed. That is not my understanding. In discussion with the Minister's office this morning, it was my understanding that the Minister was disposed not to allow debate on those amendments. In view of the legislative program for today and the fact that the Government has the numbers, I saw no point in contesting the matter and, subsequently, confirmed this in a brief discussion with the Minister. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented? Mr DUFFY —I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —He may proceed. Mr DUFFY —In relation to the matters raised by the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), I would like briefly to make some points. Firstly, agreement was reached on the way the amendments were to be handled. There were two conversations this morning, not one. There was one conversation with a member of my staff-and I was advised of that conversation-in which it was agreed that the amendments would not be debated. I was a little surprised about that. I then approached the honourable member for Deakin myself and, for the second time, the option was put as to how the amendments would be approached. At that meeting with the honourable member for Deakin it was agreed that they would not be debated, and that is what in fact took place. Apart from the fact that honourable members had already debated their views on these matters at some length and would have been going over them again, and except for considerations of time, it was not of concern to the Government whether or not the matter was debated. I accept that the honourable member for Deakin may well have misunderstood the position. He has given his version of what happened, but I must say that, as far as I am concerned, it is a misrepresentation of the position. There were two conversations and members of the Opposition agreed to debate not proceeding. In fact, it was a matter for them at that stage and not for the Government. Debate resumed. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(12.36) —The Cash Transaction Reports Bill that is before the Parliament today is one of a series of Bills that the Government has sought to introduce in its continued attack and fight against organised crime in Australia. The honourable member for Maribynong (Mr Griffiths) detailed a number of initiatives which the Government has taken in the fight against organised crime. I do not propose to go into any of those initiatives in any detail. Suffice it to say, however that as recently as a couple of days ago the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill was introduced for debate in this place. The Proceeds of Crime Bill has also been debated in this place. We have been well aware of the contribution that has been made by the National Crime Authority. I mention also the legislation for extradition proceedings. We have seen an increase in resources for the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Customs Service. All of this is directed towards improving the facilities of Australian Public Service authorities, police forces and so on to fight against organised crime in Australia. I find myself in absolutely no disagreement with the comments made in this debate so far by honourable members on both sides of the House. There is a great desire and willingness by all members of this place to ensure that legislative framework and mechanisms are put in place to fight against organised crime in Australia. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) went to some pains to point out that that was certainly his personal view and the view on his side of the House. I appreciate that. The Cash Transaction Reports Bill does a number of things. Initially, and most importantly, it requires that financial institutions verify the identity of persons opening and operating accounts. That, in itself, is a very important factor. It will make it more difficult for persons to open accounts in fictitious names or to use accounts in a company or a business name to disguise their connection with the account and, therefore, to cloud the money trail. Over a number of years we have seen the difficulty that police forces, the Australian Taxation Office and other institutions responsible for taxation gathering and revenue raising on behalf of the Australian people have in following money trails. This legislation goes part of the way to overcoming those difficulties. It has to be remembered that cash transactions are very difficult to follow. This Bill seeks to provide an opportunity-through having to identify persons opening and operating accounts-for a legislative framework and facilities to be put in place so that verification becomes necessary. The honourable member for Maribyrnong raised the point that had the Australia Card been put in place a further mechanism to clamp down on fraud and cheating would have been available to the people of Australia and certainly the banking industry of Australia because a ready form of identification and reference would have been made available. We have seen the double standards of those opposite in this case. They come in here and profess their concern about supporting legislation, revisions and so on which are aimed at fighting organised crime. At the same time, one of the most important and effective Bills to go down that track has been denied the Government and the people of Australia. Instead, we have had a display of double standards. In talking of double standards, I take the opportunity to raise a couple of points that have emerged from the other side on this issue. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) and the honourable member for Denison said that this Bill should be delayed and referred to a committee; a joint select committee was proffered as an appropriate way to investigate what has been proposed in the legislation. It is curious that this should have been put forward by the honourable member for North Sydney and supported by the honourable member for Denison because two days ago in this place, when we were debating the Telecommunications (Interceptions) Amendment Bill, it was clearly demonstrated that the provisions of that legislation had in fact been referred to a joint select committee which I had the honour to chair. Yet the Government was accused of delaying tactics and of not fighting the good fight against organised crime by putting that legislation in place straight away and providing power to intercept telecommunications in criminal matters in Australia. That shows the double standards. On the one hand, the Opposition is saying that something like the Cash Transaction Report Bill should be referred to a joint select committee for further investigation. On the other hand, it said-when a Bill that provided for the devolution of powers from the Federal Government to the States for telephone tapping, which would involve questions of invasions of privacy and a whole range of other matters, was referred to a joint select committee which investigated the possibility of extending the power to tap phones to a range of offences other than narcotics offences-`That is wrong. You should not do that. It should, in fact, have been considered only here in the Parliament and the legislation put in place with telephone tapping being made a matter of course.' The double standard is quite evident. Mr Deputy Speaker, the honourable member for Denison also talked about corruption and about corruption in New South Wales. He talked about corruption under an Australian Labor Party government in the last 10 years. Mr Maher —But he did not mention Askin. Mr MARTIN —As my colleague the honourable member for Lowe rightly points out, there was no mention of the Ash Street boys, no mention of Sir Robert Askin and what he did or of the corruption that emerged in New South Wales under him. But more importantly, there was no indication of what is going on in Queensland, where we have the ridiculous position of Ministers travelling to work past brothels and saying that they do not even know the brothels exist. We have police commissioners and police officers saying: `It doesn't happen in Queensland-no way. Brisbane? No, no way. No, we are clean; don't you worry about that'. Absolute rubbish! Yet the honourable member has the temerity to stand up in here with feigned indignation, with a pretence of moral outrage and say that this Government and, indeed, governments in New South Wales under the banner of the Australian Labor Party are not committed to the fight against organised crime. Coming from New South Wales, I reject that totally, because I have had extensive discussions, in the course of the investigations of the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception, with the Commissioner of Police in New South Wales, whom I find to be an extremely honourable man who is comitted to the fight against crime. We have seen evidence of that since he has been in power. I am convinced that the Minister for Police and Emergency Services in New South Wales, Mr George Paciullo, is similarly committed to the fight against organised crime and would take any opportunity presented to his Government or the New South Wales Police Force to get involved in that fight. It was the Premier of New South Wales who wrote to the Committee saying: `Yes, we would certainly embrace the opportunity to fight crime using telephone tapping as a facility.' Mr Deputy Speaker, the sort of talk that comes from those opposite and the scurrilous attempt by the honourable member for Denison a little earlier to introduce extraneous material into this debate without going into the substance and without giving names-as he normally does-is, I believe, demeaning to this place. He came across here and said: `I might say a couple of things that might raise the hackles of those on this side of the place.' In my response, I said, `I am not involved in personal attacks.' He said: `No, I don't believe in that, either.' So what does he do? He does the same thing-he launches into a personal attack. This Bill is most important. It is part of the package this Government has introduced to fight against organised crime and I commend it to the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) — Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 106a. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(12.45) —I move: That this House- (1) condemns the Government for its laissez-faire attitude to industrial disputation in Australia's export industries, particularly in relation to the appalling industrial record of Australia's coal mining unions, and (2) calls on the Government to adopt the Federal National Party's policy of introducing essential services legislation to protect Australia's vital export industries from industrial relations blackmail. This is the last day of the session-and I believe the last day of a Hawke Labor Government-and it is appropriate that we end the session and begin the election campaign on industrial matters. I gave notice of this motion on 1 May 1987 and it is appropriate to recall how much has happened since then in this regard. I refer particularly to the Hancock report of the Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems and the industrial legislation that followed two years after its presentation. In those two years there was no consultation with the employer groups. The legislation was prepared in haste and allowed to lay on the table for only 11 days before the Government felt that the reaction by the employer groups and people around Australia would not allow it to be a convenient mechanism to go into an election. That was the first we heard of an election. Many of my comments must be related to the Industrial Relations Bill 1987. It would cause further disruption of business, of procedures and the export enhancement that we seek. There will be further debate on the Bill after the election; the Bill is only being waived to make way for the election that is about to come. Mr Peter Fisher —They will never get it in. Mr BRAITHWAITE —No, but I think it is appropriate that we deal with it here. The Bill would have prevented employers from seeking legal relief from illegal trade union activity before ordinary courts. It would have effectively placed unions above the law. That is a commentary on the manner in which this Government gives laws to this country-some have to obey but others are above the law. The Bill would have increased union power to the detriment of employers, the Australian economy and our export markets. The National Party of Australia, the Liberal Party of Australia and virtually every employer organisation around Australia opposed the Bill upon its presentation. The Bill would have established an Industrial Relations Commission and Labour Court. The Industrial Relations Commission would have been able to deal with all industrial disputes between employers and employees, giving it unprecedented power. The Labour Court would have replaced the industrial division of the Federal Court of Australia. The Bill would have stopped employers and their employees from opting out of the system that has accumulated around us by entering into voluntary employment agreements. The Bill would have protracted the arbitration process and would have sought to alter remedies available both at common law and under the Trade Practices Act. It would have given the Commission powers to enforce compulsory unionism, and I would have thought that was basically against our Australian precepts. This would have been done by including preference clauses in awards and allowing closed shops. The Bill would have given the Labour Court power to reinstate employees and award back pay and compensation and the Commission would have had power to award strike pay in certain health and safety disputes-a move which would have caused a rash of disputes but, more importantly, it would have left the door open for other claims for strike pay to be made in other circumstances. The Bill sought to restrict employment relations by not allowing employers and employees to opt out of the arbitration system. It would have really tied them right into it by making voluntary agreements between employers and employees without the approval of the unions illegal. It would have provided for employers and unions to enter into non-viable fixed term binding agreements certified by the commissions. It would have created an enormous bureaucracy to process the necessary certifications and it would have made a precondition for certification that such agreements contain grievance procedures within themselves. It would have put obstacles in the way of employers, which comes back to the base of this address. The Commission would have been able to refuse to deal with a case until a grievance procedure had been complied with. An employer faced with a primary dispute would not have been able to get a common law injunction against a federally registered union. The employer would have had to apply to a Commissioner for a direction prohibiting the industrial action or obstructive conduct. If the Commission was not able to resolve the dispute quickly the Full Bench would have been able to issue a certificate, potentially drawing out all the proceedings. The case would have then gone to the Labour Court, which would have been able to issue an injunction to enforce the direction. The employer faced with a secondary boycott would not have been able to resort to any State or common law remedy of any kind provided by sections 45d or 45e of the Trade Practices Act. Again, if an employer wished to use sections 45d and 45e against the union he would first have to refer the dispute to the Commission for conciliation. When the Commission under these circumstances was satisfied that it could not stop the dispute quickly, it could then issue a certificate, but as I mentioned before that would be a rather drawn out process. The employer would then have been able to proceed with an action in the Labour Court. But this is the hang up: If at that stage the union stopped its boycott just prior to such issuance but after causing considerable damage-and these damages could result in a loss of millions of dollars in export trade-no certificate would have been issued and the loss would have been irrecoverable in that court. Even if the matter were ultimately litigated successfully, an employer would not be able to recover his costs against the union. But the union would be able to recover its costs against an applicant where the Labour Court considered that the proceedings had been instituted without reasonable cause. Continued breach of a Labour Court direction would be grounds for deregistration, but the grounds are diluted-and even then the court would have been given excessive discretion. All of this adds up to a time consuming series of obstacles which would have been open to massive abuse and exploitation by the unions. In the particular cases I mentioned these delays would have involved strikes in the field. The loss of production and the effect on our reputation world-wide as a reliable supplier, particularly in the coal products we handle, would have affected our inputs in other ways. It could have all meant a major interference with industry in Australia. It would have meant a lack of productivity and export opportunities would have been lost to our international competitors. I turn to compulsory unionism. This is particularly relevant in the coal mining industry. The Industrial Relations Commission would have had the power to include preference clauses for unionists in awards, which would have led to closed shops. The Bill failed to provide penalties for union attempts to enforce compulsory unionism and an employee who objected to joining a union would have been able to apply to the Industrial Registrar for a certificate; but just objecting to it would not do. An employer would have had to prove that being a member of a union was against his conscience or religious conviction. Even the union would have been entitled to attend the hearing and a union official would have been able to cross-examine the employee. If an employee had been granted a certificate he would then have had to pay his annual union fee to the Government. So a successful conscientious objection case would still have ended in the payment of that fee. There would have been no right of appeal on either the determination or the fee. The certificate would have lasted for a maximum of 12 months but maybe for a lesser period, after which the persons would have had to go through the whole process again. At any time unions would have been able to inform on a conscientious objector, in other words pimp on them, to the Registrar, who would then have had the power to revoke the certificates. All this flies in the face of what the public thinks about unionism in Australia. A survey carried out this year by Roy Morgan Research showed that 69 per cent of Australians think that trade unions have too much power, yet this legislation would have entrenched and deepened that power. Eighty-one per cent of Australians think that union membership should be voluntary and yet the Bill sets out to give a preference and to make unionism compulsory. Fifty per cent of Australians believe wages and conditions should be decided between employers and employees. I turn to the current situation with the coal industry unions in Queensland and the rest of Australia. The Government member who will be following me in this debate keeps a very watchful eye on it. The coal mining industry in Australia probably has the worst record of industrial disputes because it is tied to the Coal Industry Tribunal, an independent tribunal set up by an agreement between New South Wales and the Commonwealth. It is a one commissioner tribunal. As far as I can see, there is no enforcement of decisions by the Tribunal Commissioner. I give this example: A good 12 months ago, against every principle of indexation which the Government of the day was then enforcing, a $60 increase was granted to employees-and that was much less than the amount that was initially sought. It was granted to achieve industrial peace. In other words, the mine owners sacrificed a lot in that decision as far as payment was concerned to make sure they got on with the job of producing coal and selling to our international buyers. Industrial peace did not occur; there were record strikes. Over the last two years there has been a 181 per cent increase in working days lost in the coal industry. This is three, four or five times higher than the Australian average. And this is after the CIT had made that ruling. Those strikes centred on matters that had nothing to do with award conditions or the work place. Most of them were to try to put pressure on the Government and on the miners to agree to the establishment of a coal marketing authority and to bring back more regulation to the industry. Therefore, the industrial peace sought to enhance our exports did not occur. Questions on the matter were asked in the Senate and also in this House last month. The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), questioned about the national coal marketing authority, was a little forthcoming but his answer was not sufficient to satisfy this House, for another question on the subject was asked of the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) by the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) on the same day. There was a glorious opportunity for both those Ministers to say to the coal mining unions: `Enough is enough. There is a difficulty on our export market; there is a difficulty of blending; there is a difficulty between the undergrounds and the open cuts. That market out there is wide open to all of our competitors. Do not let us put any other authority in the way of the free marketing of our coal'. But they did not say that and even at this time there is industrial disputation. It may not be surfacing at this moment. Its aim is to establish a marketing authority which will tie the hands of every coal miner throughout Australia. Mr Hollis —Rubbish! Mr BRAITHWAITE —It will. It will enhance the position of the unions which the Government's legislation provides. If the honourable member does not know that maybe he should not be participating in this debate. This industrial turmoil involves bully tactics on the mine fields. I know of strikes which were called basically to decrease the amount of overtime work from 48 to 42 hours. Unions went to a selected part of the mine fields, took a vote which was not favourable, but went ahead and called a strike. When the miners on the field said that they wanted a full vote taken the unions backed off. What I am talking about today is not the miner in the field, not the worker in the factory but those people who have demanded of this Government-the union leaders, the Australian Council of Trade Unions-legislation that is probably unique in the world. I understand that the only other country that has a centralised system is Sweden. We would not want Sweden's system. The Australian taxpayer spent $80,000 sending a trade delegation to Europe because of the deal being made on wage indexation. We should have been concentrating on the markets in South East Asia and the Pacific rim. People in these areas are our competitors; they are the people who benefit from the costs of our coal mining and from our industrial situation. If Australians have not got the message now, they never will. If this nation does not export profitably Australia's economic performance will be severely diminished. There is a very close relationship between the standard of living of every Australian and profitable exports. Australian coal exports account for $5.3 billion a year-15 per cent of total exports. The disputes that I mentioned earlier involved about 2.6 million tonnes of coal, representing a loss of approximately $130m in export earnings. Today's Australian reports that coal miners fear an imminent loss of 3,000 jobs and 15 mines. Unions are saying that some action has to be taken now and not 12 months down the track but I suggest that the unions should have taken action 12 months or 24 months ago to prevent the problem. We are the most efficient producer of coal in the world-I have no doubts about that-but what is hampering us on the world markets is an industrial system that will not be dictated to by governments, courts or anyone else. I turn to the costs of the miners. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), who is at the table, is instrumental in this. The miners of Australia have to fight against the taxes imposed by the Government. I mention the fringe benefit tax as one. But the far more severe burden which the Government has imposed is the record rates of interest. We cannot compete against our international competitors with our industrial situation and the Government imposed costs. I think it is appropriate that we understand the constitutional arbitration powers of the Commonwealth Government. There is no doubt that the Commonwealth Government has constitutional, executive and legislative powers which directly affect our industrial relations, our trade unions and our employer organisations. These powers are manifested in the Constitution in the following ways: The conciliation and arbitration of disputes extends beyond the limit of any one State. This is in section 51. The Commonwealth has the power to regulate employment of Commonwealth public servants and employment within Commonwealth Territories. The Constitution also provides for the regulation of employment in the course of or incidental to the exercise of other powers of the Commonwealth, such as the international and interstate trade and commerce power and the corporations power. Since Federation, because of a very early decision, industrial relations and the processes which I just enumerated have had special consideration. They have been taken away from the courts of the land. Contract law, the laws of fair trade and interstate trading are referred to in the Constitution. Yet we have set up a special court. We have set up a special lot of people prepared to carve a niche in this country and to keep industrial disputation at a high level. I have moved the motion because of the necessity for the House to address this matter because of its implications for the economic future of Australia. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Is the motion seconded? Mr Cowan —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(1.05) —The Government totally rejects the proposition that has been put forward by the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite). I am sure that he firmly believes in what he said, which reflects a National Party of Australia policy on the Australian coal industry. The Australian coal industry is unique and it has some very special problems. The difficulties that are confronting that industry, I believe, have to be fairly faced by every person in Australia at present-and certainly every member of this House. I shall refer very briefly to those particular problems, which pick up on a couple of the issues that the honourable member for Dawson raised. The first is the number of days lost through industrial disputation in the coal industry. The coal mining unions would be the first to admit that their record is not outstanding. But we have to understand some of the reasons behind the industrial disputes. The first and foremost is job security. The honourable member for Dawson mentioned reports in today's Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian with respect to potential mine closures and the loss of some 3,000-odd jobs in the coal industry. That is not fallacy, that is not some fairyland statement, that is fact in Australia at present. Australia is now competing on the world market against many other producers from overseas countries who are prepared to sell coal at any price so that they can boost their levels of foreign revenue. I refer specifically to China. China currently exports something like 10 million tonnes of coal annually but it wants to boost that to 30 million tonnes annually by 1990-only three years up the track. It is prepared to sell its coal at ridiculous prices because it needs the foreign capital to do other things. South Africa has costs of production far less than those in Australia. The producers in South Africa are not as efficient as Australian producers but their costs are reduced because of lower labour costs. Mr Hollis —Slave labour. Mr MARTIN —It certainly borders on that. Other countries with untapped resources are coming on stream, such as Colombia and potentially Indonesia. We are going to have to compete effectively in an oversaturated world market. We hope that Australian producers and the miners working in the industry in Australia recognise the difficulties facing the industry. I said in relation to industrial disputes in the Australian coal industry that the major cause of concern at present is job security and the future of the coal industry. The honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) and I know only too well the problems that have faced the coal industry and the concerns about job security that presently exist. Only a week and a half ago he and I were both involved in very delicate negotiations with representatives from the coal mining unions and the mine operators on the South Coast with respect to the Avon and Yellow- rock collieries. Those collieries closed, throwing 206 coal miners on to the unemployment scrap heap. The Joint Coal Board in New South Wales, the national liaison committee of the combined mining unions and governments, recognise that unless things change in Australia this abhorrent occurrence could be repeated. The necessity for change does not exist only in Australia but is world-wide. The honourable member for Dawson mentioned marketing arrangements and how they could lead to improvements in Australia. We do not hold the same view, that just open slather without any forms of control whatsoever will solve the problem. This Government, in September last year, moved partially down that road by removing the necessity for mine operators to obtain administrative guidelines in terms of pricing in their negotiations overseas. What we did not remove, and I think it is worth restating, is the power to control export licences which resides with the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins). In fact, a committee which I chair, on this side of the House, was heavily involved in devising the sorts of national interest guidelines that should exist that would enable the Minister for Trade to determine what sort of matters he would take into consideration when determining whether or not an overseas coal sale contract should be approved. Previously a whole series of coal company negotiators have sat in the first class compartments in the front of the jumbo jets, full of camaraderie, going to Japan or to other countries. While they are in the aeroplane they say: `This is what we will do. We will all stick together, mates'. When they get there and the Japanese or whoever turn the screws on one of them they all break. Mr Hollis —They pick them off. Mr MARTIN —Yes, one after another. There has been example after example of that happening. It has happened most recently with the steaming coal negotiations in Japan. Yet in the Japanese case, a conglomerate organisation acts on behalf of all the Japanese buyers. Yet if one suggests that we have at least a co-ordinated buying and selling arrangement people start to go `Shock, horror'. If we talk about Australian producers finally staying together and negotiating as one instead of breaking and one taking a low price, which shoots everyone to pieces, we find representatives in Australia for the major Japanese buyers phoning us and saying: `My God, you are not talking about a national marketing authority, are you? You are not going to allow them to do that? How are we going to squeeze the best possible price out of the Australian producers? How are we going to screw down the Australian coal industry if you do that?'. I think all of us here have a lot of national pride. As the honourable member for Dawson rightly pointed out, the coal mining industry contributed $5.3 billion to Australia's export income earnings. That is extremely significant so all of us, from both sides of the House, should be doing everything we can to ensure that the industry survives and is effective and efficient. I endorse comments about efficiency in the coal mining industry. I return to the events at the Yellowrock and Avon collieries last week in Wollongong. The collieries did not close because of efficiency arguments. Honourable members should talk to Mr Ian Dunlop, the Managing Director of Austen and Butta Ltd. He will tell them that the mines were not closed on the grounds of efficiency or work practices; he highly praised the operations of those two pits. They were forced to close purely and simply because the product that they were trying to sell on the market no longer had a buyer. Its ash content was too high and the stockpiles were starting to rise and no one wanted to buy it, not even for steaming coal. No one in Australia-not this Government, not the Opposition government if it ever came to power, not the coal mining unions and, indeed, not the producers-is going to be able to say to overseas buyers: `You have got to buy this even though its intrinsic qualities are not any good'. I think that has to be recognised by people in the industry. The honourable member for Dawson referred to the Coal Industry Tribunal decision of last year. I do not believe the difficulties in the coal mining industry at present-certainly on the industrial relations side-can be apportioned to any one sector. I think there is probably fault on both sides and I think the parties that are involved in the coal industry are willing to admit that there have been some problems in the past. If they recognise those problems exist and come together in a reasonable atmosphere to discuss those difficulties resolution may not be as far away as we have all been led to believe. It has been my experience in working closely with the people who work in the coal industry, particularly those whose job security is threatened, that they are willing to make sacrifices. The miners are willing to make sacrifices. The coal mine operators are also willing to make certain sacrifices and I think we have to try to bring the two parties together. I have been involved in discussions with the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) and the coal mining unions. There was a willingness to discuss all of these sorts of issues, to put work practices and a range of issues on the table for discussion. If that offer were taken up many of these difficulties could be overcome. A meeting that was convened in Sydney yesterday by the Joint Coal Board to look at the problems in the coal industry moved somewhere down the track. At least it got all the parties there. It had representatives of the New South Wales Coal Association and the Miners Federation and all the other union groups and State and Federal Government departments responsible for the coal industry. They all sat in a room to look at the problems in the industry. Now that they have been apprised of those real difficulties, they have gone away and will meet again in two weeks time. For the benefit of Australia, we all hope that some solutions can be put on the table and discussed. The motion before the House today refers to essential services legislation. My colleague, the honourable member for Throsby, will pick that up shortly, but I think it is worth making a couple of comments about industrial relations in Queensland. As the honourable member for Dawson related, in recent times legislation enacted in Queensland has been aimed at stifling the trade union movement and taking away the right to strike and basic responsibilities and rights of trade unionists and workers. That, of course, is very inconsistent with accepted standards in democratic countries. The Queensland Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act of 1984, an amendment Act of 1985 and a series of other Acts, have been condemned outright by a number of people. They are unjust and go against a series of International Labour Organisation conventions-29, 105, 87, 98-the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. But, of course, those conventions were thrown out in Queensland and this legislation was put in. The term `draconian' is often used in this place to describe legislation. I can see no more fitting description to apply to this piece of Queensland legislation. We have seen it criticised from one end of the country to the other-not only in this place, not only by the Australian Labor Party. We saw it criticised in Queensland by an assistant to the Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane and by the President of the Lutheran Church in Queensland. The Premier of Queensland is a member of that church. We have seen it criticised by the Catholic Church's Commission for Peace and Justice. We have seen it criticised from one end of the country to the other. This Government has endeavoured to do something about it. As honourable members will know, it was announced two days ago in this place, and simultaneously in the Senate, that this Government will launch a High Court challenge to the validity of that legislation. That is going to have important ramifications not only for the general thrust of the trade union movement in Queensland but, in particular, for the coal industry. We know that Joh was waiting for the coal mining industry to blow up because he wanted to use it as an issue in the forthcoming Federal election. He has been denied that because people in the trade union movement in Queensland have displayed a responsible attitude in the face of provocation at every level by that Government. They have said: `No, we are not prepared to do that. We are going to take a responsible attitude'. The motion before us today, which I have indicated we totally reject, suggests that this Government has adopted a laissez-faire attitude to industrial relations. That is nonsense. Through a non-confrontationist approach to industrial relations this Government has lowered the levels of industrial disputation generally in Australia to all time record levels. The trade union movement has been responsible. Real concerns have been expressed about the future of the coal mining industry. People are concerned about the future of their children and families because of the social destruction that exists in coal mining communities when the mines go to the wall. If one wants to see any of these communities that have suffered one should look at some of the devastation caused in the early 1980s on the south coast and in the Illawarra; look at the problems that occurred in the Burragorang Valley until it was revitalised; look at what has happened in the Western Districts of Victoria; look at what could happen in Ipswich because of Joh's decision to close the power station there and throw coal miners out of work from a couple of the mines that supply the coal. This is going to have ramifications that will stretch the length and breadth of Australia. We reject the proposition that was put forward. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(1.20) —It is quite evident in this debate so far today that the Government is unaware of the feeling of the average Australian, not only the employer in industry or commerce, business of any size, particularly the farmer, and is certainly out of touch with the thinking of the genuine trade unionists, their families and other people within the community. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) would not have called an election if he had realised the repercussions that the Industrial Relations Bill has caused throughout Australia. The other evening in the House he said that the issues that would be before the people of Australia were the Australia Card and the television legislation. How far from the mark has he been? In the last three or four days it is quite evident that both these issues are not the ones to be considered. The ones that are going to be considered are taxation, the Australian economy and the industrial relations system. Make no mistake, the people of this country may rest assured that the issues that we as the Liberal and National parties will be bringing before them before 11 July will be the very issues that have been raised by the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) today. They will be paramount in the minds of Australian people. I want to say something concerning the Industrial Relations Bill, its effect upon Australia and what this country needs. But let us look at the history of conciliation and arbitration in Australia. We have lost our pioneering spirit. This is an important fact. Australians had to work. We had to work to live, and to feed and clothe each other. We had to find markets throughout the world. Maybe we did not have to compete the way that we have to compete today. We have to do this now because we have freed up our dollar to a certain degree. We have become competitive throughout the world. So we have placed ourselves on a common basis with other exporters, with other workers throughout the world. We have to realise this today and we have to equip and change our industrial laws that enable us to compete and to keep the standard of living that we have enjoyed so much in Australia. There has been a decline ever since, perhaps, Federation. The situation has gone downhill until we have reached the situation today where we appreciate that we are on that common basis with the rest of the world. We have a higher standard of living, but $3.5 billion of taxpayers' money a year is going to the payment of unemployed people in Australia today. Is that to the credit of this great nation that we have? Mr Howe —It is a terrible indictment of the Fraser Government. Mr COWAN —The Minister for Social Security is the one responsible; he is the one who interjects. But the fact is that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) says that the economy of this country has gone backwards, that we must accept a lower standard of living and that we are living in a banana republic. The Prime Minister said that we are in a war-like situation. A few months after that we are going to the people because he said suddenly, overnight, that things have changed. Can things change? We have a national debt of over $100 billion-over $26,000 on every man, woman and child in Australia. We are passing that on to our children. I am sure that the Minister for Social Security is not being realistic when he says these types of things. Have we reached the stage when young people today have to go overseas to get work because they cannot get it in Australia, with all the wonderful natural resources that this country has? We are forcing our young people to leave our shores, to work in other countries, because they cannot find work here. Is this not a situation that we, as Australians-- Mr Braithwaite —They are our major asset. Mr COWAN —Our major asset, as the honourable member for Dawson says. Young Australians have to go overseas to find a job. It is a challenge not only to our industrial relations but to our education system to teach these people trades, to teach them in our schools and to equip them for the responsibilities that they have to face. What are some of the things that we have to look at? In answer to the Industrial Relations Bill and to put in place the policy that the National Party and the Liberal Party will have, I want to state some of the things that I believe in. I am sure that my Party would concur with me. There has to be a flexibility in industry between employer and employee. We have to take into consideration the state of Australia's economy when the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission is setting the laws or actual requirements in the regulations so far as industry is concerned. We must retain the common law principles and sections 45d and 45e of the Trade Practices Act, which I will say something about later. The Government tried to take out the common law principles that we have inherited. It was going to take them out of the statutes of this country, in order that they would not inhibit unions, as happened in the Mudginberri dispute and the Dollar Sweets Co. Pty Ltd dispute. Employers would not have the right to go to the courts under the common law principles. Of course, there is a need for these provisions. There is a demand by people today for a review of our industrial awards-the 17 1/2 per cent holiday pay loading and the five-day week. There is no flexibility on those and other issues that are of so much concern. We have to prohibit secondary boycotts. I know that is what Queensland is keen to do and has done and I support the Queensland Government fully. Secondary boycotts today should be illegal. There must be a strengthening of the provisions against primary boycotts. There must be an ability of the employer to pay. This brings me to the question of arrangements between employer and employee. I refer to arrangements on the factory floor. The employer cannot afford to pay a wage or agree to working conditions within an industry if he has not got a market, if he has not got the profitability to pay these things. Certainly, there must be greater penalties so far as illegal strikes are concerned. Look at the conduct of the industrial organisations today. Why should they not be accountable to the public, to the community? Look at the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union. It has assets of $18m and is possibly receiving interest on that money that it has invested at 16 per cent. Mr Braithwaite —How much tax do they pay? Mr COWAN —How much tax, the member for Dawson asks. It pays no tax. The Treasurer comes in here every day and accuses people of tax avoidance. These unions pay no tax. The Government condones that. I hope the Government does something about that. Surely there must be some equality between the public sector-- An incident having occurred in the gallery- Mr COWAN —The person in the public gallery who is protesting would probably agree with me. I bet that he has not got a job. There are people in the public gallery today protesting to this Parliament and to the people of Australia because they have not got a job. They have the right to work. They should not be compelled to join a union. There should be freedom of association. No one in Australia today can say that there is not compulsory unionism. It is a closed shop so far as many of the unions are concerned. That is another factor that we have to look at here. We are concerned about the club-like atmosphere today in industry. It has to be cast aside. The Coal Tribunal and other statutory authorities mentioned in the legislation that we had before the Parliament a week ago should not be included. What about the essential services legislation? It is very proper indeed that such provisions should be embraced within the statutes of the country and used when necessary. I shall also say something about the Industrial Relations Bill. I am sure that the Prime Minister had hoped he would be taking the middle of the road with his economic policies. The Industrial Relations Bill has proved, black and white, to us that the Labor Government is still controlled by the Australian Council of Trade Unions. In other words, Labor has not changed its colours with respect to its close association with the ACTU. I took out a census and found that over 60 members of the House of Representatives and the Senate came in here belonging to unions, and possibly they still belong to unions. So honourable members opposite should not dissociate themselves with the trade union movement in any way. Mr Hollis —Yes, I do, and I am proud of it. Mr Braithwaite —You've got a vested interest in this. You should not be speaking on it. Mr COWAN —Yes, the honourable member has a vested interest. Under socialism, the rich get richer, the very rich get even richer and the poor get poorer. This is why middle Australia will not tolerate those opposite after 11 July. I have no objection to unions run in a proper way in the interests of their members, to negotiate with the employers. But, unfortunately, the unions look after only their own interests. They exclude people from working. The Australian people have not forgotten that the Prime Minister was President of the ACTU for years. He is the man that called the strikes and then turned around and solved them. I turn to the Hunter Valley because all the southern end of my electorate of Lyne is in the Hunter Valley. It is one of the richest valleys in the world and it has been ruined by the Newcastle Trades Hall. Great deposits of steaming coal and coking coal in that area could be shipped around the world and sold for the benefit, and for the employment, of the people of the Hunter Valley. What has happened on the waterfront there for years and years? Wran's navy of almost 60 ships sat off the Newcastle harbour for months on end. Mr Hollis —Oh! Mr Braithwaite —They don't like that. Mr COWAN —The honourable member for Throsby does not like that. What about the Signa, half of which today lies on Stockton beach because the tuggies would not go out and move it when it could be moved and taken back to Japan again? It is still sitting there on Stockton beach today. What about the submarine contract that could have gone to Newcastle? When the Defence Department was making up its mind as to the submarine we should choose and where it should be built Newcastle was considered. It was knocked back because of the industrial relations problem there. I did not see the Government members from Newcastle standing up here and battling for Newcastle either, because they knew that the Newcastle unions were not to be trusted. This is the important fact. There is not a Newcastle member in the chamber to respond to the motion that has been put by the honourable member for Dawson. I respect the honourable members from that area but they should have put up a better fight to get that contract for Newcastle. Now, as a second prize, we are talking about patrol boats or something else, and battling for that. The Newcastle State Dockyard has been closed. At last the State has seen that the dockyard cannot operate there. We knew this years ago, and only a month or so ago the Newcastle Herald printed the ridiculous awards of arrangement. Of course it could not succeed. There was not a hope. I have not spoken today about the farming industry. I would have liked to have spoken about it because the very issues that we have here are the issues on which the National Farmers Federation has been fighting for months. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(1.35) —As my colleague the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) said, we on this side reject the motion moved by the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite). I was very interested in the comments made by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan). I thank him for one point which I will be using through all my election campaign-he put on the record the fact that the Opposition would, if elected, abolish the leave loading that all workers in Australia get. Let me thank him because that will go into all my election material. Mr Duffy —Are you sure he said that? Mr HOLLIS —Yes, he actually said that the Opposition would abolish the 17.5 per cent leave loading, so it must be part of its policy. He was actually talking about accountability. We hear a lot in this place about accountability-accountability of this and accountability of that-and he focused in on the accountability of the trade unions. It always amazes me that when those opposite start talking about accountability they are very selective about who they want to be accountable. I notice that they are very silent on the accountability of the doctors in the Australian Capital Territory at the moment. They do not talk about that. They talk about people paying tax. I would like to ask them how much tax their friends in the white-shoe brigade pay. I stand corrected if I am wrong, but was it not someone called Mike Gore who was promoting the Queensland Premier as Prime Minister? Was he not the one who was going to-- Mr Peter Fisher —Mr Deputy President, I draw your attention to the terms of the motion. I do not think it has anything whatsoever to do with the subject on which the honourable member for Throsby is speaking. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —This has been a rather wide ranging debate promoted by both sides of the House. Mr HOLLIS —I am just using this point to get into my speech. To finish on that point, it was this person who was talking bout raising $25m for the `Joh for PM' campaign. Correct me if I am wrong, but was it not reported yesterday that he was up on a tax avoidance charge? I think that is right, and those opposite are talking about who pays tax. They say the trade unions are not paying tax. That is absolute rubbish. They talk bout accountability. I must say they are very silent and very selective when they talk about who pays tax and who should be accountable. I might also say that the honourable member for Lyne made, in my view, a very unjust attack on the Newcastle members in this place concerning the submarine contract. Whatever the reason that Newcastle did not get the contract-and it was very carefully evaluated with all factors, including industrial relations and a whole range of other factors, being taken into account-I must say that since I have been in this place I have never seen anyone work harder than the Newcastle members, especially the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Allan Morris), to get that contract. New South Wales members attended meeting after meeting to try to get the contract for Newcastle, but I did not notice any New South Wales Opposition members there. Part of the industrial relations legislation deals with the coal mining industry. We hear that all the industrial disputes in the coal mining industry are leading to job losses. Two coal mines in my electorate have recently closed-the Yellowrock mine and also the Avon mine. This had absolutely nothing to do with industrial disputes, as the honourable member for Macarthur said. The coal there has a very high ash content-up to 25 per cent-and although at times it could be sold, but always at a lower price, given the world oversupply of coal at the moment there was no way that it could be sold. Let me quote from the annual report of Austen and Butta Ltd last year. In reference to Yellowrock, it says: During the year generally favourable mining conditions and excellent industrial relations- I repeat, `excellent industrial relations'- combined to achieve a mine record production level. In the Telex sent by Ian Dunlop announcing the closure of the mines, he said: The decision to close Avon and Yellowrock was taken most reluctantly. The two mines are among the most productive underground operations in the State, due in main to the loyal and dedicated work force and management of both pits. It is unfortunate that the combination of poor quality coal and current market conditions do not allow continued operations. So let us not hear any more of this nonsense about it being the workers, the coal miners, who have led to the closure of these mines. It is not the coal miners at all, it is the international coal situation at the moment-the overproduction and the way that some countries such as China, because they want foreign currency, will undersell other countries. South Africa has an advantage because of the working conditions there. If honourable members want us to adopt South African working conditions in our mines, they should come down to the Illawarra, they should go through the Illawarra and Hunter pits and tell the miners in those pits that they are pushing to have the same working conditions for them as the black miners in South Africa have. That is what they are trying to push. Of course what we are really debating today is the different approach of the political parties to industrial relations. I would hope that both sides of the House want harmonious industrial relations. The unions accept this, as indeed does this Government. But do Opposition members accept it? Do they really want harmonious industrial relations? This Government, in the more than four years it has been in office, has worked through consultation and negotiations. We have achieved harmony. We believe in consultation, not confrontation, but those opposite, with their almost pathological hatred of the trade union movement, do not want consultation; they do not even know the meaning of the word. They just want confrontation. We hear much about industrial disputes, but look at our record. Over the last three years, the average annual number of working days lost per thousand employees was 240.7. This compares with the annual average during the Fraser Government of 590.6 days lost per thousand employees. The results show a massive decline of the order of 60 per cent in the level of industrial disputation, and we have achieved this through consultation with the trade union movement. The second part of the motion put forward by the honourable member for Dawson refers to essential services. He wants us to adopt the Federal National Party's policy of introducing essential services legislation. We really have to define what essential services are. It seems to me that we would be embarking on a very political task. I think those opposite are more interested in the politics of the matter rather than the industrial relations aspect. I speak now as someone who has always been a trade unionist and who is still a member of a trade union, and I always carry my trade union ticket with me. I have it here today. Mr Braithwaite —You have a vested interest. Mr HOLLIS —It may be a vested interest, but I believe in the trade union movement in Australia and when I came into this Parliament I continued to be a member of my union and I pay my union dues every year. I wonder how many of those on the other side who are always talking about trade unions are members of a union or have ever been members of a union. While three honourable members have put up their hands, their attacks on the trade union movement and their comments on that movement really indicate to me that they have not been very active members of a trade union. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It is now 1.45 p.m., and in accordance with standing order 109, as amended for this session, the debate on the motion is interrupted. Motion (by Mr Duffy) agreed to: That the time for discussion of notice No. 1, General Business, be extended to 2 p.m. Mr HOLLIS —The point I was making is that industrial relations in this country need not be a bear pit. The Illawarra region, the region from which I come, is often criticised-very wrongly, in my view-for having a bad industrial relations record. The unions are portrayed as being militant. Of course the unions will fight to maintain their hard won rights and no right from the bosses in this country is ever given lightly or, in my experience, without a fight-and a long fight, when those rights apply to the Illawarra. When people sit down and negotiate with good will on both sides, agreements can be reached. I refer to the construction a couple of years back of the coal loading facility in the Illawarra which came in millions and millions of dollars under the budgeted cost and a couple of months ahead of time. That happened because the trade union movement and all involved in it sat down and negotiated before work commenced. The same is happening today with the work being carried out by the Port Kembla Harbour Task Force. I know that there is a lot of misunderstanding and suspicion on all sides. I well remember a couple of weeks back I attended a seminar at Orange, organised by the college at Orange and attended by the Port Kembla Harbour Task Force and the farmers of the west, because we hoped to ship grain and other products through the port of Port Kembla. One of the farmers' representatives was talking about the feeling he had the first time he had a trade unionist in his house. He had him there for the evening, and he made the very telling point that they had a lot to talk about. He said: `After all, why shouldn't we have a lot to talk about because we haven't talked to each other for 100 years'. It seems to me that one of the problems in Australia is that everyone is quick to criticise trade unions and other groups but no one is keen to sit down and talk through some of these problems. We have seen in Queensland a model of what is being proposed by the Nationals. We have also seen the bitterness and the confrontation. The Australian people will have the opportunity on 1 July to say what sort of industrial relations approach they want to see followed-the policy of confrontation that those opposite are pushing, or the policy of consultation. The honourable member for Dawson made much about the Industrial Relations Bill. The way he was talking about this Bill, one would think we were debating it. Following our policy of consultation, we have laid the Bill on the table and we will listen to all points raised. If management, the bosses, or the unionists or any other groups have a point of view, we will listen to that point of view. We could have put the Bill through, we have the numbers in this place, but following our policy of consultation, and as we knew that some people had a few questions about it, we put it on the table and said: `Tell us what your problems are; we will listen to your problems'. Mr Braithwaite —And the next day you called an election. Mr Peter Fisher —Who is any the wiser! Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Dawson will cease interjecting, as will the honourable member for Mallee. Mr HOLLIS —We are none the wiser for hearing what the honourable member for Dawson has said. He also touched on a coal authority, but I will correct him here. We never pushed for a coal marketing authority; it has always been a coal authority. I support a coal authority. I have said many times in this House that I have supported a coal authority, and let us face it, the producers have not done too well in selling and maybe it is time that someone else had a go. I believe that a coal authority would help our marketing. I also think it would help the orderly development of coal production in this country. The companies are talking about closing 20 pits, while in Queensland they are talking about opening new pits. There has never been an orderly approach to the production of coal in this country. If we had a coal authority and it could achieve that, that would be a good thing. It is the same with the marketing of coal. We have the producers going overseas, and the Japanese pick them all off one after the other. Japan has a centralised body, and maybe it is time we looked at some of these new approaches. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee)(1.50) —For many months now the National Party of Australia has been endeavouring to get this Government to come to grips with some of the serious economic problems facing Australia, particularly in the exporting areas, the farming and mining areas, and the small business sector of Australia, yet it is not until the last day of the Parliament that we are given our first real opportunity to have something to say about the industrial problems that have so hampered our balance of payments situation. We know that the fundamentals of this country are in a very bad way. We know that they are characterised by a huge and rapidly rising overseas debt, in excess of $100 billion-the third or fourth largest debt in the world. It is largely a consequence, I believe, of irresponsible corporate and public sector borrowing. We know that we have severe accumulated balance of payments problems resulting from years of importing too much, borrowing too much and not earning enough to make ends meet in a very unforgiving international market-place. We know that the costs of producing goods and services are extremely high, with crazy on-costs such as penalty rates, holiday loadings and workers compensation claims that at this point in time have become parasitic. Of course these things affect our exports very dramatically, as of course they also affect another major and growing industry in this country, the tourism industry. We know that record high interest rates are crippling our farms, our businesses, our mines, our whole productive sector and are forcing increasing numbers of families to abandon their homes and their land. I just point out to this House that one of the worst situations in Australia's rural community is evident in my own electorate of Mallee, where families are simply having to shut the gate and walk off their properties. Of course our inflation rate is now some 400 times higher than that of the world's respected economies. In summary, we are a nation that is far too deeply in debt. We are rapidly losing our creditworthiness. We are demanding far too much and not giving enough in return to justify our high expectations. So what is the industrial relations record of this Government? This motion moved by my colleague the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) refers particularly to the coal mining industry. The honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) invites us all to go to South Africa, to look at the conditions in the South African mines. We are not talking about conditions; we believe conditions in Australia are relatively adequate for the mining workers, as they are for most other people in this country. We are not talking about conditions, but about the need for people to get on and do a bit of work. Mr Braithwaite —Productivity. Mr PETER FISHER —Productivity is what we are talking about. I refer to a report in today's Australian, headed `Coal miners fear imminent loss of 3000 jobs, 15 Mines', which states: The Miners Federation yesterday warned that 3000 jobs might soon be lost and more than 15 coal mines faced closure in NSW and Queensland. The Secretary of the federation, Mr Barry Swan, said in Sydney that the coal industry was in grave trouble and action was needed now to address its problems. We believe that something like 3,000 jobs are going in the very near future-and I am talking about in 12 months time. Mr Swan said: This union also has very grave concerns that in excess of 15 mines in NSW and Queensland will close. Yet the honourable member for Throsby tells us everything is all right. He tells us there have not been any major disputes in the coal industry. Let me just for a moment outline to the House some of the unions' record of not honouring their promises and their agreements. There have been 180 disputes in the coal industry since June 1986 and early February 1987, despite firm undertakings that there would not be any. The cost of these disputes which have ended in strike action has been estimated at 2.6 million tonnes of production, or approximately $130m in export earnings. That is why so many people in our community refer to the innate industrial rape of this country's economy. All of this is left unchallenged by the Government, as we have heard Government members say. One therefore has to ask whether this is just pure bloody-mindedness or economic vandalism, or is it in fact a long range plan for the nationalisation of the coal industry. Let me just for a moment look at the wheat industry. Mr Hollis —Oh! Mr PETER FISHER —The honourable member says it is not true. We all know what happened in New South Wales last year-the wheat handling authorities were held up to ransom by 16 people who were earning in excess of $60,000 a year. They held up the export of our wheat from the New South Wales handling terminals at a cost of some $270m to the wheat industry. Do honourable members opposite agree with that? It is no wonder that our balance of payments situation is as bad as it is. The coal industry is suffering, the wheat industry is suffering, miners are losing their jobs, mines are closing and farmers are walking off the land. What is their answer to it? They introduced the Industrial Relations Bill as a result of the Hancock Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems. Of course we knew what the Hancock inquiry would come out with before its report was even presented to this place. No doubt it was greeted by the Public Service with an unusual amount of excitement, because it solved, of course, a serious problem for the bureaucracy. It provided a means by which people would be assured of jobs, of promotions, in the days and weeks ahead. So we got the Industrial Relations Bill. Let us be under no illusion as to what the Industrial Relations Bill was all about. We know that the Labor Government, under the Willis industrial relations club, is committed to the destruction of all that we have achieved in hundreds of years of British history in this country. If ordinary Australians and businesses are denied access to common law and injunctions against uncivilised behaviour, there will be nothing to stop union bosses taking over this country. The National Party opposed the Industrial Relations Bill; the Government delayed consideration of the Bill, and I believe that it did so not because it wanted to involve itself in further consultation but simply because it was frightened about the effects the Industrial Relations Bill would have on its election results in a few weeks time. That is why the Bill was delayed, and make no mistake about it, if this Government gets back into power on 11 July, which fortunately it will not, the industrial relations legislation would be introduced immediately and this country would have to suffer the same sorts of problems, the same sorts of difficulties, the same sort of loss to export markets, as we have had to face over the last four years. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It is now almost 2 p.m. In accordance with standing order 104, as amended for this session, the time allotted for precedence of General Business has expired. The honourable member for Mallee will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day under General Business for the next sitting. Mr Spender —I would not hold my breath. Madam SPEAKER —I would not hold my breath, either. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect) —As required by resolutions of the House, I table copies of notification of alterations of members' interests received by the Registrar of Members' Interests during the period 28 May to 4 June 1987. I tabled the report last Friday. The Registrar has received a number of further changes to the Register of Members' Interests, and those particular changes have now been tabled. The Committee of Members' Interests, at its last meeting, decided to postpone any consideration of whether other classes of persons should be covered by the Register of Members' Interests. Mr PORTER —Does the Prime Minister recall his promise to the Australian people, made in his policy speech, that under his Government nine out of ten Australians would pay less for the health needs of themselves and their families? How does the Prime Minister square that solemn undertaking with the fact that since the introduction of Medicare, the 60 per cent of Australian families with children who maintain private health insurance have had the cost of their basic health cover rise from $9.66 a week to $14.30, which will soon be $15 a week, a rise of almost 60 per cent? Mr HAWKE —The basic intention of the Government in introducing Medicare has been not only achieved but also, more importantly, recognised as having been achieved by the people of this country. When this Government came to office, two million of our fellow Australians were uncovered for their likely commitments in regard to health and hospital coverage. We made a commitment to the people of Australia that a progressive system would be introduced in this country whereby, essentially, the healthy and wealthy, relatively speaking, would help to meet the commitments of all Australians. In the result, this country now has a system, under Medicare, which provides universal medical cover for all Australians and entitles them to free public hospital treatment. That scheme has, I believe, not only overwhelmingly met the needs of the Australian people but also has done so equitably. Against what the Government has achieved, the fact is that under the proposals that have been advanced by the Leader of the Opposition and various spokesmen on the Opposition side on this subject, there would be a total turnaround of that equitable situation. A far greater burden would be placed on those in the community least able to afford health cover. Mr Spender —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: The question was directed to the Prime Minister's promise. He is not as yet the spokesman for Oppositions policies. He will be in six weeks time. He should be told to be relevant to the question. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The question by the honourable member for Barker included a comparison. I call the Prime Minister. Mr HAWKE —The situation, as has been revealed both by the Leader of the Opposition and various spokesmen on the other side of the House, is that the ordinary Australian family would be significantly worse off. The honourable member for Barker asked about the impact on the average Australian family. As far as can be ascertained, under the Opposition's proposal a family on an average income of about $23,000 would be $21 a week worse off. Not only would there be a turning on its head of a situation where those of us in the community more able to do so are subsidising the worse off in the community but also, paradoxically, this proposed dismantling of the Medicare system is put on the basis that it would provide some $3 billion to help fund the Opposition's proposed tax cuts. Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, on a point of order under standing order 145 as to relevance: The Prime Minister was not asked to do a comparison with Opposition policies. He has been speaking for two minutes on Opposition policies. In my submission, he should be ruled out of order, or he should be asked to be relevant. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I find the Prime Minister in order in the answer he is giving. Mr HAWKE —Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I was saying, it comes as no surprise that the Opposition is attempting to interrupt the exposure of the fact that under the Opposition's proposals, not only would the average Australian be very significantly worse off, to the tune of more than $20 a week, but also, paradoxically, this total disruption of an equitable system is allegedly to be done to provide $3 billion in savings for tax cuts when it has been exposed by my colleagues the Treasurer and the Minister for Health that it would be deficit neutral. The alleged savings in medical payouts and payments to hospitals would be more than offset by the loss of revenue that would be involved in the proposal. So, in sum, I assert that under the Government's Medicare proposals, the people of Australia, particularly those most in need, are significantly better off, as we promised they would be. The consequence of the implementation of the Leader of the Opposition's proposals would be to make those in the community on very high levels of income perhaps better off but at the massive expense of the middle and lower income people in this community. Mr BILNEY —Will the Minister representing the Special Minister of State outline the arrangements which will apply to the conduct of the Federal election to be conducted on 11 July? In particular, by what date must electors enrol in order to be eligible to vote at the election? Mr Goodluck —Bye, Bye, Mick. Mr YOUNG —I thought that I was pretty safe, but I have just received a wire from Australian Associated Press and all of a sudden I find that I live in a marginal seat now, because Mike Gore has switched his support from Bjelke-Petersen to John Howard. Mr Goodluck —Who is Mike Gore? Mr YOUNG —Who is Mike Gore? I can tell the honourable member that he is having a bushfire up there and is burning all the white shoes on the Gold Coast. Honourable members will know who Mike Gore is. It is nice to see the honourable member for Ryan back in Canberra. Someone said that John Howard had left him in Queensland as a hostage; he had to leave something there. We thought that they had done a deal, but Joh says that there is no deal; he is running all the candidates anyhow. Who has got Mike Gore's $25m? Where is the $25m? Those opposite called their old mate Joh a scrambled egg, I see, for doing a deal with him. The issuing of writs for the election will take place tomorrow. The rolls will close at 6 p.m. on 12 June. It is estimated by the Australian Electoral Commission that there are still some hundreds of thousands of people eligible to be on the rolls and to vote who are not on them. As a result of the amendments which we have made to the Commonwealth Electoral Act since we have been in Government, people have a lot more time to enrol than they did under Malcolm's regime. He gave them about 48 hours to do so and tens of thousands of people were denied the right to vote. We are letting everybody in Australia know that we want them on the rolls by 6 p.m. on 12 June so they can vote at the election. Nominations for all the candidates, including Joh, will close on 18 June. Polling day will be on 11 July, and the return of the writs will be on 3 September. It is most important to point out the time for the closure of the rolls so that everybody in Australia who is eligible has an opportunity to get on the roll and vote-because we are looking for a major landslide victory. It is indicated now that the support from the Prime Minister is 70 per cent as against 20 per cent for the Leader of the Opposition, so for every 100 we put on the roll we get 70 votes. So the more who go on, the better. People ought to take the opportunity, living in a democracy such as Australia, to vote on July 11. Which party will the honourable member for Maranoa represent? Mr Ian Cameron —The National Party. Mr YOUNG —Which one? There will be a bit of a snakes and ladders game going on in Queensland in the next couple of weeks. Anyhow we wish them all the best. Mr COWAN —I direct my question to the Treasurer. I refer to this week's Bulletin article which details the financial power of unions, such as the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union, which has net assets of $18m-plus and is getting 16 per cent tax free returns on its investments. What is the Treasurer's best estimate of the annual revenue forgone by the Commonwealth, due specifically to the tax exemption given to trade unions on income arising other than from dealings with their members? Mr KEATING —I did not see the article, but there is an exemption for co-operative bodies in the Income Tax Assessment Act, which has been there for a very long time. I can only presume that the import of the question is that the honourable member thinks that the exemptions for trade unions, charities, churches and the rest should come out. Mr PUNCH —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Has the Government had any response to its representations to the Soviet authorities about Soviet Jews? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for Barton for his question. Since its election in 1983, this Government has made clear to the Soviet Government its concern about human rights in the Soviet Union, including of course, the important question of the rights of Soviet Jews. My colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs did this directly in Moscow in 1984, and on a number of occasions both the Minister and I have raised the issue with Soviet representatives in Canberra. When the Soviet Foreign Minister, Mr Shevardnadze, was in Canberra in February, I drew his attention, among a number of other matters, to the case of Professor Abram Englin, a very distinguished 78-year old scientist of Jewish background who had been trying for 14 years to obtain permission to leave the Soviet Union. I did this in response to representations from his son, Dr Boris Englin of Melbourne, who contacted me immediately prior to the Foreign Minister's visit to this country. During the conversations I had with the Foreign Minister, Mr Shevardnadze, he undertook to take account of my representations. I was, therefore, delighted to learn a few days ago from Dr Boris Englin, that his father had received permission to emigrate from the Soviet Union last month and has indeed been in Israel for the past two weeks. Australian Embassy officials in Tel Aviv have been in touch with Professor Englin with a view to issuing him with a visa to come to Australia, and he hopes to be able to travel to Australia later this year. I am pleased to note the progress which has also been achieved in respect of the list of people, mainly Jewish, wishing to emigrate from the Soviet Union which you, Madam Speaker, presented on behalf of this Parliament to the Chairman of the Council of Nationalities of the Supreme Soviet on 4 July last year. Three families on that list have now received permission to leave the Soviet Union. This modest but encouraging improvement can in part be attributed to the general policy of seeking a more constructive relationship with the Soviet Union instituted by this Government. I assure all members of Parliament that it will continue to make representations in this important human rights area. Similarly, modest but I would suggest significant progress has been achieved in respect of other lists, two of which you, Madam Speaker, also presented during your visit. These were based on the Government's register of outstanding family reunion cases. Since the beginning of 1987, approximately one family group has been able to depart each week for Australia. I assure you, as I do the honourable member who addressed the question to me, that this Government will continue to pursue vigorously the objective of resolving outstanding family reunion cases with the Soviet Union and other countries which do not permit freedom of travel. I conclude by saying that at a time when the two sides of this Parliament are emphasising points of difference between them, I know with certainty that the views I have expressed on this matter will receive the wholehearted endorsement of the Opposition. Mr Howard —Hear, hear! Mrs SULLIVAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security and refers to the Government's mini-Budget decision to means test family allowances. Does this decision mean that all of the 2,130,000 recipients of family allowances will be required to fill out Department of Social Security forms detailing information on joint parental incomes? What information will the Hawke Government require individuals to provide to officers of the Department of Social Security? Does this mean that family allowance recipients, 98.3 per cent of whom are women, will be held accountable for the accuracy of information supplied by the other parent? How will this be implemented in cases where parents are divorced or separated or have remarried? What checks does the Minister envisage taking to ensure that the information is correct? Mr HOWE —Income testing comes in at the beginning of October, but over the next several months, the Government will be placing steps in train to ensure that it acquires what is not currently available to the Department of Social Security, that is, relevant information on all Australian families. It is to be understood that that is necessary, and it will be extraordinarily helpful because one of the problems in the social security system is, of course, that a very high proportion of payments are made to low income families on an income tested basis. It is a matter of considerable concern to the Government that the family income supplement scheme, which is one of the significant reforms in the social security system in recent years and which is a considerable help in terms of providing incentive for people to move into the work force, has what is generally regarded as quite a low take up rate. In the process of gathering the necessary information, it will be possible to increase the take up of some payments. A second example is the handicapped child allowance. That is also an important payment within the social security system and, for some years, there has been concern about the relevant take up. The overwhelmingly positive response and acceptance of income testing for family allowance purposes has surprised me. After every economic statement, similar to a Budget or the May economic statement, the Department of Social Security has provided a hot line for people to ring up and make queries. On the last occasion on which I checked, something like 60 per cent of all people who rang the social security hot line endorsed the measures within the May economic statement. Something like 30 per cent of the people were critical of it but they were satisfied with an explanation and very few people were hostile to the measures. In a very tough statement, that is surprising. Family allowance was not a matter about which there was a considerable frequency of calls. In terms of the thresholds, people will effectively be able to remove themselves on the basis of the approach the Government will take with respect to income testing. In no way is it intended to be intrusive, and I believe there is considerable acceptance of the measure the Government has introduced. Some matters have not yet been resolved. The honourable member for Moncrieff referred to cases of separation and matters of responsibility. They are matters the Government will be looking at. I remind the honourable member that there is still quite a considerable lead time before the income testing comes in in October. Dr THEOPHANOUS —In the interests of enlightened economic debate in this country, can the Treasurer inform the House of the cost to Commonwealth revenue of reducing the personal marginal tax rates to 35 per cent and 25 per cent, with a threshold of $5,400, and a company tax rate of 35 per cent? Mr Ian Cameron —What about your tax policy? Dr THEOPHANOUS —I am trying to enlighten the honourable member. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will not be led astray by interjections. Dr THEOPHANOUS —Honourable members opposite have not asked any questions on the economy. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will get on with his question. Dr THEOPHANOUS —How does this cost compare with the cost of implementing a flat 25 per cent personal and company rate? Mr KEATING —A tax scale of the kind the honourable gentleman mentioned, with a threshold of $5,400, a 25 per cent rate between $5,400 and $25,000, and a top rate of 35 per cent matched with a 35 per cent company tax rate would cost $8 billion; made up of $5 1/2 billion on the personal tax side and $2 1/2 billion on the company side. The honourable gentleman asked me in the second part of his question about the contrast in cost of a 25 per cent flat tax, with a $5,400 threshold, and a 25 per cent company rate. The comparable figures are $12 billion-$8 billion for the personal scale at 25c flat, and $4 billion for a company rate at 25c in the dollar. Those two propositions mirror the propositions being leaked by the Opposition as its tax policy. Tonight the Leader of the Opposition is to tell his back benchers what the tax policy is. I have no doubt that he will not be telling them where the money will come from to fund it. The fact is that with this `unified' Opposition opposite we have the Queensland Premier campaigning on a 25 per cent flat tax rate, as I described it, and a company rate, costing $12 billion. The leaked scale of the Leader of the Opposition will cost $8 billion. There is a $4 billion difference between the leaked Liberal Party proposals and the Joh proposals. Yet the Leader of the Opposition would have us believe that there is no difference between them on tax-only $4 billion. Need I say that the Government has delivered $4 billion of paid tax cuts, which have not only reduced the tax rates but also have reduced the Budget deficit. A scale of the kind that has been leaked, costing $8 billion could only be funded, if the deficit were not to rise and were it to be funded from outlays, by the abolition of indexation to pensions, major cuts to social security, major cuts to education, and major cuts to health. If that were to occur, the upside costs to the public from such changes would far outweigh the tax cuts for anyone on the lower to middle end of the scale. The only recipients, as usual, as with every other thing the Liberals have ever done, would be the high income earners. At a time when the nation's income has been cut by $9 billion because of declines in our terms of trade we have the coalition parties arguing that the living standards of Australians may rise by their after tax income rising as a result of tax cuts which they think they can deliver but which they know the nation cannot possibly afford. The accurate cost is $5 1/2 billion for the Liberal personal tax scale as we know it and $2 1/2 billion for a matching company rate, coming to $8 billion. For the `no difference in policy between us and them'-the Liberal Party and the National Party in Queensland-the figures are $12 billion for the Joh scale, made up of $8 billion on the personal scale and $4 billion for the company scale. So there is, of course, a $4 billion difference. That is why the Queensland Premier has said that he is still campaigning on his agenda issues. He said today that he hopes to control the Senate through the National Party. So let us not have any pretence that there is any unity whatsoever on the other side of politics in relation to the Queensland Premier's position, the arguments that he will put at the election, his support for candidates of the National Party and for the National Party's policies. Again, we are seeing that it is impossible now for the Liberal and National parties to be putting any proposal in relation to tax which has a majority position. We heard the honourable member for Maranoa who is not a National Party member of the State Parliament but who is a member of the National Parliamentary Party here in Canberra, saying two days ago on Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio that he still is in favour of the 25 per cent top rate tax. There is no unanimity of agreement within the parliamentary parties on the conservative side of this chamber. We will wait to see what is hatched up on the other side of politics in terms of fiscal bribes, hands full of dollars, fists full of money, and all other manner of irresponsible tax commitments which can only destroy the fabric of this country's economy. Mr HALVERSON —Does the Prime Minister recall the promise he made to the Australian people on 13 November 1984? He said: And I now give this undertaking-that for the term of our next Government, the Medicare levy will not be increased. How does the Prime Minister square this solemn undertaking with the fact that in the 1986-87 Budget the Medicare levy was increased from one per cent to 1.25 per cent? Can the Prime Minister now give a similar categorical undertaking to the Australian people that he is not going to the election with a hidden tax agenda which includes a further increase in the Medicare levy. Mr HAWKE —As I have had cause to say before, what has characterised this Government has been the preparedness to make the hard decisions which have been necessary to deal with the new economic circumstances that have been forced upon us. If the Opposition members-while it very temporarily retains the honourable member for Casey amongst its ranks-want to continue to say to the Australian people that the loss of $9 billion from our economic capacity makes no difference, I urge them to continue with their voodoo economics in the election campaign. I hope they do, because all the evidence is that the people will not buy it. We have been forced to take a number of decisions that we did not want to take. No politician in his right mind would wish to pursue a tight monetary policy which would involve an increase in interest rates. As I have said in this place before, no politician wants interest rates higher for a day longer than is absolutely necessary. But a number of decisions, including that to which the honourable member referred, were adjudged necessary by the Government to bring in a responsible economic policy to match the economic challenge confronting the country. As distinct from the Leader of the Opposition and the various spokespersons for the conservative forces, we will not be preaching voodoo economics. In the May statement and in the associated meeting with the Premiers at the Premiers Conference we made the toughest set of decisions in more than 30 years in this country. We took no pleasure in making those decisions, but they were necessary not merely to adjust this country to that loss of national economic capacity but also to put this country in shape for the restructuring of its economy so that in the future it would not remain so exposed to the variations in international commodity prices. We make no apology for that. If the honourable member wants to talk about a hidden agenda, that will be very much on the election agenda. When he considers what his Party will have to explain to the Australian people about its hidden agenda, he should shudder with fright. The fact is that the Opposition has been saddled with the promises of its current Leader. If we look at what the Leader of the Opposition has said-word for word; not something that someone else has said-he has a $16 billion credibility gap. What we have been told, of course, is that to pay for that he will find $3 billion from Medicare. The fact is that he will not find a net cent from Medicare. What is involved in this hidden agenda? What is involved in this most remarkable statement by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, after his cap in hand visit to the Premier of Queensland? We should remember what he said because it will come to haunt him and members of the Opposition because the Australian people will hear it every day. He said: At a meeting in Sir Joh's Brisbane office today, the two leaders agreed that any important variations between their basic policies for Australia's economic recovery could be resolved immediately after a new Conservative Government was sworn in. Does the House remember the famous statement of the Leader of the National Party of Australia? He said the same thing even more graphically on 29 April. Mr Spender —A point of order, Madam Speaker. Mr HAWKE —We are talking about hidden agendas, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I call the honourable member for North Sydney on a point of order. Mr Spender —The question was on a specific subject. In my submission the Prime Minister should not be allowed to return his pathetic censure of yesterday-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I remind the honourable member for North Sydney that if people stopped interjecting we would not get these widenings of the answers to questions. Mr HAWKE —What the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday on the subject of the hidden agenda was central to the question. On 29 April the Leader of the National Party stated: It will be necessary to go into the election campaign with our separate policies and then after the election to enter negotiations with the Liberal Party and then work out which of the policies that have been presented to the people are going to be in fact put in place. We will disclose during the election campaign the inevitable fact that the Leader has on his hidden agenda a 12 per cent consumption tax. That is on the hidden agenda because there is no way that he could begin to pay for the suggested income tax cuts that he is talking about. We have no hidden agenda. We have done the job. The Opposition has a hidden agenda. The problem for the honourable member, and one of the reasons why this is his last day in this House, is that we will expose that hidden agenda during the election. The honourable member, and many like him, will be swept from this place. Mr CUNNINGHAM —Can the Minister for Trade inform the House to what extent the United States Administration, Congress and community at large are aware of the detrimental effects on Australia of its domestic agricultural policies? Mr DAWKINS —I thank the honourable member for his question and indicate that over the last couple of weeks he, as leader of the joint parliamentary delegation to Washington, and I a few days later pressed Australia's case with members of Congress and the United States Administration. I commend the work of the delegation and take the opportunity to table a copy of the delegation's report. I think the important part of what we have been doing falls into two categories. One is the way in which we have been encouraging the United States to participate actively in the international movement towards reform in agricultural trade. The second is that we have pointed out to the Congress the damage which some of the measures which it is contemplating would cause, particularly to Australia. On that last point it is worth making the comment that there is now a wider appreciation within the Congress of the damaging consequences which would flow to Australia from some of its measures. I am quite confident that that will be borne in mind as the current trade Bill reaches its final form. It is perhaps not surprising that there is some ignorance in the Congress of Australia's position. I refer to an item in a publication known as Congressional Quarterly which discusses the movement in production of grains and the slide in the United States share of the world grain market. It states: Several countries including Canada, Australia and others in Europe and South America, have since geared up their grain production capacity by subsidising their local farmers. Of course, Australia distinguishes itself-with a few other countries-in not subsidising its agricultural producers, particularly grain farmers. Part of our task is to correct that misinformation. As well as working on the Congress, which we have done not only by way of the work of the delegation, my work, and that of my colleagues the Minister for Primary Industry and the Prime Minister, but also by the work of the very competent officials in our embassy in Washington, we have been working on the international front. The work of the Cairns group has had a very significant impact on the way in which the course of world events is turning out. I quote very briefly from an editorial in the United States Journal of Commerce, which is an important daily economic publication. Its leading article of 27 May, under the title `The Mighty Cairns', states: It's about time the Cairns group of agricultural exporting nations got a little credit for the progress made on farm trade talks. The 14 countries, who derive their name from the Australian town in which they first met, have succeeded in embarrassing both the European Community and the United States into serious negotiations on farm trade talks. I table that very important editorial and commend it to all honourable members. The important thing about our relations with the United States Administration is that, whilst we agree with the central object of reform in agricultural trade, we have some serious disagreements about some of the means by which that reform might be achieved. The most important difference of opinion we have is on the effect and validity of having the export enhancement program, which is costing Australian farmers in excess of $1 billion a year. We fundamentally disagree with the Administration about the need for that program and believe that action should be taken immediately to scale down that program towards its early abolition. Through our joint efforts we have been able not only to push the case for reform internationally, but also to impress upon the Congress the importance of taking into account the position of Australian farmers as it devises its various pieces of legislation. Mr LLOYD —My question is directed to the Minister for Aviation. The Minister will be aware that the earliest time for the three years notice to be given for the termination of the two airlines agreement, 26 January 1987, is almost five months behind us, and the earliest date for any significant change to domestic aviation regulatory arrangements is fast approaching 1991. Why is the Government wasting so much time in announcing the new arrangements, particularly when the Minister has been so critical of the present arrangements? Is the Minister intending to make an announcement before the election? If so, when? Will the Minister, as part of any announcement, also declare that any proposed change which amounts to less than the complete termination of the two airlines agreement will not be acceptable to the incoming Liberal- National Party Government? Mr PETER MORRIS —I said earlier in the week that the existing set of arrangements is the result of the efforts of those who now sit opposite. It is the height of political expediency to be critical of the existing arrangements and then duck off and say: `We shouldn't have had those arrangements at all'. They have been there for over 30 years as a result of previous conservative governments. Mr Smith —We have heard that for four years. Tell us something new. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Bass will not interject like that again. Mr Smith —Maiden question. Mr PETER MORRIS —Maiden question, was it? I thought for a moment that there was a stranger in the House. As I was saying, the arrangements in this country exist because of successive conservative governments over decades. Mr Porter —Oh, come on! Mr PETER MORRIS —It happens to be a fact. I know that honourable members opposite do not like the truth. We saw considerable debate during the run-up period to the renewal of the last agreement, particularly during the early part of 1981. At that time the Liberal Party was sharply split with all sorts of divisions and was in the same kind of turbulence and disarray that we now see in the conservative parties. Around the nation there is agreement that this Government has been the most able economic manager in the history of Federation. When this Government implements changes in direction it ensures that there is proper consultation with the people affected by those changes. There was an agreement which the National Party strongly supported and was responsible for, but we decided to seek the views of the community on what was the most appropriate set of arrangements; and we have done that. As soon as the report was received it was released to the public for further comment. The closing date for that comment was 31 March. There has been a considerable number of responses to the May report and its five options. Those responses are being assessed and the matter is still being considered by the Government. When we consider the manner in which those who now sit opposite operated in respect of domestic aviation I think that this Government's performance is by far more credible, and certainly we will not be embarking on the kind of processes that members opposite followed in government. Mr GEAR —My question is directed to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, and he is a very good Minister, too. Can the Minister inform the House of the effect on sport in Australia of a Federal government abolishing the Australian Sports Commission and its many programs? Mr JOHN BROWN —I thank the honourable member for Canning for his question. Even as a veteran, he is one of the leading surf lifesavers in Western Australia. To eliminate the Australian Sports Commission from the Australian sporting scene at this time would be an absolute disaster for sport. At the present time one of the programs administered by the Sports Commission is Aussie Sports, which was a discovery of our sporting Prime Minister. Some 10,000 schools and some 500,000 school children participate in sport and that would not have been possible were it not for the advent of the Sports Commission. I noticed with some disdain that today the honourable member for Flinders released his `sports policy'. The first thing it states is that a coalition government would abolish the Sports Commission. That is rather strange because only a month ago the honourable member for McPherson, who was the then shadow Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, said that a coalition government would eliminate the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism and the Institute of Sport and that the big sporting body in Australia would be the Sports Commission. So there has been a radical shift in a month-but that is fairly typical of what happens on that side of the House. Apart from the Aussie Sports program the Sports Commission administers STEP grants, which are funds administered to our elite sportsmen who are not scholarship holders at the Institute of Sport. Further, it disperses some millions of dollars to hundreds of sporting organisations around Australia under sports development grants. I do not think that the hundreds of sporting bodies around Australia will be terribly enamoured about the proposition to eliminate the Sports Commission. I will mention a few other things that come under this umbrella. For instance, this Government has increased by 400 per cent funding to the handicapped in sport in Australia; and it has increased by 300 per cent funding to surf lifesaving associations. Under this Government, women in sport for the first time will have some recognition. However, I noticed in the Liberal Party's manifesto released today that at long last it has discovered that women do play sport. The Liberal Party totally ignored that fact during its 30 years in government. I notice also that the Liberal Party will strictly adhere to the Gleneagles Agreement. I must say that during the previous Government's term in office that was the case, but always with someone else's money. It was with the great support of the Minister for Foreign Affairs that I was able to get through Cabinet in our first year of government a payment of some $64,000 to Australian kids-one of whom was the late Phil Lynch's son-who had withdrawn from sporting events around the world at the request of the Fraser Government without receiving any financial support from that Government and with no reimbursement for the funds they had expended. This Government had the great satisfaction of retrospectively paying those kids $64,000 for complying with the Gleneagles Agreement. I see now that members opposite at least recognise that Agreement. The `great' effort made by honourable members opposite in relation to sport is fully recognised by the Australian Olympic Federation. We well remember the former Government's attempts to blackmail our olympic athletes into not attending the 1980 Olympic Games and the then Government's reduction of grants to that olympic team by two-thirds. Olympic athletes will receive $2m for the 1988 Olympic Games from this Government-and that is five times the amount of money the former Government gave the 1980 team when it eventually went to those games. Apart from that, there have been other great reforms, one of which was the application of tax deductibility for contributions to sport in Australia-for the first time ever. We were the only developed country which did not have that advantage for sporting bodies. Also we introduced tax averaging for the incomes of professional sportsmen. We also had a renewal of the racing-breeding industry in Australia as a result of the tax reforms introduced by this Government. I was rather amused to read in the Liberal Party's manifesto this morning that its policy has been approved by the Chairman of the Confederation of Sport, who is a colleague of the honourable member for Flinders. The hundreds of sporting bodies in Australia, the six million sporting devotees in this country and everyone who is interested in sport in this country all know that something the honourable member for Kooyong told me once is correct. When the honourable member for Kooyong was Leader of the Opposition I asked him why his party opposed the first piece of sporting legislation to come into this House since Federation. At that time honourable members opposite were given their first chance to support sporting legislation. The honourable member for Kooyong replied: `Mate, there are millions of votes in sport and you have got the lot; so why shouldn't we oppose it?'. That will continue to be the case. Madam SPEAKER —I present reports from the Auditor-General dated 3 June 1987 upon efficiency audits of the Department of Resources and Energy: Off-shore petroleum royalties and excise, and the Department of Defence: Army mapping. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the reports of the Auditor-General dated 3 June 1987 upon efficiency audits of the Department of Resources and Energy: Off-shore petroleum royalties and excise and the Department of Defence: Army mapping. (2) The reports be printed. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to sub-section 9 (3) of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Act 1977, I present the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Report for 1988-90 Triennium, volume 1, parts 1-5. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to sub-section 33 (3) of the Australian National University Act 1946, I present the interim annual report, part 1, of the Australian National University for the year ended 31 December 1986. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to sub-section 91 of the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act 1984, I present a report on financial assistance granted to each State in respect of the Commonwealth's Schools Assistance programs for the year 1985. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 52 of the Commonwealth Teaching Service Act 1972, I present the annual report of the Commonwealth Teaching Service, Australian Capital Territory Technical and Further Education Component, for the year ended 31 December 1986. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 37 of the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Act 1973, I present the annual report and financial statements of the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation, together with the Auditor-General's report, for the year ended 31 December 1986. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 30 of the Rural Industries Research Act 1985, I present the annual report of the Wheat Research Council for 1985-86. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 30 of the Rural Industries Research Act 1985, I present the annual report of the Barley Research Council for 1985-86. Mr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —Pursuant to sub-section 76a (4) of the National Health Act 1953, I present the annual report on the operations of the registered health insurance organisations for 1985-86. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Ter- ritories) —Pursuant to section 52 of the Commonwealth Teaching Service Act 1972, I present the annual report of the Commonwealth Teaching Service, Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority Component, for the year ended 31 December 1986. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Ter- ritories) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Fire Brigade for 1984-85 and 1985-86. 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 per cent 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 Cadman,Mr Chynoweth,Mr Goodluck,Mr Barry Jones and Mr Snow. 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 radio- active substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Mr Aldred,Mr Beale,Mr Kent,Mr Milton and Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Any proposals to abolish the Department of Veterans' Affairs gravely concern ex-servicemen, ex-servicewomen and their families because they renege on clear and unequivocal commitments from various Commonwealth Governments to properly care for Australia's veterans. Your Petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Parliament to ensure that the Department of Veterans Affairs continues to exist as a separate and distinct Department of State servicing the needs of veterans and their families. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr N.A. Brown,Mr Cadman and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: 1. That over 67,000 men, women and students enjoy the pursuit of their sport and recreation every year at the Anzac Rifle Range at Malabar and have done so since 1967. 2. The people of Sydney through their membership of 41 clubs headquartered at the Anzac Rifle Range together with a number of other community, school and commercial groups, the police and armed forces will lose this community facility if the Federal Government proceeds to sell the Range to private developers. 3. The Australian Bicentenary Fullbore Rifle Championships are to be conducted at the Anzac Rifle Range in April 1988 as part of the celebration of Australia's Bicentenary. Your petitioners therefore urge the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to retain the Anzac Rifle Range for the continued use and enjoyment of the people of Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman,Dr Harry Edwards and Mr Hodgman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectively sheweth that: Any proposal to establish memorials to peace, the so-called Aboriginal War and anti-war activists and other left wing causes at the Australian War Memorial at Canberra would desecrate the Memorial as a fitting and solemn monument to those who served in Australia's Armed Forces and to those who died in defence of their country. Your Petitioners humbly pray the House of Representatives acts to prevent anything which would desecrate the nation's memorial to Australia's former servicemen and women and war dead. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr N.A. Brown and Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That many Australian wage and salary earners and self-employed persons do not enjoy secure retirement incomes provided by superannuation; and That the Government issued in December 1985 Guidelines for the implementation of the proposed productivity decision by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and draft Operational Standards for Superannuation schemes. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. Guarantees to every employee the right and freedom to select the Superannuation scheme of his/her choice. 2. Protects the individual exercising that freedom of choice from any coercion, influence or other pressure which may be applied by any employer, association or trade union. 3. Will recognise only those schemes which provide genuine superannuation and reject those schemes which do not provide for- preservation of benefits to retirement vesting of employer contributions equal employer and employee Trusteeship control to ensure security of investments. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman and Mr Hodgman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that many Post Office Agencies are to be closed. They provide a network of offices with postal and agency services to residential areas and small communities. They serve a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced if forced to travel further to purchase postal items or collect parcels. It would be an unnecessary expense particularly for pensioners without their own transport. We maintain that the purpose of Post Offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer. They are a community centre particularly in country areas and if necessary they should be subsidised to retain them. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that The House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of post office agencies and that the network should be extended, with the Agency services they offer expanded. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman and Mr Slipper. 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 Hayden and Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth the legislation to tax fringe benefits is iniquitous, inequitable and unfair. Your petitioners humbly pray that you do not proceed with the legislation. by Mr Beale. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Government's Capital Gains Tax is a punitive tax that will have a major impact on small business and the economy and will result in increased unemployment. Your Petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled urge the Parliament to oppose the legislation establishing the Capital Gains Tax when it is brought before Parliament. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr N.A. Brown. To the Honourable the Speaker and the members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Government's tax on lump sum superannuation reduces incentives for people taking responsibility for their own retirement. It has had an unfair impact on those pensioners who up to the present have made provision for retirement. Your Petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled urge the Parliament to repeal the legislation which taxes lump sum superannuation. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr N.A. Brown. To the Honourable the Speaker and the members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Government's Fringe benefits Tax is a vicious punitive tax that unjustly affects employers, it will have a major impact on small business and farm profitability and will result in increased unemployment. Your Petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled urge the Parliament to repeal the legislation establishing the Fringe Benefits Tax. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr N.A. Brown. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the Fringe Benefits Tax is an iniquitous and unjust impost which will further damage the Australian economy and further increase costs to employers. The Tax will: (1) further increase the level of unemployment; (2) increase the administrative costs and overheads for business and Government; (3) particularly disadvantage small businesses and farmers; and (4) act as a disincentive to those who are the most productive and skilled; and we the undersigned call upon the Government to immediately repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and the 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 Hawke 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 because it has an unfair impact on some pensioners. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr N.A. Brown. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the many anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions brought to its notice, the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled, we the undersigned citizens call upon all Members to pay due respect to pensioners and concessional card holders and cease the constant erosion of our entitlements by the Hawke Government. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth: That we strenuously object to the Government's decision to delete 45 commonly prescribed drugs (including analgesics, anti-histamines, cough mixtures and expectorants) from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme; That we strenuously object to the Health Minister's assertion that the health problems for which these medications are prescribed (e.g. arthritis and allergic rhinitis) are ``relatively minor, self-limiting illnesses''. That we beg the House to reconsider these deletions from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr N.A. Brown. 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 Health Minister's assertion that the health problems for which these medications are prescribed (e.g. arthritis and allergic rhinitis) are ``relatively minor, self-limiting illnesses''. That we beg the House to reconsider these deletions from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the 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 A.C.T. 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 Mr Connolly. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned shows that the closure of the Killarney Heights post office agency is opposed by local residents and businesses. Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should recognise our concern and permit the continuation of the Killarney Heights post office agency. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray. by Mr Connolly. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hodgman. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that they are opposed to the proposals contained in the Government's White Paper for the reform of the Australian Tax System in so far as they relate to the imposition of further Capital Gains and Wealth Taxes. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will call upon the Government to reject any proposal to increase the burden of Capital Gains and Wealth Taxes on the Australian people. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hodgman. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That your petitioners do not support the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985 specifically: 1. ``Section 5 (1) for the purposes of this Act, but subject to sub-section (2), any experimenting that is undertaken on, or that involves the use of, a relevant human embryo before the embryo has been implanted in the womb of a woman, including, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing- (a) any manipulation of a relevant human embryo; (b) any procedure undertaken on, or involving the use of, a relevant human embryo; (c) any dissection of a relevant human embryo; and (d) any process by way of testing reactions to a drug involving the use of a relevant human embryo, before the embryo has been so implanted, is prohibited experimenting. (2) Any experimenting referred to in sub-section (1) is not prohibited experimenting for the purposes of this Act if it is undertaken primarily for a benefit consistent with the development of the relevant human embryo's full human potential.'' Section 5 (2) above appears to be a saving clause to allow manipulation, procedures, and drug use during In vitro Fertilisation procedures. If this is the intent, then our objection to Section 5 (1) is withdrawn. 2. ``Section 5 (3) The creating of a relevant human embryo in anticipation that the development of the full human potential of the relevant human embryo will be interrupted, or of using the embryo, or of having the embryo available for use, in any experimenting, manipulation, or procedure that is prohibited experimenting by virtue of sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be prohibited experimenting for the purposes of this Act.'' 3. ``Section 6 (8) A person shall not, in a Territory, and a corporation or an authority of the Commonwealth shall not, (a) wilfully destroy a relevant human embryo; or (b) wilfully allow a relevant human embryo to die. Penalty: $20,000 or, in the case of a natural person, imprisonment for 4 years.'' Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will vote against the ``Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985''. Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hodgman. To the Honourable Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That after the nuclear disaster which occurred at Chernobyl, in the Soviet Union, on April 26, 1986, Poland, a neighbouring country, was the most affected by radioactive fallout. That the Soviet Union did not warn the neighboring countries of radioactive danger until at least 48 hours after the accident, thus delaying any precautions being taken by the populations of those countries. That the Soviet Union Government be held responsible for all health and material damage to the Polish people. That all nuclear reactors in the Soviet Union be subjected to international control. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should do all in its power and authority, through the Government of Australia, to alleviate the suffering of the Polish people and to ensure that the negligence of the Soviet Union in the operation of nuclear reactors be condemned world wide, and that the Soviet Union Government be held responsible for all damage to health and property of countries affected by the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hodgman. 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 the 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 the members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth government. 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognise that plant breeding is a highly co- operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection, storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognise that any system giving `property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognise that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: (i) a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programs, (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices, (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kerin. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That the North Coast section of the Pacific Highway, from a point just south of Port Macquarie and just north of Woolgoolga, is in urgent need of major road improvement works in order to bring it up to road safety standards. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: The Federal Government immediately divert national highway funds or make available other funds towards the improvement of this section of the Pacific Highway. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will humbly pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that; We, the undersigned petitioners, call upon the Australian Parliament to set up strong national Aboriginal land-rights legislation. We call upon Parliament to establish this legislation in line with the five principles of A.L.P. Party Policy and to use its powers to over-ride States which do not comply with the legislation. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under 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 Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: 1. We the undersigned are totally opposed to the introduction of a $2.00 fee on prescription drugs for pensioners; 2. The impact of such a fee will be particularly felt by the chronically ill elderly who will be faced with a $2.00 burden with the purchase of each Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme drug; Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Ensure that prescription drugs continue to be provided to the pensioner population without the $2.00 fee on each prescription. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: (1) That we the undersigned are totally opposed to the introduction by the Hawke Labor Government of a $2.00 fee on prescription drugs for pensioners; 2 That the impact of such a fee will be particularly felt by the chronically ill elderly who will be faced with a $2.00 burden with the purchase of each Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme drug; Your petitioners therefore urge 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: Labor's Capital Gains Tax is standing in the way of economic development on the Far North Coast, a region with great potential for further growth and renowned for the enterprise and initiative of its local community. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal its anti-business anti-farming and anti-individual Capital Gains Tax. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The 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: 1. That we, the undersigned, are totally opposed to substantial Federal Government funding presently being wasted on undesirable, inefficient and incompetently run Government projects that are unacceptable to the vast majority of decent Australians. 2. That Government grants should not be directed toward projects that are of no, or dubious, worth to the improvement of Australia. 3. That public funding should not be used in encouraging lifestyles contrary to the Australian family way of life. 4. That public moneys should not be given to minority groups to support projects that are of a direct political nature. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Halt forthwith the public funding for the abovementioned purposes. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 will endanger the Federal system of Australia, the State and Federal criminal justice systems, the State and Federal Police Forces, the State and Federal education systems, the independence of the churches and religious associations, marriage and the family, children, the unborn, the handicapped, the aged and the infirm, employer and employee relationships and Australian society generally. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal the Bill of Rights legislation forthwith. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The 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 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 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 dependent on existing benefits. The Government's actions are little more than yet another burden placed upon our Australian citizens. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Restore pharmaceutical benefits to their former level, therefore lifting this inequitable burden now being placed squarely on the infirm throughout Australia. Give a firm undertaking not to further desert those citizens in need of medical support. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The 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 not mandate from the citizens of the Commonwealth to act in such a disgraceful manner, Whereas the present Government claims to be totally opposed to apartheid (separate development) in South Africa but purported to hand over Ayers Rock to an Aboriginal Council in support of a policy of apartheid (separate development) which has been shown to be detrimental to the Aboriginal people of Australia, Whereas it is pursuing this policy making it a crime for most white and many Aboriginals to enter, without permit, large areas of the Commonwealth designated apartheid (i.e., set aside for separate development), contrary to our democratic traditions and experience of freedom of movement for citizens of all racial origins within Australia, Whereas Australian citizens have no present means available to them to prevent this violation of their natural rights to unfettered common ownership of, and access to, a treasured natural asset. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Seek means available for the protection of the people's interests to reverse this outrage and preserve the democratic traditions of Australia, And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble 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 that 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 divisions 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 of the House of Representives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Divisions of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the actions of trade unions have gone beyond their traditional goals of protecting workers conditions and rates of pay and have reached the point where they are seriously affecting the economic health of the nation and the people. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That all Governments throughout Australia acknowledge and protect the Right to Work on behalf of all Australians. 2. That the total sovereignty of individual governments be recognised as a fundamental required 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 joint 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 provisions 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 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. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Queensland respectfully showeth that: The legislation to tax fringe benefits is iniquitous, inequitable and unfair; It will severely disadvantage both employees and employers; Employees will clearly lose many fringe benefits as a direct result of the additional heavy taxation burden being imposed upon employers; Employers will be forced to pay even higher levels of taxation to provide fringe benefits for employees. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Immediately abandon the Fringe Benefits Tax. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, 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. Petitions received. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests: Customs (Valuation) Amendment Bill 1987 Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1987 Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 1987 Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 Customs Tariff Validation Bill 1987 Excise Tariff Validation Bill 1987 Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Amendment Bill 1987 Customs Tariff Bill 1987 Customs Tariff (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1987 Customs Tariff (Installations at Sea) Bill 1987 Madam SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House of discussion, namely: The growing community outrage at the increases in the cost of Medicare which needs fundamental changes to ensure all Australians have access to affordable high quality health care. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr PORTER(Barker)(2.58) —This week, day after day, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) have been trying to justify their Medicare policy. That forlorn effort to sell Medicare to the public is doomed to failure because, of course, no one believes it. On Monday, the Treasurer had the gall to say: Medicare is a fair and progressive system . . . It is a piece of progressive social policy. He is certainly right. It is social engineering. It is typical socialist social engineering-an increase in cost and a substantial decline in the standard of service. Of the 16 million people in Australia, only two groups have benefited from the introduction of Medicare. The first is the 3,000 new public servants who have been employed to administer the Medicare mess. The other group is the few, unethical entrepreneurial doctors who, with the blessing of the Australian Labor Party, have taken advantage of the Government's bulk billing system. The 100,000 Australians waiting for a public hospital bed-mainly the elderly and the underprivileged-are not enamoured of the new Medicare system. In fact, never has this country had such a national public hospital crisis as it has today. Public hospital queues have more than trebled under Medicare. People are actually dying as they wait for elective surgery. There has been a rash of headlines in the newspapers on this issue. For example, the Sydney Morning Herald stated: 21 die while on surgery list. Mr Jull —When was that? Mr PORTER —It is an article by Chris Thomas, and it states: Twenty-one patients are known to have died from heart related conditions while waiting for elective cardiac surgery in Sydney's troubled public hospitals. The Sun shouts: `Shame! No beds for new mums' and `tiniest victim'. It has a photograph of a baby who has been put into hospital and whose mother cannot accompany the baby in hospital. This situation is common right around Australia. Medicare has caused the collapse of the public hospital system right around Australia. Medicare is responsible for stopping more people than ever before from getting a hospital bed when they need it. Twelve million taxpayers are fed up with having to pay $4,400m more in tax to pay for the Medicare disaster. The 63 per cent of families with children who have maintained their private health cover are disgusted with the increase of 60 per cent from $9.60 to over $15 a week that they have to pay to maintain their basic health cover under Medicare. The specialist health experts have roundly condemned Medicare. For example, only a couple of weeks ago, Professor David Penington, one of Australia's leading health commentators, said: Bulk-billing as we know it must change and `entrepreneurial' medicine, at the public expense, must be curbed. Private medicine must increasingly look after itself and public funding go where it is most needed. Health maintenance Organisations in the United States have many lessons for us in ensuring that only cost-effecting services are delivered. Mr Rocher —Penington is a real authority. Mr PORTER —He does have authority. He knows, as do all Australians, that Medicare has totally failed to provide the health cover promised by the Government-and it has cost the Australian community a bomb. The depth of the community's outrage is highlighted by the fact that the Australian Labor Party could not even find an advertising man to handle its multi-million dollar election account who actually agreed with its policies. It picked a man who has been one of the country's most strident public critics of Medicare. Of course, I refer to John Singleton. He had the temerity to tell the grim truth about Medicare when he was a radio announcer on station 2KY. John Singleton knows that Medicare is not working. He knows that it is massively expensive. He says that similar socialist health systems have not worked overseas in the United Kingdom and Canada where they have been tried. He knows that Medicare is costing people their lives rather than saving them. But, as well we all know, the Labor Party does not believe in the right of freedom of speech, as John Singleton soon found out. He found out that, especially in the media, if a person does not take the Labor Party's line, he is out. The Labor Council of New South Wales wrote to Mr Singleton after he had made his comments on 2KY and informed him that he had been sacked by 2KY. Mr Jull —The Council owned 2KY. Mr PORTER —The Council owned 2KY. It said in its letter to Mr Singleton: On every occasion your commentary as to the current dispute between the visiting Medical Specialists and the Federal Government concerning the operation of Medicare has also been in conflict with policies of the Labor Council of New South Wales. In a document that he has published, John Singleton says: This is a paragraph from the actual letter I received the day before my suspension and ultimate sacking by radio station 2KY. The letter was signed by the General Manager as instructed by the board led by Trades and Labour Council boss John MacBean. It is quite clear that this was a concerted attempt by the Labor Party to gag criticism of the disastrous Medicare policy. John Singleton and all right-thinking Australians were incensed by the Labor Party's action. Singleton then launched a campaign and gave himself a high profile in it. The campaign featured him and the sacking. In that publicity campaign he stated his own views about Medicare. While the ad was probably paid for by a private health fund, nevertheless the advertisement carries John Singleton's photo and it expresses his personal concerns about Medicare. The heading is: `I got sacked for telling the truth about Medicare'. There is a photo of Singleton and the ad states: ` ``This is the truth'', by John Singleton'. But there is more. It gets better and better. He also states: Medicare might be great in theory . . . Every day the media reports how Medicare is and will continue to be a disaster. Similar plans have failed in Great Britain and Canada, and the same thing will happen here. You only have to look at the waiting lists at hospitals to see that. John Singleton, the Labor Party's ad man, said that. He went on to say: If you can't afford or don't have private health 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. He is talking about Medicare, under Labor, under this Minister. John Singleton also says: Hope that the doctor who treats you and your child in an emergency has been out of medical school or off the boat for more than 10 minutes. If he is a competent doctor, hope he has not been working all night. Hope they can have you x-rayed that day or at least the next. So he goes on. In the end he quite rightly asks: Is this good enough for your family? Of course, the answer is a resounding no. Medicare is not good enough for Australian families. A few paragraphs later in this advertisement John Singleton says: I didn't think about it until a smashed knee put me into hospital. In other words, John Singleton has had an experience under this Medicare health policy of the Labor Party and he did not like it. When he started to tell the truth about what had happened to him, and when he started to tell the truth about Medicare, he was sacked. The Labor Party gave him the boot. But, of course, he is only saying what a number of Labor Party Ministers already know. They do not trust the public hospital system. They do not trust the Medicare system. When they get into strife, when they are ill, they do not go to the Medicare system; they go to the private system. The Prime Minister, ex-Premier Neville Wran and nearly all of them, when they have been ill over the last few years, have gone to private hospitals. It is not just Singo who is expressing the true views about Medicare. Most of the Labor Party Ministers also know in their hearts that Medicare is not providing the health care that this country needs. I know that Bob McMullan is tearing his hair out. He is running around like a bee in a bottle. Mr Rocher —He hasn't got much left either. Mr PORTER —No, he does not have much hair left; the honourable member is quite right. Mr McMullan is setting up emergency meetings and burning the midnight oil, trying to figure out what to do with this disaster collapsing around the Government. Let me plead with the Minister for Health, the non-medical Dr Blewett who is at the table: He should not let his colleagues sack Singo. He should not let them sack him again for telling the truth. Clearly the Labor Party's advertising campaign is shot to pieces; certainly any Medicare advertising will now be totally without credibility. But the Labor Party should not worry about that. It should save itself some money because we have the answer to the nation's health problems. Singo will love our health policy and all the Labor Party has to do is to allow Singo to do exactly what he wants to do. He will say that Labor has had it wrong for four years, that the Libs have got it right and that Medicare needs to be fixed up. Medicare may not be the only area with which the Government will have difficulty in the forthcoming period. It seems to us on this side of the House-we will shortly be on that side of the House-that tax will be an issue in this election. We perceive that the electorate is deeply concerned about the massive decline in their standard of living and the massive increase in the taxes that this Government has foisted on them to pay for its grandiose spending spree. This Government has taxed families to such an extent that a substantial number of them just cannot afford to make ends meet any longer. Of course, the answer is to blow the whistle, take a knife to Commonwealth spending and cut taxes. Our policies will do just that. Lower taxes are fundamental to restoring incentive and growth in this country. That raises two very basic questions. Firstly, what commitment will the Minister give in this campaign not to increase the Medicare levy? The Minister and the Prime Minister gave a commitment before the last election not to increase the levy, yet they increased it by 25 per cent. Mr Hodges —He can't be trusted. Mr PORTER —The Minister cannot be trusted. Perhaps he will tell us in his response whether the Government will undertake the same sort of charade in this election of promising not to increase taxes but, as soon it gains power, increasing them. The second point is that I have no doubt that the Labor Party is planning an attack on our tax policy to be released next week. But like the Labor Party's commitments on the Medicare Levy, will its attack on our tax policy have any credibility? Its record in this area is contemptible. It has not kept any of its tax commitments. But in this case it has an even more serious problem, and I raise the question whether it has the right advertising man. Will he be believed when it comes to selling the Government's high spending, high taxing record? Opposition members-No. Mr PORTER —It is interesting to hear honourable members say no, because I have my doubts, because my old mate Singo agrees with me regarding the outrageous level of taxes that Australian citizens have been required to pay under this Labor Government. In fact, he goes further. Let me quote from an article in the magazine section of the Adelaide Advertiser of 28 March 1987-this year. This is not vintage Singo from 10 years ago, but Singo a couple of months ago. In an article under the headline `The lovable larrikin' he says of politics: Joh doesn't go far enough for me. All he wants is a flat tax. I want absolute deregulation of the economy. Singo is saying that he does not like this Government's 49 per cent rate and he does not even like Joh's 25 per cent flat rate. He wants lower taxes; yet the Labor Government wants that man to go out and sell its tax record of 49 per cent. It wants him to go out and plan advertisements against our tax rate which will be substantially below the Government's. Clearly the Labor Party's advertising campaign is shot to ribbons. It will totally lack credibility. Singo was right when he said only last week, on 29 May-again in the Adelaide Advertiser: A hell of a lot of people- I am quoting; I would not use that language- have suffered under the Government. He thought that the poll would be `touch and go'. Of course it will be touch and go. Mr Beale —We will come and they will go. Mr PORTER —Precisely. There is more than a touch of chaos opposite and the Government is gone for all money. The Liberal Party does have the answer to the Medicare mess which this Government has got us into. We will change the Medicare program and we will assure the Australian public that it will have access to health care when it needs it and that it will have access to affordable health cover. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(3.13) —The first thing one could say is that it is pretty appropriate that this the last matter of public importance on health matters introduced by the Opposition in this Parliament has simply produced a cynical and rather hypocritical performance by the Opposition. The Opposition has talked about our costs; yet it is proposing to impose much higher health costs on the Australian family. With its flat rate private insurance it will burden the ordinary family with a minimum private basic insurance rate of $27 a week, and if that family wants top cover, it will cost up to something like $37 a week. The Liberal Party is the party which complains about problems in public hospitals, but says it will cut the money going to the States for public hospitals. Indeed, under Medicare more people are receiving treatment in our State public hospitals than ever before. It is the Opposition, not the Government, which wants to gut the State public hospital system of funds. I will come to the problems with the Opposition's health policy in a moment. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) now talks about means tests in public hospitals. Once again people will have to prove that they are poor before they can use the public hospital system, unless they pay much higher amounts for other cover. The Opposition wants to deny millions of Australians, particularly low income families, access to bulk billing. The whole advantage of bulk billing-that is being able to go to the doctor and to get medical service but not be charged for it-is very much to the benefit of low income families. When we surveyed the situation in Sydney we found that the doctors who are bulk billing work mostly in the working class areas providing those bulk billed services to people in need. The Opposition has already admitted this week that under its health scheme five million Australians will be worse off. Those five million Australians, are of course, the middle and lower income earners. I have no doubt that the Opposition will be able to design a health scheme which will benefit the well-off, but the five million who it has already admitted will be worse of-I can assure honourable members that the figure will be much higher than that-are in fact middle and lower income earners. Over the last three years we have given the people of this country a health insurance scheme which, unlike the schemes of the past 20 years, has been basically stable. In fact, under the Fraser Government an entirely new health scheme, not just one with a marginal alternation, was brought in every 18 months. One of the great things that we know the Australian people value is that basically they have had the same health scheme for three years. We have had to make adjustments at the margins, but there has been no change in the principles of Medicare, unlike the Fraser health schemes whereby a new scheme was introduced every 18 months. There are three characteristics of Medicare to which this Government is firmly, totally and completely committed. The first is that it is a universal system. Under Medicare every Australian is guaranteed basic medical and hospital services. Under the last Fraser scheme, introduced in 1981, two million Australians were without cover provided either by government or through insurance. Our system has provided automatic universal cover so that every Australian need not fear the cost of health or medical cover. Secondly, Medicare provides equality of access. We do not demand that people show cards and prove themselves to be charity patients in order to get public hospital care. Thirdly and most importantly, particularly in days when health costs are so high, we have related payments to people's income; that is, they contribute to their health cover according to their ability to pay. We have provided quite generous thresholds so that many low income families, not just pensioners, not just the defined disadvantaged, do not have to pay the Medicare levy. Where are the Opposition's policies? It has been here for four years. We have just listened to the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) for 15 minutes, and all we got was the statement that the Opposition has a health scheme. We did not get a single detail, a single funding arrangement, or a single point about the new scheme. All we got was a lot of waffle about Labor's advertising agency. That reflects the total inability of this Opposition, over four years, to face the health challenges of this country. It has been almost totally negative and totally unconstructive, and this was reflected perfectly in the speech delivered here today. As with all the honourable member's speeches on health, there was nothing of substance in what he had to say. In four years the Opposition has not contributed a single creative idea on health policy in this country. It has simply been a negative wrecker. It is true that some three or four weeks ago the honourable member for Barker produced a health policy, and almost immediately he was dismissed from his role as shadow health spokesman. So we have to ask what the Opposition's health policy is. What are its costings? We were not able to find out from the contribution of the honourable member for Barker because he had no costings at all in his policy speech-not a single one, other than the fact that he would save $3 billion of Commonwealth moneys. Of course, the Government has had to do the handwork for the Opposition. Again I suppose it is typical. In the Fraser years we were offered five health schemes in seven years. In the last election, if I remember rightly, the previous shadow Minister produced three schemes in the one election campaign. As I say, on 12 April we got this vague document `The Liberal Party and Federal Health policy'. After 18 months the honourable member for Barker produced a health policy and then almost immediately disappeared from the shadow portfolio. He, and the man who at the moment leads the Opposition, have constantly talked about saving $3 billion of public money under Medicare. Let us just be clear what that means. It means transferring $3 billion from the Commonwealth sector on to private shoulders. I just want to explain-I am glad I have this opportunity on the last day of the Parliament-the costings of the Opposition's scheme. Any effort to remove $3 billion from the Commonwealth Budget under Medicare means that the basic insurance ordinary families will have to buy from private companies in order to get any health cover in this country will cost $27 a week. Let me explain the basis of that. What we can learn from the vague statement made by the honourable member for Barker is that he is going to introduce the scheme that Mr Fraser introduced in 1976 whereby people will be able to opt out of Medicare into private health insurance. That scheme lasted 21 months. The Australian population has every right to ask: `Why are you going back to a scheme that failed after only 21 months in 1976-77?' Under that scheme something like 64 per cent of the population moved out into private health insurance. Let us see what would happen on this occasion. Medicare benefits for these people currently equal $1.3 billion; that is, there would be $1.3 billion in medical benefits that the Government would not have to pay, but that the private funds would have to pay. That would mean that people would have to take out an extra $8 a week just for medical cover so that the private funds could pay the $1.3 billion. That does not give the Opposition its $3 billion. So where does it go to get it? It has to deny moneys to the public hospitals in the States. To get the $3 billion it would need to deny the public hospitals $1.7 billion. That would mean the States would have to put up their public hospital charges and there would be extra private insurance to pay for that. It would cost a family another $9.80 a week to make up for the extra charges the States would impose every time somebody came into a public hospital. Dr Charlesworth —What would it do to inflation? Dr BLEWETT —We will talk about inflation in a moment. Let us just add those figures together. At the moment the current basic hospital insurance-that is, minimum private insurance-will cost a family $9.60 a week. On to that there would have to be added the medical insurance I have just talked about of $8 a week and the additional basic hospital insurance to make up for the public hospital charges of $9.80. That adds up to $27.40 a week as a result of the changes-the saving of $3 billion. If the $3 billion from public moneys is transferred across to the private sector, all of those extra charges fall on ordinary people. They fall on ordinary people in a most unfair way because the characteristic of private insurance is that it does not charge according to income; it charges a flat rate right across the community. So a family on $20,000 a year pays exactly the same amount as a family on $60,000 a year. All of them pay some $27 a week as a minimum private insurance charge as a result of these transfers. Let us look at it in relation to the present system. People who pay only the levy now and get all their cover through the levy would need an income of $110,000 a year to be better off. If they rely, like I do and many of my colleagues-despite what the shadow spokesman, the honourable member for Barker was saying-simply on the Medicare system because of our faith in the public hospital system, they would need $110,000 family income a year before they would be better off under the Liberal scheme. If a family already has basic private insurance, under the Liberal scheme it would be better off once its income passed $72,000 a year. At the moment if a family on average weekly earnings with private insurance were paying only the levy, it would be paying $21 a week more. If it had already taken out private insurance it would pay $12 a week more. Let that be quite clear. A family on average weekly earnings which pays only the levy now would, under the system, have to pay another $21 a week. If the family is already paying private insurance, it would have to pay another $12 a week. Moreover, even the $3 billion is not saved because once these people contract out of Medicare they would no longer pay the levy. So if 64 per cent move, $1.6 billion of levy receipts will be lost. That is, $1.6 billion has to be found somewhere else. At least it is no longer a saving. To try to soften the impact of what members of the Opposition are doing, they talk about having a tax rebate for private health insurance. Once that is added, even at the low rate provided by the last Fraser Government, another $1.4 billion would have gone; so there would be no savings. There would be a massive exercise and massive burdens would be placed on the Australian people. The family will lose more than half-something like 80 per cent-of its levy income because the rich and the well-off are opting out, the people who pay the most money into it are opting out. So $1.6 billion is lost. To try to soften the impact of the $27 by providing tax rebates the rest of the savings are lost. Those opposite will destroy a fair, equitable and open access scheme whereby people pay according to their income by this flat rate, unfair system and there are no real savings because they lose most of their levy earnings. Any effort to soften the impact, which those opposite are going to have to do for electoral reasons, will mean that the rest of the savings will be lost. I think that a most appropriate comment was made this morning by Ken Davidson in an article in the Age newspaper. I noticed that there was no effort by the spokesman for the Opposition to face these issues. Ken Davidson stated: The doctor/Opposition policies- a good description- for health can only be supported out of gross ignorance of how health markets work or out of cold blooded lack of concern for community health and the health of the economy. Mr HODGES(Petrie)(3.28) —I relish the opportunity to join the debate on this matter of public importance because there is a growing concern in the community at the burgeoning cost of Medicare. What is worse is the fact that Medicare is not delivering the services that this Government claims it does deliver. There is one point that the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) missed-conveniently, I would suggest. He made no reference to entrepreneurial medicine in this country. He ought to be ashamed for his promotion of entrepreneurial medicine. It is the Dr Edelstens of this world who are on the increase, who are ripping off the system. While this Government talks about tax cheats and social security fraud it is, at the same time, saying to doctors-not all doctors; I want to emphasise that point-`Go out there and rip off the system'. When we come to government on 11 July the pensioners and the disadvantaged will be bulk billed, but bulk billing will be stopped, as it should be, for all other Australians. There is no good reason why bulk billing should be promoted except by the Australian Labor Party. It is a philosophical bent that the Labor Party has. There is no other reason for it. I want to refer not only to the burgeoning cost of Medicare, but also to the fact that Medicare has large waiting queues throughout many hospitals in this nation. I want to look at how this Government has fleeced more money from the average family for health care and I want to reassure pensioners and the disadvantaged that they will have nothing to fear under a Howard government in relation to their health and welfare. The Minister for Health and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) earlier today in Question Time talked about an equitable scheme and equality of access. I would like to put the Health Minister at the end of some of the enormous queues that exist for elective surgery throughout this country. I would ban him from entering a private hospital and let him go to the end of the queue with ordinary Australians to see how he likes it. Where is the equity, I ask him and the Prime Minister, when 100,000 Australians are waiting in those queues for elective surgery? Why did the Prime Minister break the promise that he made when he said that beds would be available for all Australians? Let me repeat that: He said that beds would be available for all Australians. Why has he persisted in saying that the scheme is fair and equitable and that it is running smoothly when the real truth is that it is a disaster on all counts? Medicare is a mess, like the Australian economy is a mess, and it has got to be cleaned up. The rot has got to be stopped. I shall refer to some of the matters mentioned by the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter in relation to the Labor Party's advertising agent, Mr John Singleton, and John Singleton Advertising Pty Ltd. John Singleton now has a contract for $4m to promote the Labor Party in the forthcoming election. I remind the House that John Singleton did not write the advertisements that were referred to on behalf of someone else. As an advertising man he did not write them for someone else; he wrote them for himself. He appeared in them. He is the man who has denounced Medicare. Having denounced it how will he be able to say kind and supportive things about Medicare when he writes the advertisements for this Government? Perhaps the Labor Party will get another advertising agency to handle their health advertisements. But he was telling the truth, let me emphasise that, when he said that our hospitals are sick and when he said that our doctors are sick of it also in some of those quite famous quotes that were mentioned by the honourable member for Barker. I emphasise that he said: I am telling the truth. I have had personal experience. Medicare is a disaster. That is the man who is to sell the health policy for this Government. When the Minister for Health introduced the Medicare tax-and the scheme came into operation in February 1984-he said that the one per cent levy would substantially fund Medicare. That tax, as I like to call it, was increased last year to 1.25 per cent, a 25 per cent increase. That levy, that tax, is bringing in $1.6 billion. The levy would need to be about 4 per cent if it were to cover the cost of Medicare to this nation, because we are spending $5.5 billion in outgoings on Medicare. It is all right for the Minister for Health to stand here today and tell us that if things were changed under the Opposition the public would be paying more; they are paying more now but they are being deceived by this Government. I shall put it in simple terms, not in billions. A person in Australia who goes into a supermarket with $16 in his pocket and finds that when he goes through the check-out, through the turnstile, the girl says, `that will be $55', has a shortfall of $39. That is the equivalent figure. If a person has $16 in his pocket-it is $1.6 billion in the case of the Government-and there is a payout of $55-or $5.5 billion-there is a shortfall of $39-$3.9 billion. Where does that shortfall come from? It comes out of consolidated revenue, out of the pockets of the taxpayers of this country. No wonder there is a growing concern about the burgeoning cost of Medicare in our communities. But that would not be the worst thing that could happen if the system were working. The Minister should go down to the Victorian hospital system. I took the opportunity last year of talking to some of the specialists at the Royal Melbourne Hospital. The Minister should talk to them and listen to their disgust at the system. I shall quote from a document put out by the Health Department of Victoria. These are average monthly waiting times for people in Melbourne. A patient going to a teaching or specialist hospital to have, say, general surgical procedures performed, in May of 1986, compared with March of this year, would have had to wait 2.6 months, which this year has increased to 3.68 months. For a suburban hospital it was 1.99 months and it is now 2.22 months. For urology surgery it was 2.79 months and that has risen to 5.29 months. In a suburban hospital it would have been 2.88 months and 4.19 months this year. They are just a couple of examples. There are some instances in which there have been decreases in waiting time but overall there has been a massive increase in waiting times for elective surgery in Melbourne. Waiting lists are showing an unhealthy upward trend. I now turn to the additional amount by which the average family has been taken down during the last 12 months. Apart from the Medicare levy increase, which is about $50 a year for a person on a taxable income of $20,000 about another $100 a year has to be added to that because the maximum gap has been increased from $10 to $20. Pharmaceutical costs have increased, probably costing the average family $20 a year extra. Basic hospital cover has increased, and it has increased because this Government has taken away the Commonwealth private hospital bed day subsidy, costing about another $100 a year. The reduction of Commonwealth benefit from 85 per cent to 75 per cent of schedule fee will put up hospital rates by about $39 a year. If one adds all those figures, one finds that the average Australian family is about $5 to $6 a week worse off. Finally, I turn to a point that is worrying a lot of people, a lot of pensioners, in our community. An article appeared in yesterday's Melbourne Sun in which concern was expressed that under a Howard government pensioners would be disadvantaged. Let me assure honourable members opposite that pensioners and the disadvantaged in this country will not fall for the scaremongering of the Labor Party members opposite. Right throughout their branches they are doing that sort of thing. I assure them that the people will not fall for that. They have nothing to fear under a Howard-led government from 11 July. Last year, both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) admitted that the economy was in deep trouble. The Prime Minister said that we were in a position akin to the seriousness of wartime. He said that the party was over. The Treasurer talked about a banana republic. Who steered the economy in the disastrous direction in which it is heading? The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, and the Treasurer, Mr Keating. They cannot blame the Liberal Party; they cannot blame the National Party; they cannot blame an obstructionist Senate; they cannot blame the Fraser Government; they cannot blame the international community. No, the blame falls fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Hawke-Keating Government. Mr Hawke, you have failed! Mr Keating, you have failed! And on 11 July they both must go and all their Ministers and back benchers with them. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PRICE(Chifley)(3.38) —Like the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), I am extremely disappointed that although the Opposition has had the opportunity of explaining to all Australians the precise impact of its health policy and of giving the Government the right to respond, it has squandered that opportunity. No new detail has been given and no new aspect has been explained by either the former shadow Minister for Health or the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges). I must express a concern, because health is a very important issue for millions of Australians, that it was an opportunity for the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) to yet again reveal on this most important matter mirth and subdued cynicism. I regret that. The health needs of Australians are too great to be trivialised. It is true to say that this Government has provided a universal system of health coverage. That means that it does not matter whether a person is poor or rich, a pensioner or disadvantaged, a member of a young family trying to build a family life, that person is entitled under our scheme, without recourse to position or privilege, to basic medical services. That is a great triumph of this Government. Look what happened in the seven years of the Fraser Government-and that is all we have with which to compare ourselves. We had five health schemes. The important point that the Australian people should understand is that under the previous Liberal Government two million people were not covered by that Government's scheme or by private insurance. In the western suburbs of Sydney, with 1 1/2 million people, I can anticipate-and I regret anticipating it-that up to a quarter of a million people will not be able to afford the Opposition's health policy. Mr Lee —At a flat rate of $27 a week. Mr PRICE —As the honourable member for Dobell says, by way of interjection, it will be a flat rate of $27 a week. That is what is so obscene about the Opposition's proposal; It does not matter what a person earns, he will still pay $27 a week. A shop assistant, a bank clerk, a labourer and a technician-it does not matter what their level of income is-will pay the same amount of money as the white-shoe brigade, stockbrokers and millionaires. Where is the social justice and equity in such a scheme? The honourable member for Petrie talked about the Medicare levy being a 1.25 per cent tax on the Australian people. Under Fraser, the levy was 2.5 per cent. Even the honourable member opposite would understand that that is precisely twice the amount of the existing levy. The Economic Planning Advisory Council, in a paper entitled `Aspects of the Social Wage,' stated: The main beneficiaries of Medicare are wage earners and their families, particularly less well off families. In the western suburbs of Sydney, there are many young people trying to establish homes and families. They are the main beneficiaries of Medicare. The paper continued: Since the share of health benefits received by the lower income groups is greater than the share of private income received by these groups, the redistributive effect is progressive. It is not regressive which it would be under the Opposition's scheme where millionaires would pay the same amount as poor people in the community. No mention was made in the House of the rate at which the Opposition would set the levy. Why does it not come clean? What is its hidden agenda? What is the horror Budget that it would bring down? What would the levy be? Did the honourable members for Petrie and Barker deny that they would set the levy at 5 per cent or greater? Did they say what the amount of rebate would be? The honourable member for Petrie referred to the Sun newspaper of 3 June. I would like to read the full quotation to the House because the honourable member launched into a vicious attack of Mrs Nora Maguire of the Combined Pensioners Association. I attend the regional meetings of the Combined Pensioners Association in the western suburbs of Sydney. The Association comprises a very fine group of men and women who have done a lot for this country. Let me read the full quotation-- Mr Hodges —I rise on a point of order. I was accused of referring to a name when I made no such reference. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr PRICE —The article states: Mrs Nora Maguire, of the Combined Pensioners' Association, said pensioners did not want the system abolished- that is, the Medicare system- We don't want a return to the pre-Medicare days when pensioners had to wait out in the cold, out-patients clinics for doctors' charities. Pensioners want to know if Mr Howard is going to reduce the Medicare rebate to 60 per cent, as demanded by the Confederation of Australian Industry. What Mrs Maguire said is true of all Australians; they want to know whether the Opposition would reduce the rebate from its current level to 60 per cent. The Opposition, particularly the honourable member for Petrie, talks about hospital waiting lists. I think that I should say a few things about those. The Opposition would cut $1.3 billion from State government funds, doubling the cost of public hospitals. What would be the inference there? What is the Opposition's hidden objective and agenda in terms of this freedom of choice about which it talks? Does it anticipate shifting more people from public hospitals to private hospitals? Is it dissatisfied with the present occupancy rate of private hospitals? The truth is that between 1976 and 1983 the occupancy rate in private hospitals was 59.5 per cent and in 1986, under Medicare, it was 59.6 per cent. What is the Opposition trying to achieve? At the recent Health Ministers Conference which was held in April, all Australian Health Ministers agreed that the States and Territories have primary responsibility for the administration of public hospital services. That was a unanimous decision. The Ministers identified what they thought were some of the causes of those waiting times. They were: Nursing shortages, resulting in bed closures; undersupply of some specialist services, such as orthopaedic surgeons; advances in technology in allowing some procedures to be more readily performed; and greater public awareness of new and improved technology leading to greater demand. I would like to outline some of the real benefits that have accrued through increases in technology. For example, if one compares 1980-81 with 1985-86, one finds that there has been a 77 per cent increase in general surgery, a 99 per cent increase in ophthalmic surgery, and a 45 per cent increase in thoracic surgery. Over the same period there has been a 320 per cent increase in lens extraction and replacements; a 30 per cent increase in hip replacements; a 41 per cent increase in open heart surgery, and a 51 per cent increase in pacemaker operations. Of course, the honourable member for Petrie could not help himself. He floated the figure of 100,000 Australians on waiting lists. Let me refer to a hospital brief-the newsletter of the Australian Hospital association. Anyone who has had anything to do with hospitals understands the independence of that organisation. As a former director of a public hospital-the Mount Druitt hospital-which I was very proud to be, I certainly do. The April 1987 issue of the journal said that the figure was 54,000. To sum up: The Opposition is misleading the public. It will not come clean and say how much its levy would be. The former Government's last levy was 2.5 per cent. The Opposition will not say how much the rebate would be. Pensioners are concerned that their rebates would be cut by 60 per cent. The disadvantaged would be worse off. People would not be covered, including up to a quarter of a million in my electorate. Opposition members do not acknowledge that their colleagues, Territory and State Ministers, have acknowledged that waiting lists are a State responsibility. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The debate is concluded. Mr WILSON(Sturt) —I seek leave of the House to present the report of the Australian delegation to the Seventy-sixth Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, from 6 to 11 October 1986, and to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr WILSON —At the Seventy-sixth Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference held in Buenos Aires, there were three main topics on the agenda: Firstly the contribution of parliaments to the application and progress of humanitarian law, which is a very important issue; secondly, the contribution of parliaments, in the context of the International Year of Peace; and, thirdly, a general political debate and a shorter debate on a supplementary item. I wish very briefly to touch upon the debate in which I as Deputy Leader of the Australian delegation was able to take part. That was the debate on the importance and role of parliaments in the application and progress of humanitarian law. The question is sometimes asked: Is it worthwhile Australia, this Parliament, being represented in the Inter-Parliamentary Union? On balance, I believe that it is. I believe that, with other truly democratic countries, there is a useful role for us to play. I believe that, on balance, there is value to this country in helping to identify important issues of international significance and to draw from the knowledge and information that come forward at such conferences and to put them into application in our own country. In this regard, the debate on humanitarian law is a very good illustration. At the Conference, parliaments were urged to do a number of things. They were urged to sign and ratify the conventions and protocols-the Geneva conventions, the Red Cross conventions, as they are sometimes commonly known. They are important conventions because they try to set standards of behaviour in times of international conflict. Australia has signed the conventions but not yet ratified the protocols. I am disappointed that this Parliament is coming to a conclusion in a situation where, in spite of the commitments and promises of the Government that Australia would ratify the protocols and legislate accordingly, the legislation has been given relatively low priority. Yet again, with a concern about the upgrading of the standards of humanitarian law around the world, we as parliamentarians must talk to our electors and the Red Cross and tell them that the legislation has been put off. As members of the Inter-Parliamentary Union taking part in the conferences, we have a responsibility not only to go to the conferences but also to return and put into action useful, sensible and desirable things that are asked of us. The second issue in respect of the humanitarian law conventions was that it was urged on parliaments that they play their part in the education of the civilian population on the principles of humanitarian law. In this regard, there is a need for the parliaments to start with themselves. I was pleased that the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence agreed to invite representatives of the Australian Red Cross to give a seminar on the implications of the protocols yet to be ratified by Australia although, as I said, it has promised to do so. Unfortunately, the early termination of this Parliament has meant that that discussion with the Red Cross and members of this House and of the Senate has had to be postponed until the next Parliament. Thirdly, the Conference urged that parliamentarians take action through governments and parliaments to ensure that those in our military forces are adequately educated as to the meaning and significance of humanitarian law. Furthermore, it was urged that we should ensure, through parliaments and through governments, that the standing orders and command orders, at whatever level those orders may be given, contain adequate reference to and give appropriate instruction on the codes of conduct that must be complied with by our defence forces if they are to adhere to the standards set in those conventions and protocols. The fourth matter that was raised at the Conference was the important role that Australia and all countries could play in improving the technology so that there is greater adherence to humanitarian law generally, whether in openly declared war or in those circumstances where war is taking place under the guise of internal revolution. Even in those cases, the protocols require certain standards of behaviour that are designed to protect civilians and also to protect those who were formerly in the defence forces and who, for one reason or another, have withdrawn from the conflict. I hope that we can use the IPU and its conferences to play our part in improving the world, improving our adherence to and understanding of humanitarian law and doing other positive things that a body such as the IPU can achieve. At the Conference, we in the Australian delegation urged that there be a supplementary debate on the deleterious effect on world trade of the subsidisation of agricultural production. As you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker, this is important to Australia. That subsidisation is causing some of our economic difficulties today. The proposal was supported but not sufficiently well for it to be debated in Buenos Aires. However, the vote was adequately strong for members of the Australian delegation to come away from the Conference and report to the Parliament that, at the recent Conference held in Nicaragua, an item on the main agenda was the contribution of parliaments to the achievement of fair international trade and all its aspects, including trade in agricultural products, elimination of tariff and other barriers and a better understanding of the socio-economic impact of protectionism, particularly on developing countries. There will be an opportunity to consider the outcome of the more recent Conference when the report of the delegation to the Seventy-seventh Conference is tabled in this Parliament. It was useful for us to recognise that Australia was able to use its influence at the Conference to bring before the parliamentarians of the 80 to 100 parliaments represented in the IPU a matter of discussion that is of importance to us, as it is important to so many other countries around the world. In concluding, I would like to thank my colleagues on the delegation-Senator Colston, the leader of the delegation, and members of the delegation, Senator Jessop, the honourable member for St George (Mr Dubois), the honourable member for Streeton (Mr Lamb) and the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), who all played an important part in representing Australia at that Conference. I would especially like to thank Mr Peter Murdoch, the secretary to the delegation, and Mr Geoff Crawford, the Department of Foreign Affairs adviser who accompanied the delegation, for their work and effort on behalf of the members of the delegation and on behalf of the delegation as a whole. It was a valuable conference and I am sure I am able to report that on this occasion at least-even if it is not true of some other occasions with regard to the Inter-Parliamentary Union or, indeed, other Australian delegations overseas-we were able to make a useful contribution for and on behalf of this Parliament and on behalf of the people we represent. It now remains for us only to be certain that we play our part in implementing the positive resolutions, the acceptable resolutions, of that inter-parliamentary body in a way that enables future delegations to go to the Conference and say that we have done what earlier conferences have recommended. Mr TICKNER(Hughes) —by leave-My statement concerns the guidelines for annual reports. I speak in my capacity as the Chairman of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. As honourable members are aware, the Commonwealth Government departments are required to prepare annual reports on their operations. These reports are prepared under sub-section 25 (6) of the Public Service Act and must be in accordance with guidelines from time to time presented to Parliament by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) after approval by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. They provide information to the Parliament and to the people of Australia and are one means by which public accountability requirements are fulfilled. The Committee, in its role of watchdog of the public purse, not only examines reports of the Auditor-General but also plays a part in establishing the guidelines by which departments themselves report to the Parliament. The Committee welcomes the opportunity to continue to perform this role. On 27 November 1986 the Public Accounts Committee tabled its 262nd report, on guidelines for annual reports. This report was prepared after the Committee received a new set of guidelines from the Prime Minister to replace the 1982 guidelines. The Committee has now received revised draft guidelines in a letter from the Prime Minister to me, in my capacity as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, requesting that the Committee consider the revised guidelines. I seek leave to table that letter. Leave granted. Mr TICKNER —I thank the House. The Committee notes that until certain amendments are made to the Audit Act 1901 it would not be possible to incorporate some of the Committee's recommendations on financial reporting requirements as set out in its 262nd report. As it is likely that the guidelines will need further modifications during the phasing-in period of the new financial reporting arrangements, the Committee will comment further on those modifications at the appropriate time. Further, the Committee is strongly of the view that departments and authorities should report in their annual reports on reviews by the Auditor-General and parliamentary committees. These reports should include recommendations made by these bodies and any action taken to address the recommendations. The Committee believes that such a requirement would enhance the public accountability of the administration and would be a particularly valuable and timely follow-up mechanism. The Committee recommends that this requirement be included in the revised guidelines and forwarded to departments prior to the preparation of 1987-88 annual reports. The Committee has approved the revised guidelines as they currently stand and will continue to monitor further amendments. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay) —On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the report of the Committee entitled `Development of new utility helicopter facilities at RAAF Base, Townsville-Supplementary report-Provision of 15 new married quarters'. Motion (by Mr Kerin for Mr Scholes) agreed to: That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposal contained in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House presented to the House on 3 June 1987, namely: The installation of traffic control signals in Parkes at the intersection of Kings Avenue with King George Terrace and Macquarie Street. Debate resumed. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(4.04) —As I was saying before lunch, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) raised a number of issues relating to the Cash Transaction Reports Bill 1987. As I did not have time to canvass one of those issues before lunch, I do so now. The issue refers to the cost involved in the reporting mechanism associated with the Cash Transaction Reports Agency. Under the terms of the legislation, the Agency is to be established at a cost of the order of $2.6m, yet the Australian Taxation Office has estimated that the increased revenue that would accrue to the Government from the development of such an agency would, in fact, total $30m. As the honourable member for Denison said, that seems fairly reasonable budgeting and economics. We spend $2.6m and we make $30m. Therefore, I agree with his assessment that it must be a very worthy feature of this operation. However, I disagree with his observations, gained from his discussions with the Australian Bankers Association and from other purported discussions with representatives of the financial sector, that there are some hidden costs involved in establishing this Agency and in the reporting mechanism that is necessary under the Bill. It has to be pointed out that the Australian Bankers Association, in its estimates, does not give any justification for those estimates or how they are arrived at. That is most important, because it talks about figures such as $80m for the establishment of the system and $75m on a yearly basis to administer it. I think the honourable member for Denison said that what would happen when the cost to building societies and other financial institutions was taken into account was that it would boost the amount to in excess of $100m. The Government has investigated these particular proposals, but no justification has ever been given for the amounts cited. As far as the Government is concerned, they are without substantiation and therefore they are dismissed. The question of people being asked to verify who they are when opening accounts was also raised. It was said that verification of this kind was something which impinged upon banks' operations, and that they already had in existence a voluntary code whereby when people came in to open an account some form of appropriate identification was already undertaken. The most common form of identification is passports, although other forms of identification may be used. A passport has an address, a number and a photograph. I can recall that during debates in this place on the Australia Card people talked about those very things-the fact that there was an address, a number and a photograph on a plastic card and that that therefore constituted some invasion of privacy. In the debate on the Australia Card, in the debate on the Proceeds of Crime Bill and in debates on other pieces of legislation introduced in order to fight organised crime, concerns were raised about the appropriateness of things such as passports being used for identification purposes simply because they are capable of being forged. Some people were saying that the biggest growth industry when the Australia Card is introduced will be the forgery of Australia Cards. Obviously, the Australian Bankers Association and other organisations which will be affected by this Bill in the past under their voluntary code have been prepared to use those sorts of identification. We contend that, under the Bill, a voluntary code in place is all well and good; but what happens if that code is not adhered to? That in itself is a fairly cogent argument which goes to the heart of why we should have legislation that makes it important and indeed fixes it in law that certain forms of identification must be made. Again, it goes back to why this legislation is being put in place. It is being put in place to enable the police forces and the Australian Taxation Office to follow the money trail, and because it is another tool in the armoury to fight organised crime in Australia. The honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths), in his contribution this morning, compared the benefits that might accrue to Australia with evidence that came from the United States. The experience in the United States has been summarised in a statement by Francis A. Keating, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury of the United States of America. He talked about a bank secrecy Act which has similar provisions to those we are introducing here. He stated: This Bank Secrecy Act has proven beyond all doubt its effectiveness as a law enforcement tool against drug trafficking, organised crime and the illicit financial activity that supports it. The investigations that the Departments of Justice and Treasury have conducted, particularly those under the President's organised crime drug enforcement task force program, have relied upon the Bank Secrecy Act data and the analysis of these data the Treasury has prepared. In approximately three years of full operation these task forces have initiated 1,350 cases and resulted in the indictments of 8,649 individuals, 3,678 of which have been convicted. No further evidence is necessary of how effective the legislation that we are dealing with this afternoon will be in the fight against organised crime. It fulfils the aim of providing a method whereby we will be able to check, and the Australian Taxation Office will be able to check, the money trail. As has already been stated in the debate, the Bill requires cash dealers to report cash transactions involving $10,000 or more, to which the dealer is a party, to the Cash Transaction Reports Agency unless the transaction is exempt. That is provided for in clause 6. The Bill also requires persons transferring foreign currency out of Australia, or transferring Australian or foreign currency into Australia, to report the transfer to the Agency if the amount involved is $5,000 or more. It is interesting that the amounts of $5,000 and $10,000 seemed to get the honourable member for Denison rather excited this morning when he was discussing this matter. I believe that those specified amounts are fair and reasonable. They provide the opportunity for the Agency to keep tabs on the movement of cash into and out of Australia. Many examples have previously been given of the laundering of money from illicit drug dealings through other forms of crime in Australia. They have clearly demonstrated that there is a need for, and in fact an obligation on the part of the Australian Parliament to put in place, the correct legislative base for having the Taxation Office, police forces and so on follow that money trail. I return to what I was saying immediately before the suspension of sittings for lunch. I was talking about organised crime in Australia in a general sense. I was responding to some points that had been made by the honourable member for Denison and also some comments that had been made by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). The honourable member for North Sydney said that this legislation should be sent to a joint select committee for further examination. I repeat now what I said earlier: When the telecommunications interception legislation came before the Parliament and it, in turn, was sent to a joint select committee, the honourable member for North Sydney, in his contribution to that debate when the legislation was returned to the House earlier this week, criticised the Government for taking that course of action. So on the one hand he is suggesting that one of the Bills in this package that is useful in the fight against organised crime should be delayed and should be sent to a joint select committee; on the other hand, he argues that when that was done in the case of some Bills that had wider ramifications in terms of telephone tapping, that was not the correct way in which to proceed. The final matter to which I return is the comment that was made about organised crime and the relationship between crime in New South Wales and the Labor Government in that State. Again, I say that one has only to look at the position in Queensland that has been recently exposed, and at the puny response from that Government to the putting in place of an investigation which merely scratches the surface of organised crime in that State, to see the response that comes from conservative governments in this country. I put to the House that unless we are fair dinkum-unless every government and every member of legislatures in Australia is fair dinkum-organised crime will flourish. It is only through a combination of these sorts of Bills that we can get an effective mechanism to fight this crime. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(4.15) —Today we are, in my opinion, dealing with a very important piece of legislation-the Cash Transaction Reports Bill 1987. This is part of the Government's onslaught on organised crime. I was sorry to hear in the debate before lunch that the Opposition proposes to have the legislation deferred so that it can be considered by a joint select committee of the Parliament. The Parliament is about to be dissolved. That means that the legislation would be deferred until 1988 or 1989. Any member who has had dealings with parliamentary select committees knows that they do not often bring down a report promptly. The whole reason for the delay is that the Australian Bankers Association says that it will cost it some money. People who have ever tried to open a bank account for an organisation, a local political party branch, or for themselves, know the difficulties involved in opening such an account. For example, if a person tries to open an account for the Five Dock Progress Association he or she is asked for copies of minutes, signatures and authorisations. There have always been strict procedures. Surely the banks do not just let people come along and open accounts. Part of the legislation will tighten up the procedures for opening bank accounts in accordance with recommendations of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, Mr Justice Stewart and all the different people who have looked at this area of crime and tax evasion. They all say that we have slipshod methods of allowing people to open accounts, even though there are procedures-and I pay tribute to the banks-that are quite rigid. But the Opposition has said that we cannot have this tightening up of procedures for bank accounts because it might cost $180m to set up and then $75m a year to run. Today the Opposition has cited a lower figure of $60m. We must look at this matter in the context of what it is costing Australia and what penalty we are paying for illicit drug traffic, organised crime, corruption and tax evasion. This method of notifying cash transactions involves banks, building societies and credit unions notifying cash transactions in excess of $10,000-that is all it involves-and international dealings in cash in excess of $5,000 in any currency. The Parliamentary Library has very kindly given me details of the banks' profits. The profits are pre-tax profits. The figure for the Westpac Banking Corporation is $658m; the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group, $607m; the Commonwealth Bank, $445m; and the National Australia Bank, $491m. So they are making profits of more than half a billion dollars. The banks will complain if any additional requirement is introduced. Additional record keeping is now required of them. They now have to keep records for seven years. There will be complaints if we make them give any details to government, but this is part of the Government's offensive against organised crime, the drug traffic, and all of those illegal activities which involve large sums of cash. I pay tribute to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) for bringing forward this legislation. I point out that the situation in the United States of America, where such legislation has operated for some years, is very similar. Similarly, the American Bankers also opposed the legislation and fought it tooth and nail. Yet in the United States all independent observers have admitted that it has been successful and it has resulted in a vast number of convictions for organised crime, tax evasion and illicit currency transactions. A wide cross-section of people in the community have been caught including accountants, solicitors, lawyers and people who deal in the money market-under this requirement that banks notify cash transactions, and that is what this legislation does. I think it is a shame that the Opposition has nothing positive to add on this except to suggest that it be referred to a select committee. Having rejected the Australia Card, the Opposition probably had no alternative. This legislation is certainly locked in with this whole notion of identifying taxpayers and people with large sums of cash going in and out of bank accounts or in and out of the country. The Opposition's only contribution is to say: `Well, defer it. Have a select committee look at it. Let us get Bob White and the bankers in here to tell us how bad it is and how much trouble it will be'. Really, the legislation will not affect ordinary Australians. I was a solicitor in the Government and in private practice for many years and I never handled $10,000 or even $5,000 in cash in that whole time. The ordinary Australian man, woman or business person does not handle large sums of cash unless it is in relation to a payroll or while giving out wages. People taking out money for payrolls go into an exemption register. The legislation does not affect people in retirement. It may affect some ethnic families where there might be a central cash pool where family members borrow $1,000 from one relative and $1,000 from another. It may be that some people do not have cheque accounts, but that would be rare; and it would be rare for someone to have $20,000 or $15,000 in cash. However, they would have an explanation; these people are basically honest and they would have an explanation. If one can explain that the money is for a cash transaction, one has nothing to worry about. The ordinary citizen is not affected by this legislation whatsoever; it is to catch people who deal with large sums of money illegally. The second aspect, as I have said already, is to tighten up procedures for opening bank accounts. I have found that, unfortunately, old, retired people often open many bank accounts. If anything, it will be a good thing if people are discouraged from having a multiplicity of bank accounts, which can be used by dishonest people for all sorts of illicit transactions. Old people are penalised in the long run because when they pass away the solicitor handling their estate can claim a separate fee for closing every one of those small bank accounts. I always tell old people: `Why don't you put all your savings into one or two accounts instead of having several accounts at the local building society, the credit union and the bank.'. So it may be that there will be some positive good for elderly folk if there are more security procedures and a tightening up in relation to the opening and operating of bank accounts. Honourable members would well remember some of the disclosures over the years. In fact, the Library drew to my attention today the case of a teller at a branch of the National Bank in York Street who in May 1985 admitted that several accounts had been opened by a well known policeman, but the accounts were not in his name-they were in other fictitious names. It was also alleged that a bank manager in a western Sydney suburb was party to the opening of accounts in false names. I am sure that this does not surprise or shock people, but we do expect savings and trading banks, credit unions and building societies to take action to ensure that people who open accounts are the people they say they are. The legislation contains very stringent provisions which will require people to identify themselves properly when they are opening a bank account; and banks will have two years in which to verify that their existing accounts are operated by the people named as the account holder. If a bank account is in the name of a natural person, it shall contain the person's identification details. Under the term `identification details' the owner of a bank account can be identified through a prescribed identification number, which will apply when the Australia Card legislation is passed. Tourists, visitors or non-residents-and as far as I know we do permit non-residents to open bank accounts-who will not have an Australia Card and therefore will not have a prescribed identification number will be required to give their full name and address and either of two methods of identification: First, through the tax file number, for non-residents working in Australia on a work visa; or secondly, through a passport, a certified copy of a person's birth certificate, a citizenship certificate or, alternatively, some other form of identification which in the opinion of the financial institution concerned is sufficient to establish the person's identity. It is a bit hard to think of what would apply there but I suppose it could be a travel document apart from a passport or an army discharge document or something else which contains a photograph. However, those things are not always accurate and can be forged. Great steps are being taken to ensure that banks verify identification details when $10,000 cash is deposited in an account by a citizen, two citizens, a group of people running a company or acting as trustees for a certain company or the treasurer of an organisation. That will apply to everyone. For company accounts the certificate of incorporation will have to be shown. The legislation also applies to institutions. I feel a bit sorry for banks which deal with unincorporated associations, including local progress groups, school organisations and little groups started as unincorporated organisations perhaps for particular campaigns. All of those bodies will have to produce a copy of the instrument or instruments under which the signatories to the account are authorised to sign. The minutes of meetings and evidence to establish identification will be required. Of course, all of that will be made redundant and will be done away with if and when the Australia Card legislation is passed. The Australia Card will greatly assist in verifying the identity of those opening bank accounts. Of course, as I said, this legislation ties in with the Australia Card. It is clear that the Opposition is not game enough to reject the Cash Transaction Reports Bill and say that it does not want it-it wants a bit each way. The Opposition says that it wants to refer the legislation to a select committee because banks have said that it will cost money. That may be so, but the Australian people want something done to stop the drug dealers, illegal crime and those people who are making an illicit fortune in this society. Members opposite need look only at the 1985-86 annual report of the National Crime Authority, which points out that there is a need to get at people who are making a lot of money out of large scale crime. It is one thing for the Government to do what it has done with its Proceeds of Crime Bill, but it is essential to facilitate the cracking down on crime and on all sorts of illegal activities. This historic piece of legislation is one way that we can crack down on crime and on people who are illicitly operating bank accounts and handling large sums of cash or alternatively taking money out of the country or bringing it in. As I said earlier, all international transactions over $5,000 and all transactions over $10,000 within Australia must be reported. If people have nothing to hide, they have nothing to worry about. The legislation is aimed at those people who are engaging in crime or other activities. I believe that this legislation will have very far-reaching effects. It establishes the Cash Transaction Reports Agency, which will receive reports that will be available to the Commissioner of Taxation. He will have direct and unrestricted access to the agency to obtain information. Law enforcement groups such as the Australian Customs Service, the National Crime Authority and the State law enforcement agencies will also have access to the agency. Anyone who has followed the debate will understand the usefulness of such a procedure in fighting crime and illicit activities. The very stringent secrecy provisions in the legislation will apply to the staff and to every person dealing with the material and the information that is collated. The honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) said this morning that it might be a good thing to support the proposed authority in principle, but that it would require an army of employees. It will not, because its work will be done by computers. The honourable member said that everything would be processed by hand, but, in fact, that will apply only to the opening of accounts. Naturally, there must be some verification of accounts. Banks and building societies have to stop throwing around bank accounts. All my children, even those under five, have bank accounts and school savings accounts, some with about 20c in them. I find passbooks all over the house. They get them in one school after the other-primary, secondary and so on. I had to declare those accounts in my pecuniary interests, but I could not catalogue them because there were so many of them. I had to note them as `miscellaneous school bank accounts'. The banks must become more responsible. They cannot simply allow people to open accounts willy-nilly without any verification of identity. Of course, in schools they can verify the identity of pupils and there is no attempt to hoodwink anybody. However, I feel that at times banks have been slack in allowing people to open accounts. As I said earlier, over the past few years blatant incidents have been reported in the Press in New South Wales of bank managers being a party to the deception and the illicit creation of bank accounts in fraudulent names. I wonder what happens to the careers of some of those officers. Surely they must be demoted or left under a cloud. They allowed people to open accounts illegally in a false name. It is a very sad reflection on those involved. This legislation will do much to strengthen the hand of a bank manager who is leant on by someone who says: `I want to open an account in a false name'. The Bill will be good for bank officers, managers and accountants, who will thank heaven that, because of the Bill, they can tell such a person that the Federal authority is looking at all cash transactions and that there is legislation for the reporting of all large cash transactions and to strengthen the procedures for opening accounts. They can tell the potential customer that they have to verify his name, the name of his company and the incorporation certificate. Under the verification details, they will have to cite the customer's tax and passport numbers. If he does not have a passport, he has to produce his birth certificate, Australian citizenship certificate or some other certificate to verify who he is. Such a person cannot just go into a bank and say that he wants to open an account. It is a shame that, on the eve of an election, the Opposition has said: `No, let those engaged in illegal activities, organised crime and tax evasion go'. It said that in 1982, when it did nothing about the bottom of the harbour schemes. Mr Costigan revealed some of the appalling scandals in tax evasion. Indeed, the McCabe-Lafranchi report came up with some revelations in the Victorian Parliament, but the Opposition did nothing about it. The Australian people then judged the Opposition as allowing people to rip off the tax system and to get away with organised crime. The Opposition has not even put an argument against the Bill on the ground of privacy; it has put only the argument that the bankers say that it will cost too much money. Well, the bankers in America said the same, but the American law enforcement agencies say that it has been a great success and has resulted in many thousands of convictions for illicit currency dealings, drug offences, crime and tax fraud. I hope that the House will pass the legislation and reject the Opposition's entire fraudulent argument. Mr LEE(Dobell)(4.35) —My first comment is to praise the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher). I am sure that he will return to this House with an increased majority because of his reputation as one of Parliament's greatest advocates of tougher action against those involved in organised crime and welfare fraud. The Cash Transaction Reports Bill will require institutions such as banks to report cash transactions involving $10,000 or more when they take place within Australia. If a transaction of $5,000 or more is made between Australia and another country, whether in dollars or in foreign currency, that transaction must also be reported to the Government. The Government believes that law enforcement authorities should have access to that information because it is well known that those involved in organised crime and major tax scandals use cash transactions to hide and to launder the proceeds of their criminal activities. This legislation is long overdue, and it is a credit to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) that it is before the House today. This is not the only Bill that this Government has introduced in seeking to combat criminal activities. In this session it introduced the Proceeds of Crime Bill that will ensure that if people are involved in the sale and distribution of narcotics and drugs, the assets that they accrue from those illegal activities can be forfeited to the Crown. In addition, at this very minute, legislation that will alter the law that provides for telephone interceptions is before the other chamber. We hope that, in a short time, it will resolve its mind on that legislation. The Government has advocated that the Australian Federal Police be allowed to carry out telephone intercepts in new areas to ensure that those who are committing offences are brought before the courts. In addition, the Government has provided additional resources to the Australian Federal Police and ensured that the number of trained and skilled police officers has been increased. Those additional resources-for example, the installation of new computer facilities-have resulted in the Australian Federal Police having a greater capacity to track down those involved in organised crime. The legislation provides for cash transactions to be reported by the financial institutions to a Cash Transaction Reports Agency. The information that is accumulated by that authority will be available only to people such as the Commissioner of Taxation, the Australian Federal Police, the Department of Customs and the National Crime Authority. That is quite appropriate, because if we expect our law enforcement authorities to track down those guilty of ripping off the system and laundering the proceeds of organised crime and the sale of drugs, we must give them the weapons to follow the money trail, locate the guilty people and, most importantly, to ensure that the police can obtain sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction in the courts. This legislation will go a long way towards ensuring that that is the case. The legislation is the result of the Government considering the recommendations of many reports. The honourable member for Lowe mentioned the McCabe-Lafranchi report on the criminal tax evasion schemes. The Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, while intending only to investigate the painters and dockers in Victoria, found out that a large number of other criminal activities needed to be exposed. The Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking inquired into the Mr Asia drug ring and Mr Terrence John Clark's in some cases successful techniques for laundering money and for obtaining large sums of money from the proceeds of the sale of drugs. Last but not least, we had the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card which was set up by the Parliament to investigate the proposed Australia Card legislation. I am pleased to see in the chamber one of the members of that Committee, the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown). Mr Price —An excellent member. Mr LEE —He is an excellent member, as the honourable member suggests. He, along with his colleagues on the Joint Select Committee, thoroughly investigated the Government's plans to introduce an Australia Card. Of course, it is well known throughout the Australian electorate that the Australia Card was blocked by the combined vote in the Senate of the Liberal Party of Australia, the National Party of Australia and the Australian Democrats. I know that there are thousands of Australians who will use election day, 11 July, as an opportunity to let the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Australian Democrats know what they think of their, to date, successful attempts to stop the Australia Card from becoming a reality. The Australian people support the introduction of an Australia Card. They are sick and tired of people ripping off the taxation system. They are sick and tired of the welfare cheats being allowed to use false identities because the Liberal Party and the National Party will not allow the Australia Card legislation through. This legislation will provide for financial institutions to verify the identity of people opening bank accounts. In addition, the Government is providing that over the next two years the owners of all existing accounts will have to be verified. That is long overdue. How many of us have read newspaper articles and heard stories about the welfare cheats who have opened dozens of bank accounts in false names, perhaps by obtaining false drivers licences, using them to prove their identity in order to open a bank account and then seeking to claim unemployment benefits under each of those dozens of names. In some cases those people who have opened those bank accounts in false names have ripped off the welfare system for hundreds of thousands of dollars. The question I ask is: Why are the Liberal and National parties protecting those people who are ripping off the welfare system? Who are they really trying to protect? Are they trying to protect those people who claim unemployment benefits under false names and use false bank accounts? Are they seeking to protect the people involved in the sale and distribution of drugs and who seek to launder their funds by placing phoney bets at the races and then claiming that they have won large amounts? Are they seeking to protect those people and allow them to launder their funds through false bank accounts. This legislation will go a long way towards ensuring that the welfare cheats and money launderers are brought to justice. What is the Opposition's response to our legislation? In the grand tradition of Yes Minister the Opposition has advocated sending the legislation to a committee. The Senate has already sent the Australia Card legislation to a committee, and the Opposition has had a year to consider that report and to debate the proposals. What does the Opposition want us to do today? It wants us to send this legislation to another committee. I can think of nothing more pathetic. This legislation will allow the Government to combat tax evasion, to combat money laundering and also to combat other forms of organised crime. This legislation deserves the full support of all members of this House. The Opposition has spoken against this legislation on the ground that it believes that it will cost too much money to establish the authority to which the banks will report information of cash transactions. The Attorney-General has clearly responded to those arguments. He has explained that the total operating cost to the Federal Government will only be $2m a year. Of course, that is the direct cost to the Commonwealth. But we will obtain immediate benefits. The Australian Taxation Office has already estimated that that cost of $2m will be more than made up for by the Australian Taxation Office obtaining an increase in revenue from the people with bank accounts under false names. The Australian Taxation Office has estimated that this legislation will reap an additional $30m. Every dollar that the Australian Taxation Office obtains from those who have bank accounts opened under false names and who are ripping off the tax system is one less dollar that it has to get from ordinary, decent, honest working class Australians. That is why the legislation deserves the full support of everyone in this House. The Opposition has also jumped on the band-wagon of some of the banks and claimed that, while it will cost the Federal Government only $2m a year to run, it will cost the banks a great deal more. The banks have a reputation for being very conservative and in that tradition they believe that the Government's legislation is unnecessary. The Opposition is bowing to this pressure from the banks. There is no reason at all for the banks to object to this legislation. The banks already have a voluntary code for the opening of new accounts. Under the Australian Bankers Association's voluntary code, a person has to produce a document such as a current passport to prove identity before opening an account. But, as I have already explained, it is quite common for people who are seeking to obtain unemployment benefits under false names to use false drivers licences. I must say at this point that I commend the New South Wales Government for taking the tough decision to introduced in New South Wales a drivers licence with a photograph. Mr Cunningham —And Victoria. Mr LEE —As the honourable member for McMillan has interjected, the progressive Victorian Labor Government has already introduced a similar system of drivers licences with photographs. So, in future, as a drivers licence will have a photograph of the holder, it will be much easier for bank tellers to ensure that people are not opening bank accounts under false names. That is why I supported the Government's plan to have a photograph on the Australia Card. It would provide greater security for the different bodies relying on the Australia Card. If I had an Australia Card with my photograph on it and someone stole my wallet or I lost my wallet, no one else could use my Australia Card if it had my photograph on it. That is why the overwhelming majority of Australians support the Government's proposals to bring in an Australia Card which includes a photograph. Returning to the Opposition's claims that the introduction of this legislation will lead to significant increases in costs for the bankers, it should not be forgotten that when similar legislation was proposed in the United States of America the American Banks also expressed concern that it would create cost increases for them. Yet, after several years of operation in the United States, that legislation has been a great success. I quote from the Assistant Secretary of the United States Treasury, Mr Francis Keating, who gave evidence to a Senate committee of the United States Congress. He made the following remarks: Mr Chairman, the Bank Secrecy Act has proven beyond all doubt its effectiveness as a law enforcement tool against drug trafficking, organised crime, and the illicit financial activity that supports it. The investigations that the departments of Justice and Treasury have conducted, particularly those under the President's Organised Crime Drug Enforcement Task force Program, have relied upon the Bank Secrecy Act Data and the analysis of these data that Treasury has prepared- and this is the important point which I wish to emphasise- In approximately three years of full operation, these Task Forces have initiated 1,350 cases and resulted in the indictments of 8,649 individuals, 3,678 which have been convicted. So similar legislation in the United States resulted in more than 3,500 American citizens being convicted for criminal activity. I believe that this legislation will ensure that people who are involved in illegal activity, such as money laundering and the sale and distribution of drugs, will no longer be able to launder their funds. This legislation has my full support. It is my hope that, when the Senate completes its deliberations on the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill at a later hour this day, this Parliament will have another piece of armour to deliver to the law enforcement agencies to ensure that the crooks and the welfare cheats can no longer escape detection. Mr PRICE(Chifley)(4.51) —I commend the Cash Transaction Reports Bill to the Parliament. It is a privilege to follow the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee) and the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher). No other two honourable members on either side of the Parliament speak out so much in support of their pensioner constituents and their veterans as well as maintain a strong stand on law and order issues, such as on this Cash Transaction Reports Bill. Mr Lee —There are no Opposition members here. Mr PRICE —As the honourable member for Dobell points out, there is a dearth of Opposition speakers, even though they feel that this Bill should be referred to a committee. Apparently they are prepared to do a lot of talking in committee but they are not prepared to talk to the Australian people in trying to justify their stand. Mr Kerin —The Bjelke-Petersen Foundation should be looked at. Mr PRICE —It is no wonder there is no member of the National Party here. As the Minister points out, the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation is obviously worthy of further investigation. This Bill represents one of the most significant initiatives to counter the underground cash economy, tax evasion and money laundering. No wonder the parties opposite-whether in government or in opposition-are maintaining what I must say is their consistent stand in opposing any measure that would address these issues. It is notorious that the underground cash economy provides great scope for tax evasion both domestically and internationally. It is clear that traditional investigative techniques have been ineffective in identifying the financiers of major crime because of the ease with which such person are able to distance themselves from the actual criminal conduct. I have a great interest in this area. Part of that interest stems from an investigation that I was involved in with the Australian Taxation Office. We were looking at the difficulties, not of trying to track down the cash flow but of trying to track down the dividend and interest payments. I am able to inform the House that I looked not only at the Parramatta tax office but I trudged around Melbourne, because the Taxation Office is located in 10 different buildings in that city. In fact, I looked at this precise area of its operations. It is no wonder that Mr Boucher, in giving evidence to the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception, was quite unrepentant in saying that it was absolutely vital that an Australia Card, a national identification system, be introduced to allow the Taxation Office to undertake this matching task. Mr Donald Cameron —To cover up his own inadequacies and those of his Department. Mr PRICE —The honourable member opposite is interjecting. Of course he has maintained a consistent position, as I have said, of always opposing any measure which bears down on tax evasion, on those who abuse the welfare system or on those who launder money. I understand that he supports those things. We do not. We feel that we have an obligation to the overwhelming numbers of Australian people who do the right thing, who do a fair day's work for a fair day's wage and who pay their taxes through the pay as you earn system. All they want is a fair go. They do not want to assume the burden of the tax avoiders or of those who abuse the social welfare system. They do not want to assume the burden of those involved in criminal activities and who launder money. I understand that and I am sure that the Australian people also understand that. The Opposition has an outstanding record of inertia, of doing absolutely nothing about this and in fact of opposing it, just as it is now opposing this legislation. Mr Lee —Tell us what they are going to do. Mr PRICE —The Opposition wants to send this legislation to a committee, to filibuster, and to give the cheats, the launderers and the crims an extra break. That is not good enough, and I am sure the Australian people will say that that is not good enough. I was referring to the problem of matching. There is no doubt in my mind, having physically inspected this and having talked to the people about this matching, that people need the Australia Card, and that view is consistent with the views of the Commissioner of Taxation. Honourable members would be surprised at the variety of forms that this information comes in. It can be handwritten, on tape, and in fact it is often illegible and has to be done again. No wonder the Taxation Office is having so much difficulty. Like all my colleagues on this side of the House, I am a strong defender of the Australia Card. We have a fundamental belief; and that is that if people have nothing to hide, they have nothing to worry about. That is precisely the reaction I get from the ordinary men and women of my electorate of Chifley. Their response is that only those who have something to hide have something to worry about. The honourable member for Dobell has pointed out quite rightly that the Unsworth State Labor Government has taken the initiative in New South Wales and introduced a driver's licence with a photograph. I strongly support that, and of course Victoria has done the same. I already carry around in my wallet about 10 different cards. In fact, I have so many cards that I leave some in a brief case. None of those can accurately prove my identity. With the Australia Card I would have the ability instantly to establish my identity by, first, having a photograph on the card and, secondly, having a unique number on it. I know that a lot of people in my electorate would welcome the opportunity to be able to prove their identity in this way. This Bill, which we are supporting and which the Opposition is proposing should be referred to a committee, does a couple of things. As I say, it does not track the interest and dividend trail. I have already mentioned the difficulties in that. This Bill tries to track down the cash trail, which is infinitely more difficult. The people who benefit from it are, in the main, the tax avoiders, those who abuse the social welfare system and, in particular, those involved in criminal activity. This Bill will establish a reporting system for cash transactions in excess of $10,000, and as far as international currency transfers are concerned, transactions in excess of $5,000. The honourable member for Dobell has already pointed out that if the Opposition were to agree with the Government that this Bill should be proceeded with, we would straight away have a revenue increase of at least $30m at an annual cost of some $2m. That is not a bad ratio to work on. It has been estimated by the Taxation Commissioner's office. From that point of view, I think it should be supported. This Bill also sets up the Cash Transaction Reports Agency. It would receive this information, which would be available to a number of different institutions. It would be available to the Commissioner of Taxation and other law enforcement agencies. I always thought law and order was an important issue on the Opposition side. That is what members of the Opposition try to tell us. Whether we talk about State or Federal politics, the track record is that it is Labor governments that are fair dinkum on law and order issues. The other agencies would be the Australian Customs Service, the National Crime Authority and State law enforcement agencies. They may also seek the information held by this agency. One thing that I hope is covered in this Bill is that there is a uniform medium for receiving the information. As I was saying to the House, one problem the Taxation Office has with interest and dividends matching is the inability to specify a standard medium for receiving it and a standard format. I am sure that this would be covered under the Bill. It would enhance the effectiveness of the agency and it would, no doubt, make it even more cost-effective. To sum up, I certainly support this Bill. It is a very important Bill. It is consistent with previous activity, action and legislation that the Hawke Labor Government has brought down to bear down on tax avoiders and tax cheats who want to avoid paying their fair share of taxation. It is in that line of legislation. It is a very important initiative. To be consistent, members of the Opposition have opposed previous legislation and are now seeking to delay the implementation of this Bill by referring it to a committee. I am sure I speak on behalf of all the electors of Chifley when I say that we welcome this legislation; we welcome the fact that tax avoiders and those involved in criminal activity will have to face up to this important new legislation. The dream of the Reverend Ted Noffs-who, unfortunately, is still in hospital-was to open a life centre in my electorate at Colyton to educate younger people about drugs. Last Friday a magnificent centre was opened. Unfortunately I could not be at the opening with Premier, Mr Unsworth-- Mr Martin —Where is that? Mr PRICE —At Colyton. Mr Martin —In whose electorate is it? Mr PRICE —In the electorate of Chifley. It was opened on Friday by the Premier and the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett). At a time when the Government and State governments are working together to combat this scourge of drugs, it is ironic that members of the Opposition are opposing, by delaying tactics, a measure which would bear down on the drug trail, the laundered drug money. So much for the Opposition parties claims that they are concerned about law and order and drug issues. Once again, I commend the Bill to the House. I thank honourable members for the opportunity to make clear my personal position, which has the support of my constituents. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(5.05) —I believe I speak on behalf of all members on the Opposition side of the House when I say that we resent and we reject the Government's suggestion that our reservations about this Bill have arisen because we support drug pushers, crime syndicates and tax dodgers. It has been a pattern in this place in the last couple of years that Government members have repeatedly violated so many rights of the citizenry. They always state: `We are trying to get the drug pushers, the tax dodgers and the crime syndicates'. They do everything using that excuse as a shroud to cover up what they are all about. The Opposition is saying that we have doubts about how this legislation should be implemented. Let us set up a select committee of the Parliament to have a look at it before we rush headlong into it. Here we are at seven minutes past five on the last afternoon of this Parliament and the Government is trying to race this legislation through as if it were a matter of tremendous import. The realities of life are that the Government was elected at the end of 1984. If it was so imperative and so important, why did the Government not do it in the last 2 1/2 years? It has not done it. Yet Government members stand up here and make speeches such as the speeches we have heard from three or four Labour members in a row this afternoon. If anything epitomises the thinking of Labor politicians, it is the speech by the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher), who, thankfully, has come back into the House. Anyone who heard that speech will recall his painful story of his little children having all these bank accounts-so many accounts that he could not count them. When he put in his pecuniary interests return, under the heading `Children and Dependants' he put in `assorted number' because he could not count them. Mr Maher —That is right. Mr DONALD CAMERON —The honourable member says that that is right. I am not disputing it. The one thing about the honourable member for Lowe is that he is honest. When it comes to woolly thinking, he is the embodiment of woolly thinking; he is woolly thinking personified. He wants to go and crush the little children. He dictated from his seat that all these children should not be allowed to have these accounts, and how terrible it is. We heard that from one Labor speaker in justification and then, from the next speaker, we heard about drugs, crime and tax evasion. Those opposite cannot have it their own way. A committee would at least sort out their minds, give them an opportunity to sit down and think out why this Cash Transaction Reports Bill should be put in place-instead of them coming here and trying to justify it on the ground that `My kids have all these bank accounts at home; how terrible it is'. The honourable member for Lowe is also saying that his children are going to grow up and they are going to be used to a lot of accounts. When they get at their money they are going to put some in one account and some in another account. He said that this is evil. I say to the honourable member for Lowe that we live in a democracy and there are freedoms in this country. You believe that everybody should be corralled, everybody should be regimented and everybody should do exactly as you say they should do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! I suggest to the honourable member that he is experienced enough to realise that he should be addressing the Chair. I invite him to do so and not to address other members directly. Mr DONALD CAMERON —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I get more of a reaction out of watching the honourable member for Lowe than I do out of you. But I note your correction. We heard other speakers on the Labor side hark back to the ID card. I am more than happy to face my constituents, they having the full knowledge that I am totally opposed to the ID card. I have voted that way and I have spoken that way in the Parliament and the reason why I am proud to stand on my view is that I believe I am right. Honourable members opposite sit there with their mouths open and nod their heads like the figures into which one puts ping-pong balls on Sideshow Alley. In their Party there is great division on the subject of the ID card. Yesterday I received a letter from a Canberra resident who said that she had voted for Labor all her life. Mr Martin —Oh, yes! Mr DONALD CAMERON —Did you get one, too? Mr Martin —No. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I shall let you have a copy of mine. She is abandoning the Labor Party this year because she feels so strongly about the invasion of privacy it is proposing to indulge in. Let the people of Australia know and understand that the Labor Party is using the ID card as an excuse for a double dissolution, but if it were to win the next election it would bring together both Houses of Parliament and ram through the ID card legislation. Let that be understood! Members of the Labor Party believe that people will be so attracted to that proposal that they will forget the money the Government has ripped out of their pockets and the way it has increased taxes over the last four years. The Government is giving the people a tax reduction on 1 July and it is going out and saying how marvellous it is. It has had its hands in both their pockets and now it will put a few coins back in one of them and say: `Vote for us'. I believe honourable members opposite are in for a big shock on 11 July. They timed the election because they believed they would win it. There were a thousand promises. One of them was, `No early election'. When the Prime Minister came to power in March 1983 he promised that under a Hawke Government there would never again be an early election but that is all we have had since that time, early elections. Mr Price —I raise a point of order. I was listening very keenly to the honourable member but I found it difficult to relate his remarks to the purposes and objectives of the Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The point of order is quite persuasive. I invite the honourable member for Moreton to come back to the Bill. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I take your direction, Mr Deputy Speaker, and conclude my reference to the early election. We are saying that, with this early election, we do not want the Cash Transaction Reports Bill to be rushed through. We believe it should be put aside and investigated by a committee in the new Parliament to get rid of its warts, and then be implemented. Not all honourable members on this side of the House are opposed to it, it is just the haste. I am now talking about cash transactions and the way the Government has ripped into the pockets of the little people and the not so little people. In 1983 we were given the promise that there would be no more early elections but we had one 18 months later and now there is another one. Government members do not like the words `early election'. They are jumping up like a jack in the box. Mr Bilney —Mr Deputy Speaker, my point of order is exactly the same as that recently raised by my colleague. I do not see what the remarks of the honourable member for Moreton have to do with the Bill before the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I took the immediate past remarks of the honourable member to be on the score of urgency, as to why the matter is being dealt with perfunctorily, but I invite him to be quite conscientious in addressing the House. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I shall return to the ID card, which has been raised by several speakers on the Government side. They them- selves have tied that in to the Cash Transaction Reports Bill. To meet your understandable requirement, Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall go back to the point I was making. If the Labor Government is re-elected at the coming election the ID card will be implemented automatically by virtue of a joint sitting. I am concerned about this joint sitting. The people of Australia should not make the mistake of re-electing the Labor Government so that the joint sitting comes about to pass the ID card legislation which, as Government members have said, is tied up with this Bill. I hope they will allow me to speak along those lines. They are all nodding their heads in agreement. I want to talk about this election again and the way it has been brought on with great speed and haste because the Government believes it can win. No Government ever calls an election without really believing it will win, but the Labor Party has misread the climate. When people understand that the ID card is part and parcel of a Labor victory; as more people appreciate that they are being conned with the tax cuts on 1 July; when they better understand that the Budget the Labor Government has in mind for August is so horrific that it is not game to let them see it; when they see that the Government wants to get the election over-that is what it is all about-I am confident that, under John Howard's leadership, this country will take a turn for the better and the Labor Government will be dismissed. I can understand their fears and trembles. I think the honourable member for Lowe has a majority of 2 per cent- Mr Maher —Eleven July is my birthday. Mr DONALD CAMERON —The honourable member will not get a very pleasant birthday present. He is the kind of man as he has admitted this afternoon who wants go around closing children's bank accounts. He was castigating his kids for having all those accounts. I simply observe that honourable members on this side of the House are not totally opposed to the idea of large transactions being reported but we are opposed to the haste with which the Bill is being introduced and we believe that an important intrusion into civil liberties such as this should be allowed a little time in which to be considered. I now move to a question raised by the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) today, when she asked the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) about a matter that is very much in line with cash transactions. She asked what will happen to spouses who, from 1 October, will have to apply for the family allowance and who, in their applications, will have to state every penny received in income by their families. My wife knows everything about me and everything that we own. Mr Scott —Everything? Mr DONALD CAMERON —Everything. However, there are many marriages in which husbands and wives feel that what each of them earns is a private matter. It is his or her business. With the introduction of the family allowance income test-and it is a bit like the assets test; it is the knock on the door all over again-the Government is saying to one partner, `If you do not tell us exactly what your partner is earning, watch out'. Some partners will refuse to give all the information, although they might give some. They might say, `Put down $30,000'. In 99 per cent of cases the wife will say: `Oh darling, you know what they will do if I give them false information. There will probably be a $5,000 fine'. The husband will say: `We have discussed my money matters for years. We agreed years ago that what you earn is your business and what I earn is my business'. What the Government is doing with that legislation-Australians be warned, that is what the Government is all about-is to start penalising people if they do not extract from their partners 100 per cent of the information about how much their partners are earning in order to qualify for family allowances. I just leave that thought with honourable members. That is yet another cash transaction. If the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) is so concerned about all the bank accounts his little children have, perhaps he should start turning his mind to this, because it is a minefield that the Labor Party is proposing. The Labor Government introduces so much legislation that contains snags and traps that catch honest people. It tramples on honest people and justifies it by talking about the drug carriers, the crime syndicates and the tax dodgers. There is a limit to how much people will believe and the Government has already exceeded it. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(5.20) — I think that we have just heard from the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) one of the most incredible and silly-- Mr Maher —Silliest. Mr ROBERT BROWN —The honourable member for Lowe says `silliest'. I think that that is an excellent description. It was one of the silliest, most irrelevant, absurd and indefensible contributions ever made to any debate in this Parliament. Mr Donald Cameron —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I object to the entire string that made up the description of my speech. I ask that all of it be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) — Order! The honourable member may be offended, but the language is not unparliamentary. There is no point of order. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I was complimenting him, as he well knows. I do not know whether the honourable member for Moreton feels that he is in touch with ordinary Australia. If he was reflecting what he believes is the thinking of ordinary Australians, I do not know where he found them. I remind him that in his electorate, as in all the electorates which we represent, the vast majority of people are ordinary pay as you earn taxpayers, ordinary wage and salary earners. Those people are on their way home from work at this moment, they have put in a good day's work and expect to get a decent day's pay. They expect to make a reasonable and fair contribution to national revenue. They are sick and tired of living in a country in which people take advantage of all the rorts that are available to them to rip off decent Australia. That is what the Cash Transaction Reports Bill is all about. This Government has an outstanding record on legislation. However, every time we have attempted to do something about the rorts we have been frustrated at every turn by the Opposition in this chamber, and because we do not control the Senate at this stage we have been frustrated there as well. The best example of that was in connection with the Australia Card legislation. I hope that all Australians keep in mind the fact that that was an initiative of a Labor government, concerned that people were being ripped off by social welfare fraud and tax evaders. Every day the Australia Card is delayed is costing the Australian people $2.5m. People need to keep in mind that, over a period of 12 months, the cost approaches $1,000m. That runs into a substantial amount for pay as you earn taxpayers to make up for the people who are able to get away with the sorts of things they have been doing in Australia for too long. I have said on other occasions that the Australian Labor Party has been in government for far too short a period since Federation. Had we been in office for a longer period, all those rorts which have been introduced, encouraged, entrenched and institutionalised into the system by conservatives protecting their own-their members, their benefactors-would have been ripped out of the system. We are in the process of doing that. I assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, this Parliament and the Australian people that that program will continue while ever we are in government. I hope that, as a result of the election on 11 July not only will we be returned to this chamber-as we will-the Australian people will also take advantage of the opportunity to give us a majority in the Senate as well so that we will not be frustrated, so that our attempts will not be thwarted, so that the Australian people's interest will not be betrayed by those people who simply happen to enjoy a majority in one of the two chambers of this Parliament. If we are given a majority in the Senate, we will put through the Australia Card legislation and those arrangements that are designed to ensure that people who have been ripping off the system in the past will do it no longer. We serve notice on them that while we have the responsibility for legislation in Australia their days in activities of that kind are numbered. The Australian people must make that decision. They must decide whether they want Australia as a nation to stand tall, erect and proud in the forums of the world as a country that ensures that dignity exists for all people and is guaranteed for all people; that equity, justice and ordinary fairness exist; and that people treat one another, using that good Australian vernacular, in a fair dinkum way. It has not been so hitherto. However, it will be in the future because increasingly the Australian people are saying that they are fed up and have had enough. Increasingly the Australian people who as a result of the pay as you earn tax system are locked into paying their taxes and saying that it is about time that others paid their fair share. We are intent on making sure that they do. That is what the Cash Transaction Reports Bill contributes towards. I have not heard any adequate explanation from the Opposition as to why it seeks to move the following amendment: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `the Bill be referred to as select committee of both Houses to report to Parliament as soon as possible'. Mr Martin —Outrageous. Mr ROBERT BROWN —The honourable member for Macarthur has made an outstanding contribution to this debate and an outstanding contribution generally to the questions of justice that are pursued by this Parliament. The honourable member has drawn my attention to the fact that Opposition members seek to send this piece of legislation to a select committee of both Houses to report to Parliament as soon as possible. Why? Is their purpose the same reason that they sought to frustrate the interests of the Australian people with the introduction of an Australia Card? Is their purpose the same reason that they had to be dragged screaming into this chamber to introduce legislation to get at the crooks in the tax system-the tax evaders and the tax avoiders? Is their attitude towards this the same as it was after the Costigan and McCabe-Lafranchi reports? When those reports were brought down, the Australian people had brought home to them very forcefully the extent to which tax evasion and tax avoidance existed within the community. Why should the Australian people not say that they have had enough? Indeed, they have had enough. Why should the overwhelming majority of the 16 million people in Australia, fine Australians who accept and meet their commitments, not say that they have had enough? They have had it up to the neck. Let us all remember, as I said a few minutes ago, that for far too small a proportion of the total time since Federation a political party which is concerned about equity, fairness and justice has occupied this treasury bench. Never before has an Australian Labor Party government been returned for a third term. Never before in this Parliament has that happened. It will happen on 11 July because those people who are sick and tired of the extent to which they have been imposed on not only by the crooks in society but also by governments that have protected, promoted and defended them-- Mr Downer —Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order-- Mr ROBERT BROWN —Does the honourable member feel guilty? I did not mention any government. The honourable member feels guilty. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member for Charlton will resume his seat. Mr Downer —I raise two points of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. First of all, I would like the honourable member to withdraw the clear implication that I am guilty of protecting crooks personally. Secondly-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Chair understands that the honourable member for Charlton was alluding to alleged actions by a government of the day and it cannot be construed as a personal reflection of an individual. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Of course, Mr Deputy Speaker. Let me make this observation: Had all Opposition members occupied seats at that time, they would have risen as one man, because all of them would have felt that I was talking about them. I made no reference to them. They are guilty men. Let the Australian people know where the guilt lies and where the conscience has been pricked. It is a pity that the debate in this chamber is not televised. Had it been, people would have seen a member of the Opposition stand to take exception to the suggestion that in the past political parties in Australia may have protected crooks. Not one man on the Government benches stood. Honourable members on this side knew that the reference could not have been made about them, and it was not made about them. Under the previous Fraser Government, the point was made repeatedly that those people who were ripping off the system were getting away each year with something like $7,000m. That was the amount of tax which, as a result of tax evasion and tax avoidance, people were not paying. They were not my constituents; my constituents are wage and salary earners. My constituents have pay as you earn tax deductions taken from their pay packets every week or fortnight. That money is sent to the Treasury and it helps to meet their tax commitments. They are locked into the system; they meet their responsibilities; they do it honestly and they do it willingly because they accept the responsibilities of Australians right across this Commonwealth to make their contributions. But there are, unfortunately, a large number of people in Australia who not only did not meet their responsibilities and their obligations but also went to some remarkable lengths in order to avoid them. I refer to some of those artificial paper schemes-the artificial, the contrived, the blatant tax avoiders schemes. Mr Martin —The false bank accounts. Mr ROBERT BROWN —As the honourable member for Macarthur reminds me, the false bank accounts. Mr Hand —The big wins at the races. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Indeed, as the honourable member for Melbourne reminds me, the big wins at the races. Were not some of them remarkable punters? Sir Robert Askin from New South Wales was one of them. He went into the premiership of New South Wales with the bum out of his pants and finished up leaving with something in excess of $3m. He used to back the racehorses with bets of 50c and amassed over $3m as a result. Everyone now knows how that money was collected and why. I hope many Australians have read The Prince and the Premier. If they have, they will see how some people, indeed some people in high office, have been able to amass these sums. When the Government tries to ensure that these financial transactions will be recorded, as this legislation provides, what response do we get from the Opposition? Mr Lee —A committee! Mr ROBERT BROWN —I congratulate the honourable member for Dobell. He made a great contribution. He is one of the youngest members of this Parliament. He has more conscience, more concern, more committment and dedication in his little finger than all the members of the Opposition have between them. That is why he received and is continuing to amass overwhelming support on the Central Coast. I was proud of the fact that when the new electorates were created, the honourable member for Dobell took over part of my former electorate and he has represented it and the people of it with great credit to him. If those constituents of the honourable member for Dobell had had the great opportunity to hear his contribution to this debate made earlier today, they would have said: `He is our member and we are proud of him'. The Government is proud of him. The honourable member for Dobell is going to be in this place for a long time, as I have told him and as I have told his constituents. I said that under the Fraser Government those tax evaders and tax avoiders were ripping off the national treasury to the extent of $7,000m each year. Mr Hand —How much? Mr ROBERT BROWN —It was $7,000m each year. I know the honourable member for Melbourne was aware of that but it still surprises us. Why should it not surprise us when in order to make up that amount, every family in Australia had to pay in taxation an additional $30 every week. I repeat that every family had to pay an extra $30 a week to make up that amount. Let me make this perfectly clear to those people who may have this legislation misrepresented to them: The Government is not concerned about someone who produces a few extra eggs in the chook yard out the back and sells them over the side fence. The Government is not concerned about someone who happens to have a hobby or a pastime and is able to sell his products. The Government is not concerned about that aspect of the cash economy. Those people are the fair dinkum Australians; they are the people who have been carrying the burden for too long. If they can sell a few eggs or something else that they may make as a hobby and make a few dollars, no one will be particularly concerned about that. The Government is concerned about the big operators-the sharks. That is why a limit to the amounts of money to be registered has been set. I am referring to amounts of money moving around in excess of $10,000 or, if foreign transactions are involved, $5,000. Mr Humphreys —The bag men. Mr ROBERT BROWN —As the honourable member for Griffith, the Government Whip, reminds me, the bag men-those people who were collecting that money for the Robert Askins of the country. Mr Martin —What about Queensland? Mr ROBERT BROWN —There have been plenty of examples of some of those abuses in Queensland. During the adjournment debate I have taken advantage of the opportunity to itemise in detail about 32 separate examples of some quite strange and terrifying abuses that have taken place in Queensland. I hope the people have taken the opportunity to read the Hansard. I hope that all of those people in Queensland who have access to the Hansard have checked through the adjournment debate over the last few weeks to see some of the things to which I have drawn attention. They will be horrified. It has been estimated that the cash economy represents over 10 per cent of the legitimate economy. The annual total gross domestic product in Australia would be something in excess of $250,000m a year. If 10 per cent of that amount is taken, it means that the cash economy in Australia represents about $25,000m every year. Why should we not try to trace that money? What is so reprehensible about this Government attempting to get into that money, to get it lifted out of the system and to make sure everything operates honestly, that people put their transactions and their affairs on top of the table and not underneath the table or, as the honourable member for Griffith said, in the brown paper bag when the bag men go around to pick up the loot. The shadow Minister, the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer), who is at the table, should be ashamed of himself for supporting the amendment that has been moved, as should the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron), who said that this legislation should be referred to a committee to get the warts out of it. I tell honourable members that we need to get the warts out of this society. Get the warts out of this legislation indeed! Refer the legislation to a select committee of both Houses to report to Parliament as soon as possible-to report to Parliament on what? To advise the Parliament and the nation of the extent to which they have been ripped off? This legislation should have been introduced years, even decades, ago. If the Labor Party had been in government for a greater period since Federation, it would have been. Do not let members of the Opposition come into this place and suggest that this legislation should be frustrated and that the intention and the will of the Australian people should be impeded by referring it to a select committee. A select committee indeed! The committee to which this legislation should be referred is the committee of the Australian nation-all of those people in the community who want this legislation to go through. The honourable member for Moreton, who spoke before me, referred to it as a mine field. It is a mine field indeed because we are going to blow them right out of the water. I refer to those people who have been laundering funds; the people who have been involved in organised crime; the people who have been involved in drug trafficking; the people who have been involved in prostitution; the people who have been involved in gambling; the people who would corrupt the nation and the people of the nation, and in the process of doing that, corrupt themselves. Let this Government serve notice on those people that it represents honest Australia and honest Australia supports it. On 11 July, honest Australians will return this Government because they know that despite whatever deficiencies there may be-and, undoubtedly, all governments have some deficiencies-this is a government of integrity; it will stand high. Members of the Government go out into the community; we face the people, and the people know that they can trust us. After 11 July, they will re-endorse the Government and will confirm that great decision they have made on two previous occasions. Not only that, they will give the Labor Party a majority in the Senate so that it can clean up this nation and get rid of all the crooks and all the rorters. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(5.40) —It gives me great pleasure to speak on the Cash Transaction Reports Bill 1987. I did not expect to have the opportunity to do so. There is no doubt that people in my electorate would be very disappointed if they did not hear me speak on this Bill. It represents a very important part of this Government's legislation. Let me just look at what the Bill is proposing to do. Firstly, it requires the reporting to the Cash Transaction Reports Agency of certain domestic currency transactions in excess of $10,000. The Agency is estimated to cost us $2m a year. But, in effect, we will get a profit of $28m from the results of the work of this agency. The Australian Taxation Office estimates that we will gain $30m each year for-- Mr Robert Brown —To pay for education, health and welfare. Mr MILTON —Yes, to pay for health, education, welfare, including increases in pensions. These are the sorts of things that the Opposition has been blocking continually in this place. Secondly, it requires the reporting to that Agency of certain currency transfers to and from Australia in excess of $5,000. Thirdly, it provides for the establishment of the Agency which will collect, retain, compile, analyse and disseminate information relating to cash transaction reports. Fourthly, it imposes obligations on financial institutions in relation to the verification of the identity of persons seeking to open accounts with financial institutions. A very important amendment will be moved by the Government. I will not go into this matter at the moment because I know that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) will refer to it. In my electorate a large number of people move in and out-some 15,000 over the past 2 1/2 years. I have, in fact, got another 6,000 new electors all of whom I know are very concerned about how criminals have been able to evade the normal taxation processes in this country. All of those people have been required to pay their taxes in the proper way. It is absolutely appalling that criminals have been able to get away with the proceeds of crime by laundering money through the dens of iniquity referred to by the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown). I also noted that the honourable member for Charlton referred to the $7,000m which is used each year by these people who avoid and evade paying their taxes. This Government has a very good record in this area. One of the reasons why we have had to call an early election is that the Opposition in this House and particularly in the Senate is constantly blocking and trying to amend our legislation. In these circumstances we had no alternative other than to call an early election. Mr Hollis —Let the people decide. Mr MILTON —Yes, as my friend the honourable member for Throsby said, it is up to the people to decide these matters-and they will decide at the election on 11 July. After the election we will find even more people on this side of House. When one is considering cash transactions one has to look at the wealth in this country. When I am returned to this House with an increased majority I will be pressing for a wealth inquiry. I will attempt to push this matter through Caucus. I have every belief that the Government, when it is returned, will be able to take up this matter. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(5.45) —I thank honourable members for their contributions. The difficulty we face at present is that the Opposition has moved an amendment to have the Cash Transaction Reports Bill 1987 referred to a select committee of both Houses and that it report to the Parliament as soon as possible. That would kill this Bill. It is very clear that if we pass this Bill it will go to the Senate this evening, and if passed there for the first time we will have legislation that requires people to report when substantial sums of money in cash, namely $10,000 or more, are moved. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) was very concerned not so much with that aspect-in fact, the Opposition supports the reporting of transactions-but about the fact that the Bill had not been dealt with by what he called the Business Review Unit. If we were to look at it from the business point of view-bear in mind that we are also looking at it from the point of view of criminal action-the argument seems to be that the banks feel that it will be expensive for them not to report cash transactions but to verify accounts. If that is the case that is an extraordinary admission of weakness by the banks. Surely they have an obligation to verify the name of a person wishing to open a bank account. If we do not have this proposed system, which apparently the banks feel is difficult for them to administer, we will not really have an effective verification system at all. I remind honourable members that the banks themselves, to the present, have not made any complaint about having to report cash transactions. The concern they have expressed relates to verification provisions. That is what this debate is all about. It has nothing to do with referring the Bill to a select committee-nothing at all. For the life of me I cannot understand why the Opposition wants to move an amendment enabling the Bill to be sent to a select committee of the Parliament. To do what? Is it to work out why the banks are finding it so difficult and expensive to verify bank accounts? I think we have to make it very clear when talking about verification-and it is very simple-that if we had a prescribed identification number as proposed on the Australia Card, we would not have any trouble. But, of course, the Opposition opposed the Australia Card. So verification has to be by some other mechanism. Banks have their own mechanisms of verification. A verification mechanism might be a tax file number. It is not very difficult to take down a tax file number. The only other form of verification could be the production of a passport or a birth certificate. If they cannot be obtained, a citizenship certificate or some other identification which, in the opinion of the financial institutions, would sufficiently establish the person's identity would be acceptable. Where is the cost in that? I just cannot imagine. When a person opens a bank account all they will be asked to do is prove who they are. The banks do that now under their voluntary code. We have this specious argument that has gone on all day that we should not be passing this legislation because it is a little too difficult for the banks. I make the point again: They have a voluntary code which they definitely adhere to. The code includes `appropriate identification of customers opening accounts'. It includes references to many of the criteria listed in clause 17 of our Bill, such as a passport. I do not know why, for the life of me, we have this amendment which is designed to kill the Bill. Opposition members must be running away from the issue. I only have a few minutes left to speak as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) wishes to make a speech. The argument was made that it was not successful in the United States of America. I have the appropriate Treasury officials in the United States who are dealing with similar legislation. They say that it is one of the most valuable methods of crime detection, apart from revenue gathering, that they have got. As it turns out one gentleman's name is Keating but he is not related to our Mr Keating. Mr Downer —He probably puts in his tax returns. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —At least he is catching up with those who avoid and evade tax. Mr Downer —Catching up? But he has not caught up. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —He had to catch up with a lot of supporters of the Opposition-let me make it very clear. That is what we are dealing with now. We have been trying to get this matter before the Parliament since about 1985. It has been the financial institutions, encouraged by Opposition members, which have been saying that we have a lot of problems here. So we are accused of delay because of this difficulty. I make this point: When we were investigating the matter in the United States we were told that massive amounts of cash were moved around. Because those transactions have to be reported, there have been substantial tax revenue benefits. This measure will net at least $30m in tax, with an administrative cost of about $1.5m. We cannot possibly lose on the matter. I think we will get a substantial amount of money in tax. The only argument left is an argument that the American banks are opposed to the measure. They might be opposed to it; they have been fined substantial amounts. In many cases they have been fined half a million dollars or more than a million dollars for failing to comply. In 1986 the organisation administering the measure in the United States-that is, the Treasury-seized $280m. It also got substantial sums of money-for example, $117m-in recovered tax. The matter was discussed with one of the officials there who deals with narcotics cases and who talked about the benefits of cash transaction reporting. He stated: The reporting of cash transactions has been of the utmost benefit to Federal investigators. The gentleman gave a number of examples. The system revealed that the Federal Reserve Bank of Miami had a surplus of approximately $5.6 billion in cash. He continued: Other investigations dependent on cash reporting systems disclosed that one operation netted $8.4m in one day. Three other investigations in November 1985 resulted in the seizure of $21m for the United States. I say to the gentleman, whoever he is, who sent me a telex stating that the American banks were opposed to the measure because they did not think it was very beneficial that he ought to talk to the officials with whom I spoke. In one case an investigation showed that in a four month period a person had made approximately 40 deposits, totalling in excess of $15m. The bank was given wire instructions. All the money was wired out to 87 different people. The wire transfer instructions disclosed that the money was destined for the Panamanian banks through their New York and Miami correspondent banks. In other words, it was directly related to crime and other matters. In another case an amount in excess of $4m in drug profits was laundered through a maze of Panamanian and domestic corporations. We have here the extraordinary situation that there is a tool that we can use. I say, for the benefit of the gentleman who sent me the telex which stated that this provision would not be beneficial, that on 19 March 1986 the United States Attorney in San Diego announced an indictment against nine individuals, including an 80-year-old grandmother, in connection with the laundering of in excess of $36m. The more than 100 count indictment related to cash transactions flowing from criminal activity. I do not want to delay the House. There are other matters that we must consider. I thank honourable members for their contributions. I thank the honourable member for North Sydney for acknowledging that this is an effective piece of legislation. The only disagreement we have is that he has moved an amendment to the motion for the second reading that will kill it. I do not think he really intends to persevere with it. We reject the amendment. On a personal note I thank him for his remarks about me. The only thing I disagree with is that he said that after 11 July he would be sitting on the Government side of the House and I would be sitting on the Opposition side of the House. I very much doubt that. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(5.54) —I move: Clause 24, page 24, lines 9 to 15, omit subclause (3), insert the following subclause: ``(3) A police officer, or a customs officer included in a class of officers in respect of which a declaration under section 196 of the Customs Act 1901 is in force, may, with such assistance as is reasonable and necessary: (a) examine and search any article which a person who is about to leave Australia or who arrives in Australia has with him or her; and (b) if the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that there is, on a person or in the clothing that is being worn by a person who is about to leave Australia or who arrives in Australia, currency in respect of which a report under section 13 is required-search the person; for the purpose of ascertaining whether the person has with him or her any currency in respect of which a report under section 13 is required.''. The amendment, which has been circulated, is in respect of clause 24. This Bill was scrutinised by the appropriate Senate committee, which raised the issue that there should be an opportunity for a police officer or a Customs officer to examine and search any article which a person has about him, especially if he is about to leave Australia, if that officer has reasonable grounds for believing that there is on the person, or in the clothing worn by the person, currency in respect of which a report under clause 13 is required for the purpose of ascertaining whether the person has with him, or her, any such currency. This amendment strengthens the provisions so that if there is a search of a person, or of an article that the person is carrying, the officer concerned is obliged to have reasonable grounds for making that search. The Government finds no difficulty with that suggestion. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(5.56) —The Opposition accepts the amendment. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(5.57) —I indicate the support of Government members generally for this amendment which has been moved on behalf of the Government by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). As the Attorney-General said, the purpose of the amendment is to provide that a police officer or a Customs officer included in a class of officers in respect of which a declaration under section 196 of the Customs Act 1901 is in force, may, with such assistance as is reasonable and necessary, do a number of things. They are, of course, identified in the amendment that has been moved by the Attorney-General. The Attorney- General has expressed the wording and the purposes of the amendment. I believe it is most appropriate to make those provisions as far as the legislation is concerned. Amendment agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-read a third time. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I move: That the House, at its rising, adjourn until a date and an hour to be fixed by the Speaker, or, in the event of the Speaker being unavailable, by the Chairman of Committees, which time of meeting shall be notified to each member by telegram or letter. At the closing of this House, honourable members will disperse throughout the country, most to contest an election which I think can be fairly described as a watershed in the life of our nation. I say, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) will appreciate, without any hint of partisanship, that in pondering their individual electorate decisions, the Australian people will be able to choose between clear alternatives. They will have clear alternatives as to leaders, policies, style and ideology. I am sure that we all, whatever our very profound differences, trust to the collective wisdom of the Australian people in making their choice. Before those of us who seek to continue to serve the people in a parliamentary capacity become completely immersed in the tumult of the election campaign, I believe that it is appropriate in these closing moments of the Thirty-fourth Parliament to make a number of comments. Madam Speaker, your own elevation to the high office that you now hold was certainly one of the most noteworthy features of this Parliament. As I observed when this House elected you as its Presiding Officer, it was both a great personal achievement and, in your being the first woman to be so elected, it was by any standards highly symbolic. I do not want to refer to what we on this side of the House regard as the more important of our achievements. I simply content myself by say that as a government we look back with pride upon a great number of quite remarkable achievements. Much of the time of this Parliament has been taken up in considering matters essential to the government of the nation. In all, this House sat for 184 days during which time it passed some 550 Bills. I hesitate to hazard a guess as to how many papers have been tabled, questions asked, insults traded in the heat of debate and ambitions thwarted. I believe it is important to note that among us this evening there are some who will not be returning to this place. To the many on the other side of the House who will be involuntarily retired at the request of the people I say with all the graciousness that I can summon that I wish them well in their post-parliamentary careers. On our side of the House, Ralph Jacobi is not seeking re-election to the seat of Hawker. Ralph has represented the people of this seat in South Australia since 1969. He has served on the Standing Committee on Privileges, the Library Committee of this House and the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. Len Keogh from this side of the House was not successful in retaining party pre- selection, which is obviously a considerable disappointment to Len and one of the hazards that all politicians face. I record that Len has represented the electorate of Bowman for two separate periods-from 1969 to 1975 and again from 1983. He chaired the House Standing Committee on Procedure and has been Deputy Chairman of Committees from February 1984. From the other side of the House, Peter Drummond also was not successful in retaining his Party's preselection for the seat of Forrest in Western Australia. Peter has held that seat since 1972 and, as well as holding the position of Deputy Chairman of Committees, he has served on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, a number of select committees and the Public Works Committee. Peter Coleman is retiring after representing the seat of Wentworth in New South Wales since 1981. He was a former Minister in a New South Wales State Government and was then Leader of the New South Wales Opposition. In this place he has served on the Standing Committee on Publications and the Joint Standing Committee on the Australian Capital Territory and the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. Paul Everingham entered this House as the member for the Northern Territory following the 1984 election, having been Chief Minister of the Northern Territory for the preceding six years. He served in this place on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. To all of those members, each of whom has made a considerable and greatly appreciated contribution to this House, I express our thanks for their services to the Parliament and extend to each and every one of them our best wishes for their future. I also pay tribute to two members on this side of the House who will be returning after the election but who have indicated that they will not be standing for the ministry again. I refer to the father of the House, the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren), and to the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes). Tom Uren, who, as I said, is the father of the House, entered this chamber in 1958, which seems like a thousand years ago. Fortunately, this is not a farewell to him as we will all continue to benefit from his counsel and company. However, I express my thanks for his great contribution to both my ministry and the Whitlam ministry. Tom Uren is a man who cares very deeply about people and issues. In the sector of public affairs where these two things come so close together in local government, his contribution by any standard has been absolutely outstanding. I have found that wherever I have gone around this country, irrespective of the political complexion of the leaders of local government and whatever their own politics, there is absolute unanimity about the outstanding contribution that has been made by Tom Uren. I pay very great tribute to him. I think I can say without the possibility of any contradiction that Tom Uren is admired and respected on both sides of the House. Gordon Scholes also will not be standing for the ministry and, again, we are glad that he will be rejoining the Government benches after the election. Gordon has served the Parliament with dedication as Speaker, as you know Madam Speaker. Indeed he did it in the most difficult period of this Parliament's history. In more recent times he has been a valued ministerial colleague in two portfolios. In passing, I point out that the decisions by Mr Uren and Mr Scholes emphasise a remarkable fact about this Government, and that is its stability, which is unmatched by any other government in Australian history. With the exception of one retirement from political life, this team has served together since March 1983. I have talked about the people who will not be with us and people who will be here in different capacities. It is true, as we all know, that many people contribute to the smooth working of this House. Madam Speaker, I know that your own role in conducting proceedings is critical and often thankless. I believe without question that you have justified the trust of the House in electing you as its Speaker. You have been most ably assisted by the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay), in his capacity as your deputy and as Chairman of Committees; and you have also been well served, as we have, by those members who serve as Deputy Chairman of Committees. I also pay tribute to the officers of this House in their untiring labours to impose some sense of order into what could so easily descend into chaos but which, because of their efforts, never quite does. On behalf of us all, Madam Speaker, I express gratitude to the Clerk of the House, the Deputy Clerk, the Serjeant-at-Arms, other parliamentary officers, the table office and the attendants. The Principal Parliamentary Reporter and the Hansard staff have maintained throughout the life of this Parliament their traditional high standards and have preserved for history all that has been said here. The Parliamentary Librarian and the staff of the library have provided an invaluable service to all honourable members, meeting all manner of requests courteously and efficiently. The Secretary of the Joint House Department and his staff attend to the basic needs of members-accommodation, food and the like. We greatly appreciate the work of all staff involved in the provision of these services on which we all rely so much for both our well-being and our comfort. Of course, last in this respect but by no means least is John May and his team who work out the complexities of transporting members to and from this place. They deserve a special mention and also our unqualified thanks. Public interest in the proceedings of this House tends to focus on the conflicts and divisions which occasionally take place-that is only natural. Those of us involved in its proceedings know only too well that the conduct of business in the House is based on a considerable degree of co-operation and indulgence on all our parts. For this we must thank the Leader of the House (Mr Young), his counterparts in the Opposition parties, Mr Spender and Mr Sinclair, and our respective party whips and their staffs. Our thanks go to each and every one of them. As we know, they are ably assisted by our Parliamentary Liaison Officer, Mr John Engledow. I wish also to mention the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, which turns decisions of government into legislation. I know that, again, I speak for all honourable members when I convey our thanks to those key behind-the-scenes players. Finally, we have our ever vigilant friends in the Federal Parliamentary Press Gallery, who closely attend all the weighty deliberations of the House. They observe the goings on of honourable members not only on the floor of the House, but in every nook and cranny thereof. They seem to identify, with unerring accuracy, those who are less Trappist-like in their manner. Then, they string it all together and report it all to our ultimate masters, the people of Australia. Of course, we all agree that an informed electorate is the lifeblood of democracy. With perhaps varying degrees of emphasis and direction, our thanks go to the members of the Press Gallery for keeping the circulation going. Again in the same vein, I extend our thanks to the broadcasting team of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The Thirty-fifth Parliament will have new challenges to meet, new issues to which to respond, as our country embarks upon the third century of European settlement. Of course, and exceedingly importantly, the Parliament will also move into a new building, which, of itself, will bring its own challenges. It would not be direct of me if I did not say-and I guess that the Leader of the Opposition might put this a little differently in a moment-that I look forward with great confidence to receiving a renewed mandate from the Australian people on 11 July and to leading the Third Hawke Government, a highly competent and talented team, into the next period of our great country's political life. With the Parliament dissolved, we will all shortly embark upon an election campaign. Finally, therefore, may I say in a true bipartisan spirit that I wish all members of this House well. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —I wish to join the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in saying a few words as the Thirty-fourth Parliament of Australia draws to a close. I first wish to direct some remarks to three of my Liberal Party colleagues-Peter Drummond, Paul Everingham and Peter Coleman-all of whom will not be returning as a result of retirement or the processes of party preselection. Each in his own way has made a special contribution; all of them are respected and well liked. I first knew Peter Coleman because he was a State member in half of my Federal electorate when he was in the New South Wales Parliament. After his defeat in the 1978 election he was for a period Administrator of Norfolk Island. He then entered this Parliament as federal member for Wentworth in 1981. Peter Drummond was elected in 1972, defeating the Australian Labor Party member who, in the eyes of many, freakishly held the seat of Forrest between 1969 and 1972, having defeated Gordon Freeth. Peter brought to the Parliament a particular understanding of primary production. He has been an assiduous electorate worker. He is liked and respected, and all members of the Liberal Party-and, I know all members of the National Party of Australia-will wish Peter, Lachie, and their family very well. Some of us, I hope, will continue to receive invitations to stay at their beautiful property near the Stirling Ranges in Western Australia. Paul Everingham established his national political reputation in no uncertain terms as the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. After a period in Parliament he has chosen to resume private legal practice in Brisbane. He is a very gutsy person and one who, whatever he does, will make his mark in no uncertain fashion. On behalf of all members of the Liberal and National parties, I want to say how much we respect and will miss Ralph Jacobi. He is one of those people that parliaments throw up who, whatever their politics, by their integrity and basic decency draw enormous respect from both sides of Parliament. Ralph was a member of parliament when I came here in 1974. He was one of the people to whom I took an instant liking, and I have retained it. He has never lost his enthusiasm for issues. He has had his fair share of difficulty and illness, and I speak very feelingly on behalf of people on the Opposition side in wishing Ralph the very best in his well earned retirement. Len Keogh has suffered the vicissitudes of the factional politics of the Labor Party. However, in a moment of such transient bipartisanship, I will not dwell heavily on that. I wish Len very great happiness and contentment in whatever walk of life he now chooses. I wish briefly to endorse the comments of the Prime Minister about Tom Uren. Although Tom is not retiring from Parliament, he is retiring from the Ministry. He is the father of the House and, after the election, he will be the sole survivor in this Parliament of a very special brand of Australian brothers-those who went into captivity with the 8th Division in Changi in World War II. The other survivor of that band of brothers, my friend and colleague Sir John Carrick, is retiring as a result of the double dissolution. Tom Uren is someone whose philosophical views on most issues would be somewhat removed from mine. However, we all like and respect him. He represents a particular tradition in the Australian Labor Party-a tradition with which we may not always agree, but one that has a candour and honesty that we can respect. We like Tom as a man and we look forward to his contributions to debate and to our proceedings as time goes by. The most important thing for us all, as we do valedictories on the eve of a Federal election, is to say to ourselves that, whatever may be our partisan political beliefs, we are among a precious and dwindling few countries in the world that practice the traditions of liberal democracy and have a proper parliamentary tradition. I think that is very important. In our own region recently, we have been reminded of how flimsy the parliamentary democratic process really is. All of us, despite our partisan gusto, would do well not to do that institution too much violence and injustice over the coming weeks-but enough of that. Madam Speaker, I wish to say to you that it has been something of a highlight of the Thirty-fourth Parliament that, for the first time in Australian history, we have had a lady Speaker. We have had the odd difference of interpretation. I dare say that on occasions I have tried your patience. On occasions I may even have erred on the side of stretching it a bit too far. However, it is nice to have a lady Speaker. You are a very nice person. We wish you well in your role. Of course, the Speaker holds a non-political position; so I will not drag politics into this. Madam SPEAKER —Are you going to put me back again if you win? Mr HOWARD —Madam, your unfailing courtesy restrains me from saying more, but we do wish you well. I join the Prime Minister in thanking the Clerks of the House, Hansard, the attendants, the parliamentary broadcasters-- Mr White —The cooks. Mr HOWARD —Indeed, I thank the cooks. I thank everybody who makes this boarding school, as many choose to call it, keep going. It will be different in that new and larger building. In some respects, I am not sure that some of the cosiness of this place will not be lost and I am not sure that that is a good thing. But that is a decision that has passed us by. Of my own colleagues, I particularly thank the honourable member for Indi (Mr Ewen Cameron) and the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) who have been the Opposition Whip and Deputy Whip since September 1985. I thank my colleague and Leader of the National Party of Australia, Mr Ian Sinclair, not only for his general assistance, advice and counsel, but also for his political partnership. I also thank the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) who has been the Manager of Opposition Business. Finally, we will be embarking upon a very vigorous political enterprise. I cannot and will not in the spirit of partisan conflict wish the return-and I do not expect it to occur-of all those who sit opposite. At least this week we have resolved that one person will not be coming to the Federal Parliament. But there are many more arrayed in front of me who will not be coming back. Where is Helen? She appears to have gone already. But, in the spirit of the Prime Minister, I do convey personal good wishes to everybody. We on this side of the House look forward with enormous enthusiasm and relish to the convening of the Thirty-fifth Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, which will number within its ranks Australia's twenty-fourth Prime Minister. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —In this, the fading hours of the Thirty-fourth Parliament, I would like to join the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) in their valedictory remarks. This place is an extraordinary forum. I suspect that on occasions most of us are cynical about the attitudes and views not only of those on the opposite side of the House but also within our own ranks. But, above all, it is a place where we suffer a uniqueness which those who do not serve or have not served in the parliaments of the Commonwealth, either at a Federal or State level, really cannot quite comprehend. It is a separateness from the community which often worries me. It is a product of our isolation or semi-isolation in Canberra. Yet it is a necessary role which all those who serve this House and who have made this, the Thirty-fourth Parliament, work effectively, all appreciate. I would like to join in referring, first, to those who are leaving this House voluntarily-Peter Drummond, Peter Coleman, and Paul Everingham from this side of the House; Ralph Jacobi and Len Keogh from the other side of the House- although Len Keogh with perhaps not quite the same measure of intentional direction as the others. I would like to say to them how in their several ways I have admired and respected their parliamentary contributions. Peter Drummond is one of those who, having originated in New South Wales, saw the light and went west as a young man. He and Lachie have made a significant contribution in their State as farmers. But Peter has been a tremendous contributor, particularly in the formulation of primary industry policy, on the coalition side of the House. To Peter, whom I have known very well for so many years, I would like to say: `Good luck to you and Lachie in your future life'. I say good luck to Peter Coleman, who is a great colleague and a great friend, and also to Paul Everingham who, as both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have said, made such a notable contribution as Chief Minister of the Northern Territory in those early days when the heady wine of self-government first gave to that part of Australia some of the opportunities that the rest of us have enjoyed for so long. I would also like to make some reference to those who are leaving the Senate. Three who come particularly to my mind are Senator Sir John Carrick, of whom the Leader of the Opposition made mention, Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle and the Rt Hon. Reg Withers. I have worked with all three in successive governments. They are all persons of significant capability. While on occasions perhaps some may have achieved a certain amount of notoriety-I guess `the toecutter' more than others-each has been a very remarkable contributor in the Senate and to the processes of parliamentary democracy in Australia. I say to them and to the others who are also retiring from the Senate at this time that I wish them well on behalf of the members of the National Party. To you, Madam Speaker, and to your deputies I, on behalf of the members of my Party, would like to extend our thanks and say to you, as did the Leader of the Opposition, that, while there have been occasions when we have not always agreed, it is an unenviable task that you, your deputies and those who assist you have to perform. I doubt that there is a more lonely place in the Parliament than sitting in that chair. I know that those of us who sit down here and who are the protagonists of this adversarial atmosphere certainly tend to make it very difficult at times for you to pass judgment in a dispassionate way. I confess that on occasions I know that I have also tested the patience of the Clerks but I compliment them for the manner, expertise and professionalism with which they undertake their task. They, perhaps more than any of us, are the great inheritors of tradition. Madam Speaker, the one thing that I have regretted as far as you are concerned is that you do not wear a gown or show any signs of those traditions that are important and which, of course, the Clerks still affect. I regard that as an important part of Parliament and I am thankful that at least the Clerks retain it. The Hansard writers add to both the elegance and the efficiency of this place and we are certainly extraordinarily fortunate that our Hansard maintains such a high standard of recording. Within the Parliament there are a number of people who certainly make a greater contribution than others. On occasions the Leader of the House (Mr Young) has crossed swords with me. He has amazed me because he has been able to perform quite well for two parliaments. I rather thought that, with his Irish humour, he would have failed on more occasions than he has. He and Fred Daly have been unique in the way in which they have been able to respond in a light-hearted jocular manner but still have a barb hidden within the words they use, and be able to evoke peals of laughter so frequently. The Leader of the House has a touch of humour. I cannot say that I have always appreciated it, but I know that he will go back home and at times regret that he is not still practising that former art in the woolsheds around Australia. I think we would have had more fun with him there than here in the House. But I compliment him on the way in which he has performed his task and I wish him well. The Parliamentary Liaison Officer, John Engledow, is another of those people whose task we all have to look at in a slightly different way. John has done his task well and efficiently and I compliment him for it. The other parliamentary members whom we should not forget are the Whips on both sides. To the honourable member for Riverina-Darling (Mr Hicks), the National Party Whip in particular, but to all the Whips, I say thank you for the job that they each have done. Theirs is a strange role and I know that it is one which at times is difficult when their judgments do not necessarily meet with our behest, particularly when we seek leave from the House. But I compliment the five Whips from both the Government and the Opposition side for the way in which they have made sure that this place operates efficiently. There are others who I would like to thank, all of whom have been mentioned, but I will briefly run through them. We all feel the same thanks to the parliamentary dining room staff, Carol and Jan and those who serve us at our tables, those who help in the bar and those who make the place tick, particularly the chefs. I thank the attendants who ensure that so many of our needs are attended to. I also thank the security staff and the police who I must confess, when I see them standing out there in the cold on these winter mornings, probably have the worst jobs in this place. I thank the cleaners, the Joint House Department staff and the staff of the Parliamentary Library. I think all of us, on both sides of the House, are extraordinarily fortunate to have the talent that is available in the Library. They serve us all with a remarkable amount of material. I guess it was not until I had been in opposition that I realised the extent to which those facilities are an essential back-up in the preparation of members' material, and I thank them for the way in which they have undertaken their task. I thank the gardeners. One of the attractions of this Parliament House is the magnificant rose gardens around the building. I would like to say thanks, not only for the way they have maintained them but for the flowers that they give to so many of us. That is a very personal part of this place. It is a bit like home in some sense-although I must admit that there are elements of this place that most of us would want at home-but do make a great contribution. I also thank the the transport staff and John May and all of those who make our bookings and serve to ensure that the cars are nearly always available on time, and the drivers themselves. To all those within this place-the Australian Broadcasting Corporation team, the Parliamentary Press Gallery, the Serjeant-at-Arms, and all those others who have made this place so worth while-on behalf of the National Party I extend our particular thanks. There are two other groups that I want to mention. The first is our loyal and dedicated personal staff. I think few of us would be able to function without the contribution that they make. They are a unique bunch of people. They work extraordinary hours and most pursue their lot in a way that is quite remarkable. Perhaps that part of their task that we, as parliamentarians, all too often forget is the number of calls they need to answer from distressed and sometimes quite emotional constituents. They on many occasions are perhaps more significant in our electorates than we are ourselves, and they are a very important part of parliamentary democracy. To them, on behalf of us all, I say: Thanks for the job you do. The other group of people who have also been unsung but who certainly should never be forgotten are our families, our respective spouses and our children, who certainly suffer in so many ways more than most. One of the regrettable parts, to my mind, of the enormous exposure that the media gives us is that our children inevitably suffer from whatever publicity, good or bad, we might attract in our respective roles. I think many in the community, unfortunately, take advantage of that exposure. It is a fate that regrettably is a product of an open society. It is one which in some instances has led to essential protection having to be provided for them, as we learnt yesterday in regard to the motor vehicles of two members of this place. But it is sad because our children and our spouses certainly make an enormous contribution to the roles we play, and I would like to say thanks to them for the job they do. After the end of this Parliament there will, of course, be only two more occasions when, in the Thirty-fifth Parliament, we would expect to meet in this forum. Both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have mentioned that fact. However, as one who has been here a little longer than them, although not quite as long as the father of the House, the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, Tom Uren, about whom I spoke earlier, I think it will be hard to regain quite the same debating atmosphere that we can achieve in this chamber. I say to those who are finishing off the new chamber that I hope to goodness they achieve the acoustics that I am afraid in some parts of this chamber are missing. It is extraordinarily difficult to hear in parts of this chamber, but speaking here from either side from the dispatch boxes at the table, it is an excellent debating chamber, and one that I hope can at least be repeated in the quality of that forum in the new place. It is essential that Parliament be a place where we speak to each other and a forum where we can speak not just to the community at large but, on occasions, even to persuade those on the other side of the House that perhaps there is another point of view that they need to register and at times, perhaps, even to accept. So in that change I trust that the new Parliament House will enjoy something of the quality of this place. There are, of course, so many from the Government side who will not be returning after 11 July. I cannot say that I wish them well in the election, but whatever their future life might be, I trust that they at least are able to fulfil to the same measure the satisfaction that I think we all enjoy while we are members of the Parliament. This is an interesting occasion-a premature election in this winter of discontent. I think we shall all find, at the end of the recognition by the community at large, that that discontent will transport the Prime Minister to this side of the House, and in that translation, I assure him, we shall enjoy that side of the House even more. Madam SPEAKER —I would like to add a few words to the valedictories tonight. I thank the Prime Minister for his comments, and I thank the House for having conferred on me the great honour of being the Speaker of this House. I assure honourable members that I have enjoyed it enormously. I would also like to thank the right honourable member for New England, Mr Sinclair, for his comments. I think he commented that the office of Speaker was a lonely one, and sometimes that is true. But I am always comforted by the thought that the umpire is always wrong when my team loses. I recognise that that is what happens here, so I do not take it to heart a great deal. To the Leader of the Opposition, John Howard, perhaps I should say that if he thinks he has tried my patience in the last 15 months, so has the honourable member for North Sydney, so has the Prime Minister and so has the Treasurer, so you have a lot of things in common there. I am always mindful of the fact that there are 147 of you and only one of me, so I have to look after myself as there is no one else to look after me. In regard to the wearing of a gown, we had some discussion on this when I first became Speaker. Someone suggested that it would give me dignity. When I put my clothes on in the morning I do not put my dignity on with them; I always have it with me. I would like to join also in thanking the Clerks and the staff in the Department of the House of Representatives. I think they serve us tremendously and with great professionalism. I would like also to thank Hansard and the Department of the Parliamentary Library and the Joint House Department. I would particularly like to thank the caterers, who work in the most appalling conditions preparing the food. How they get it to us the way they do and serve it as well as they do, I do not know. I think they need a medal for that. I also thank the printers downstairs, who I think are fantastic-a special `thank you' for everything that we take to them that we wanted yesterday. I thank the Deputy Speaker, the honourable member for Grayndler, Mr Leo McLeay. He has been a great stalwart in more ways than in the House. I thank the deputies for their loyalty and support, and I thank my own staff, without whom I would not manage. Having said all that, I would now like to say something a bit more serious. It appears to me that there is a steadily declining level of public respect for Parliament and for parliamentarians. I think we should all be concerned at this trend. Anything that lowers respect for the democratic parliamentary system leaves that system more vulnerable. Members, by their behaviour this session, have not shown the level of respect for the institution of parliament and for the Standing Orders that the House should require of them. If members, by their attitude, appear to lack respect for the institution of parliament and the Standing Orders, their attitude will be reflected in the community; and members should not be surprised by that. Parliamentary democracy cannot be taken for granted. It needs to be nurtured and it requires constant attention. If honourable members want proof of that, just look at Fiji. I suggest that we all give this matter considerable attention while the House is not sitting. If the House manages its affairs with appropriate dignity, the public perception of the Parliament will be enhanced. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —I would like to say that it has been a great privilege, as the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) has said, to have followed in the steps of Fred Daly, and I now celebrate breaking his record as Labor Leader of the House. We have had only two Labor Leaders of the House-he and I-and I have broken his record. It seems to me that one has to be of Irish descent to do the job. As we were the first ethnics, I think that is appropriate. Madam Speaker, I heard your words of advice about the conduct of Parliament. I suppose there have been different levels of conduct in the various parliaments, such as when Sir Robert Menzies, Harold Holt, Eric Harrison and all those fellows were running the state. They might have had quieter parliaments. Our level of appreciation in the public has never varied. We have always been just between second hand car dealers and starting price bookies. Irrespective of how we conduct ourselves in here, we never seem to go up the scale of popularity. I think it is fair to say at the end of this Parliament that we should warn the public, the people of Australia, that a couple of thousand mad people will be running around Australia with grins on their faces for the next six weeks. They had better keep their hands in their pockets, otherwise we will shake the hand of everyone we see; hide their kids, because we will kiss all of them; and bring out their raffle tickets because we will buy all of them. If they happen to have a camera, they will get the biggest smile of all. So the next six weeks will be a rather exciting period. I would like to join with the earlier speakers in offering my thanks to everybody who has participated in the conduct of this Parliament. To the Opposition business leaders, Ian Sinclair, John Spender and to the Whips on the other side I say: `Thank you very much'. It is very true that a lot of the business of the Parliament is conducted by arrangements between the parties in a very sensible way. Sometimes it will get out of hand but, basically, the business is conducted with the acceptance of a fair go for both sides and that is the only way Parliament can really operate. I would like to thank them for it. I would also like to thank the people on our side-Benny and Barry, the Whip and the Deputy Whip and their staff-for carrying a very large part of the work load in keeping our troops in here. It is no good having the number we have elected unless they are here to put their hands up. The Whip has done a pretty good job for two and a half years. I do not think we have lost a vote. It went close a couple of times and changed a few airline bookings. Madam Speaker, you have had a most difficult task within the Parliament. The closer we get to an election the more difficult it becomes. Things are said in the Parliament and opportunities are taken to try to score political points and in the middle of sorting all this out is the Speaker. I think you have done the job very well. You have brought a certain respect to the Parliament and your word is listened to outside the Parliament. Many people comment on things you have to say as the Speaker of the House. I think overwhelmingly the people of Australia are very proud that a woman has, at last, been recognised for this top job in the national Parliament. I thank the Clerks for their advice. Again, the Parliament would not operate unless we could rely on the sound advice of the Clerks. They are there, sometimes at very short notice, to give us that sort of advice. Thank God John Spender was not a Clerk. I thank the Hansard reporters who make us look like such great statesmen. After we have looked at the `greens' we think: `By God, that was a better speech than I thought it was'. When the Hansard staff have rearranged it all and it looks pretty good and we send it out to our constituents they say: `He talks a lot different over there than he does back here in Port Adelaide'. I have been here for the same time as John Howard and a few others. We came in the 1974 election, so Hansard has had to do a fair bit of work on our speeches. After 1975 we did not have many on the Opposition side of the House. Paul Keating, I, Bill Hayden and Lionel Bowen, a few of us, used to make speeches every day. We just pulled one out of the drawer. But with 80 members it does not matter. That is the difference. I can understand why members opposite are going to work so hard to be in government. To those of us who served our first years in opposition, to relish the challenge of being in government and the excitement of the decision- making of government makes politics worth while. I thank all the other people concerned in the House-the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the catering staff. The chef must have a great liking for potato and leek soup. I was thinking that when we come to the end of this Parliament we will have had another thousand bowls each of potato and leek soup. The wife of the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) wrote a book on cooking in Canberra, did she not? Perhaps she could send it to the chef. Apart from everything else, he looks pretty fit. With those few words of thanks to everybody concerned in the Parliament I say, lastly, to John Engledow, the Parliamentary Liaison Officer because I forgot him last time-he is not here; that is not him in the leather coat-that he has done a terrific job. I do not know why the senior people in the Public Service such as John Engledow take those sorts of jobs. They say they like to have it on their curriculum vitae and they like to see the operations of Parliament. I think they have to be some sort of maniac to take these sorts of jobs and live amongst us when they really do not have to. He has been an excellent Parliamentary Liaison Officer for this Parliament for both sides of the House. We appreciate the work that he and his staff have done. The people sitting at the end of the National Party seats will have to shift a little after the next election. We will need a bit more room. Mr Braithwaite —We are going a bit to the left. Mr YOUNG —You are? Mr Braithwaite —Around that way. Mr YOUNG —Don't you worry about that! If you show one sign of going to the left, old Joh will be on you. I think it is a great shame that Joh is not coming. We could have enjoyed the comfort of some new rhetoric. That would have given Hansard something to do. I do not want those opposite to take seriously anything I say during the campaign. If I say there are an incompetent rabble, I will really mean if; if they see it in the papers, it is just part of the speeches we have to make; and if they see that I say the Liberals and National parties threaten the submarine contract in South Australia, it will just be part of the rhetoric for the Parliament. We wish them all the best, with limited success. We hope to see their smiling faces back, especially Roger. A great victory, Roger-the old John Elliott sitting out there in the board room! You have kept him there. He offered you heaps too. I am not sure that I would not have taken it. With those few words, we would like to express our appreciation to everybody who has helped in the running of the Thirty-fourth Parliament. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney) —Madam Speaker- Government members-Point of order! Mr SPENDER —On this occasion I do not rise to make a point of order; I rise to agree with what has been said and to say to you, Madam Speaker, that you have a most difficult job. This is rather like a bear pit, particularly during Question Time. I think there may have been the infrequent occasions when my points of order have stretched your patience a little far. Perhaps we can discuss points of order and parliamentary procedures on another occasion, in different circumstances when we come back here. To all those who are leaving the House now from the Government side I simply say that I wish them all the success that their record deserves and, in that event, we will be on that side of the House and they will be on this side. Mr BILNEY(Kingston) —While endorsing all the remarks about the various people who have helped us in this Parliament, I want to say a few words, on behalf of all South Australian members, about Ralph Jacobi, on his retirement. I am reminded by his very good friend, the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), to include him in those remarks as well. Ralph is my next door neighbour both electorally-our electorates are joined-and here in the Parliament. Mr Porter —No, he lives in South Australia. Madam SPEAKER —This is the time for sweet and light. Mr BILNEY —He has been an extremely good friend not just to me but particularly to me in the time I have been here. When I first went into Ralph's office I noticed there were two mottos framed on his wall. One was a telegram from Chris Schacht on the occasion of the 1980 election. Chris, who was then the Secretary of the South Australian Labor Party, shortly to be a senator in this place, sent him a telegram saying: `You are the candidate who took least notice of any advice that I gave on how to conduct your election campaign but, nevertheless, best of luck'. The second thing that was on Ralph's wall was a little framed motto which read: `Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable'. Those two things seemed to me to be motives of Ralph's life in politics. So far as the first motive is concerned, his independence within the Party, he was an extremely loyal and long serving member of the Labor Party but he was not one to be dragooned or to support questions without thinking. He had a very independent cast of mind. I am reminded of the line from Gilbert and Sullivan about the politician who became secretary of the Queen's Navee and who always voted at his party's call and never thought of voting for himself at all. Ralph was not that kind of politician. He was a man who worked things out for himself, who thought things out for himself and often very deeply and in a way that informed the minds of many others within his Party. He was not a member of any of what are called factions in our parliamentary Party. Indeed, he loathed and detested factionalism with a passion, and I am sure he still does-I hope he is listening to this. That was the first thing, Ralph's independence. The second motif of his life to which I referred was `Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable'. He was always a great electorate parliamentarian. He worked extremely hard on behalf of his constituents and put his talents and energies, which were considerable, at the disposal of ordinary people, pensioners, returned servicemen and women, in particular, but indeed anybody who came to see him. That loyalty to his constituents, his hard work on their behalf, was rewarded by their loyalty to him and particularly in a couple of tough elections, 1975 and 1977, when he was opposed by Steele Hall, whom I saw here earlier on. He survived those elections, which were very hard work for Labor members. In parliament, he had the highest standards of integrity, standards to which any parliamentarian would be proud to aspire. He pursued issues with doggedness, with energy, with conscientiousness, particularly companies legislation, insurance fraud and taxation reform. These were things that I am sure he was led to not by some sort of academic feeling about them but because harm had been done to his constituents by the depredations of companies, insurance companies that went broke and so forth, and he pursued them relentlessly in the interests of ordinary people who had been hurt by their operations. It was very much a case of `Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable'. Ralph had no enemies on a personal level in this place. He was what my Scottish ancestors would call a bonny fighter; he fought hard and he fought fair. He had many interests besides those I have named. One, in particular, is his great interest, his passionate interest, in foreign affairs. He is a scholar of an amateur kind in the Middle East, in Arabia, a great reader and somebody who made that part of a very full and varied parliamentary life. Personally, I will miss Ralph Jacobi more than most, not just because he sat next to me and not just because our electorates are next to each other. I will miss his wise advice and the friendship of a great parliamentarian. Ralph, as we all know, has not enjoyed good health in recent years but I am sure everybody in this place would join with me in wishing him a long and happy retirement. We are consoled in our Party only, I think, by the knowledge that he will be succeeded in his electorate of Hawker by a woman, Madam Speaker, as charming and personable as you-Elizabeth Harvey, the Australian Labor Party candidate for that seat. I conclude by saying, perhaps as Ralph would himself say, and I am addressing this directly to him, Madam Speaker: `Keep your head down, old son'. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) agreed to: That leave of absence be given to every member of the House of Representatives from the termination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 34, clause 21, proposed section 64, lines 1 to 23, leave out the proposed section. No. 2-Page 37, clause 21, proposed section 74, lines 33 and 34, leave out ``64 or''. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(6.55) —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. Without delaying the chamber, I point out that I have no alternative but to accept the amendments. We debated them fully during the second reading and Committee stages. The Senate disagrees with my view, which I think will mean that there will be some further discussion in the next parliament following High Court discussion and litigation. Section 64 as we had proposed it would have avoided some of the difficulties that might flow, particularly in respect of defective warrants. The Bill remains effective in the sense that we really intended-that is, illegal interceptions will no longer be able to be admitted into evidence and there will be proper procedures for State police and other authorities to intercept telecommunications in a manner that requires judicial warrants, assistance and supervision. To that extent, there will be some safety with the gathering of evidence in a proper manner, with protection of the privacy of people, who have an entitlement to privacy when using the telephone system. I accept the amendments that come to us from the Senate. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(6.58) —I do not intend to take up the time of the chamber either. Obviously we have very little time. We did propose that proposed section 64 be omitted and I believe it is an advantage that it has been omitted. That is a view that is shared by a number of organisations outside this House, such as the Law Council of Australia and the New South Wales Bar Association. If there are any problems, I think they must be dealt with as and when they arise, and I look forward to the co-operation of the present Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in the future if I, as Attorney-General, need to propose any changes to the legislation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment: Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill 1987 Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1987 Proceeds of Crime Bill 1987 Proceeds of Crime (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1987 House adjourned at 7 p.m. until a date and hour to be fixed by Madam Speaker or by the Chairman of Committees in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day. The following paper was deemed to have been presented on 4 June 1987: Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act-Order-1987-MS32/87-Corporation's Forms 4, 9 and 10: Meat. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 341) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: Are the ``see and be seen'' visual flight rules procedures being reviewed; if so, when will this review be completed and is it now over 2 years since this was first considered. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: ``See and avoid'' procedures for aircraft separation are already in use in some circumstances. There have been requests for these procedures to be introduced in primary control zones. However the relative responsibilities of pilots and air traffic control staff for avoiding collisions between aircraft needed to be clarified following court judgments arising out of a mid-air collision between two general aviation aircraft. The High Court recently considered the matter, and its ruling provides a basis for further discussion between interested parties with a view to extending ``see and avoid'' procedures to primary control zone. (Question No. 1010) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 13 May 1985: (1) When will the ``see and be seen'' separation standard be re-introduced. (2) Which countries use this procedure. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) See answer to question 341. (2) ``See and avoid'' procedures for aircraft separation are used in some countries, but so far as is known there is no commonly accepted standard governing such procedures. Collection of detailed information about particular circumstances in which individual countries employ the procedures would require considerable effort which is not considered warranted. (Question No. 4331) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: (1) Is the Minister able to say whether (a) natural gas is made available in Middle East countries, Indonesia, the U.K. and European countries as a fuel and raw material for steel, ceramic, chemical and fertilizer products which are imported into Australia and which flood many Australian markets and (b) natural gas for such purposes is sold at about one third of the price that domestic gas is sold for in those countries. (2) Is the Minister also able to say what is the price of natural gas supplied to manufacturing industry in Saudi Arabia, Qatar-Kuwait, Abu Dhabi, Indonesia, the U.K. and the Netherlands in circumstances where it is available as a by-product from oil production. (3) What is the price of natural gas supplied to State Government purchasing and distribution authorities from each of the producing oil and gas fields in Australia. (4) Is it a fact that natural gas is (a) available in Australia as cheap and attractive fuel, (b) less expensive than coal at the source and (c) less expensive than indigenous or imported oil or transported liquified natural gas. (5) If so, what would be the (a) cost of production and (b) price of additional quantities of natural gas at the producing sources necessary to stimulate new economic activities in Australia and provide benefits and employment in export industries that cannot be realised without cheap gas as a fuel or raw material comparably priced to gas in the Middle East, Indonesia, the U.K. and the Netherlands. (6) What are the presently uncommitted quantities of Bass Strait gas which could be available for industrial use and electricity generation in N.S.W. and S.A. where supplies from the Cooper Basin are limited and excessively priced when compared to Bass Strait prices applying to Victorian Government distribution authorities. (7) In view of the fact that (a) the delivered price of energy affects the performance of Australian manufacturing industry and the Australian mineral processing industry in competitive world markets and (b) electricity utilities such as those in South Australia (Torrens Island) and Victoria (Newport) rely on natural gas to generate electricity, will the Minister consider the desirability of the Commonwealth building interstate pipeline connections between Victoria, N.S.W. and S.A. to increase the sales volume of gas from Bass Strait, consequent upon a downward movement in gas prices, to reactivate the economy through lower electricity and gas supply tariffs. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a) and (b) No. (2) No. (3) and (4) What information the Government has on this matter is provided on the understanding it will be treated as Commercial-in-Confidence and it would therefore be inappropriate for me to discuss it. (5) (a) and (b) While the cost of production of natural gas from established fields is quite low, it is not practical to provide a representative estimate of the cost of bringing additional discoveries on stream. Similarly, the costs of the natural gas when delivered to the consumer will depend upon a number of factors, such as the cost of bringing the discovery on stream, the location of the discovery and its proximity to the existing natural gas pipeline distribution system. It is not possible therefore to generalise about the prospects for new economic activities based on natural gas. It is known however that State Governments and their authorities do pursue such opportunities actively whenever they arise. (6) and (7) The essential facts bearing on these matters were reviewed in a recent study commissioned by the Australian Minerals and Energy Council entitled ``Report of the Working Party on Natural Gas''. That report recognised that one of the options that will need to be considered is the interconnection of gas supply pipelines between the States. The need for, and timing of, any interconnections will depend upon a number of factors including developments in electricity planning related to the role of gas fired power generation and the greater integration of electricity supplies to the south east. It is not apparent that there is a need for such interconnections in the near future, nor is it clear that such interconnections could provide gas at such a cost as to achieve the result suggested in the question. (Question No. 4455) Mr Mildren asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 21 August 1986: What is the increase in real terms in petrol prices for each of the years 1975-76 to 1985-86. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Year (Quarter ending 30 June) Retail Premium Grade Petrol Price (a) Real Petrol Price (Base Year 1980-81) (b) Percentage Change in Real Petrol Price, Year-on-Year cents per litre cents per litre % 1975 ... 14.4 25.1 1976 ... 15.6 24.2 -3.5 1977 ... 16.2 22.2 -8.5 1978 ... 17.5 22.2 +0.2 1979 ... 24.0 28.0 +25.9 1980 ... 32.0 33.7 +20.4 1981 ... 37.1 35.9 +6.5 1982 ... 36.9 32.2 -10.2 1983 ... 41.2 32.4 +0.4 1984 ... 47.8 36.2 +11.7 1985 ... 53.6 38.0 +5.1 1986 ... 48.1 31.5 -17.2 (a) Source: ABS-prices are average price for the quarter ending 30 June. Data prior to the June quarter 1982 are expressed as a weighted average of prices for 6 capitals (excluding Darwin and Canberra). Data after the June quarter 1982 include 8 capitals. (b) Retail premium grade petrol prices adjusted by CPI for quarter ending 30 June (base year 1980-81 equals 1.00). Weighted averages same as (a) above. (Question No. 5014) Mr Hodges asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 17 February 1987: (1) What wordprocessing 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 repetitive 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 Minnister'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 Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) The Department of Primary Industry has, since 1982, purchased several Wang computers and a Control Data computer. (b) The Bureau of Agricultural Economics (BAE) has purchased a Natsemi (IBM compatible) computer and a Wang computer. (c) The various statutory authorities have acquired a range of equipment suitable to the tasks they perform. Major acquisitions included IBM, Prime, Wang and Hewlett Packard equipment. (2) (a) The Department purchased its Wang equipment to provide comprehensive word processing facilities as well as a basic data processing network to support administrative and operational functions in central and regional offices. The Control Data equipment was acquired to provide a scientific/analytical facility for the processing of fisheries logbooks and similar data. The Department anticipated that the computer systems would provide efficiencies in the preparation and processing of information as well as improving its timeliness and quality. The Control Data acquisition also anticipated savings in the nature of recurrent costs incurred through using CSIRONET services. (b) The BAE Natsemi acquisition was installed as part of an overall plan to offset increasing usage of CSIRONET charges as well as an opportunity for increasing the productivity of Bureau staff. The Wang equipment was acquired for word processing and integrated office functions to improve overall productivity in carrying out administrative tasks. (c) The statutory authorities acquired their equipment to support a broad range of administrative functions relating to their roles and objectives. Most rationales included both word and data processing. The latter concentrated on financial, accounting and administrative applications. Two of the larger authorities-The Australian Wool Corporation and The Australian Wheat Board-also use their equipment for marketing applications and to connect their regional offices via a computer/communications network. In most cases these acquisitions were sought to improve administrative efficiency and/or operational effectiveness. (3)- DPI ... 4,300,000 BAE ... 1,648,000 Honey Board ... nil Wine and Brandy Corporation ... 28,650 Apple and Pear Corporation ... 10,554 Dried Fruits Corporation ... 30,000 Dairy Corporation ... 591,122 Tobacco Board ... 8,773 Canned Fruits Corporation ... not available Meat and Livestock Corporation (approx.) ... 500,000 Wheat Board ... not available Wool Corporation ... 4,100,000 (4) The Department has purchased ergonomic furniture and other office equipment at an estimated cost of $200,000. The other organisations provided the following figures: BAE ... 54,000 Honey Board ... nil Wine and Brandy Corporation ... 1,000 Apple and Pear Corporation ... nil Dried Fruits Corporation ... 1,982 Dairy Corporation ... 6,996 Tobacco Board ... nil Canned Fruits Corporation ... no information available Meat and Livestock Corporation (approx.) ... no information available Wheat Board ... no information available Wool Corporation ... 268,000 (5) Introduction of equipment in the Department, the BAE and the statutory authorities has resulted in changes to work practices associated with the use of computer workstations for word processing, data entry and information retrieval. This has in turn led to improved timeliness and quality of information analysis and preparation. The emphasis on keyboard work has also necessitated the adoption of preventive measures against occupational overuse syndrome, including regular rest breaks, changes in work flow and the application of ergonomics to the work environment. (6) Since a statistical record has been kept (ie since 1984), there have been 212 reported incidences of RSI in the Department, including BAE. The Department is unable to extract information for incidences prior to that date. Only one statutory authority has had an incidence of RSI involving one person. (7) Since a statistical record has been kept (ie since 1984) days lost in the Department, including BAE, due to RSI related illnesses total: 4,297 short days (ie worked reduced hours due to RSI). 11,508 full days (ie whole working days lost due to RSI). The one incidence in a statutory authority incurred 23.75 lost working days as at 10.3.87. (8) There have been 11 retirements in the Department due to RSI, and none in the statutory authorities. Total compensation costs in respect of these retirees is $175,570.00. (9) The Department, the BAE and the statutory authorities report that the introduction of such equipment has generally improved efficiency and saved money. Most pointed to increases in output, quality and timeliness in tasks such as the retrieval and analysis of information and preparation and production of reports and correspondence. In both the Department and the BAE, savings have been made on projected charges for the use of CSIRONET services. The Department feels that the productivity gains generated by these systems have helped to contain increases in administrative staff that would have been required by increased workloads during this period. (Question No. 5028) Mr Hodges asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 17 February 1987: (1) What words' 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 Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The Department has chosen appropriate equipment types to meet the varying specific requirements of its Central Office, State Branch Offices and institutions: (a) for single user wordprocessing both Systype Model 2 and Canon VP2000 equipment were originally purchased. These are now being superseded by IBM Personal Computers. (b) for dedicated wordprocessing pools Wordplex and Wang equipment have been used. In some locations the older Wordplex equipment on reaching the end of its economic life is being phased out in favour of IBM Personal Computers. (c) for centralised computing the Department has operated an IBM compatible network for 17 years. The central computer has been changed a number of times in that period. The model currently in use is an AMDAHL 5880. Terminals connected to the network since 1982 have nearly all been Telex Computer Products models. (d) for localised computing the Department has purchased: PRIME Series 250 mini computers; IBM System 36 mini computers; Webster Spectrum mini computer; DEC Mocrocovax mini computer; IBM, Apple and Zenith personal computers (2) The word processing equipment was purchased to improve the efficiency of typists in creating, modifying and printing the documentation of the Department. In all cases where the equipment has been introduced the throughput of the typist has increased. The computing equipment was purchased, in general, to improve the efficiency of the Department in carrying out its various functions. Systems were implemented on the equipment that permitted the Department to handle an increasing workload with minimum staff increases. Specific targets were not set. (3) Expenditure on Computer equipment has been as follows: 82/83 $1,938,000 83/84 $9,541,000 84/85 $1,743,000 85/86 $7,385,000 86/87 $3,530,000 (Expenditure to 31 March) Word processing equipment falls into the category of Office Machines for purchasing purposes. The details on cost of the equipment and associated purchases would require a substantial commitment of resources to collect and collate. I am not prepared to commit those resources for the purpose. (4) The introduction of the equipment has necessitated the purchase of ergonomic furniture to conform with the Department's guidelines for use of such equipment. It would not be possible to isolate expenditure on this type of furniture from expenditure on furniture in general. (5) The introduction of word processing equipment has had limited effect on work practices; instead of using an electric typewriter the typist is now typing on a wordprocessor. In general the only additional task is to perform normal housekeeping functions for the wordprocessor. The introduction of computer equipment has permitted the automation of a number of previously manual tasks. (6) Statistical data on Repetition Strain Injury (RSI) within the Department of Veterans' Affairs are unavailable prior to 1984. Since 1984 RSI statistical data have been maintained on a quarterly basis and a total of 446 cases have been reported, of which 151 are still current. (7) The total number of lost working days reported up until 31 December 1986 was 37,224 full days and 4,848 part days. (8) The number of retirements as a result of RSI is available from April 1985 only. Since that time ten officers have retired as a result of contracting RSI. The compensation cost of ten early retirements has been: Salary cost prior to retirement...$162,325 Salary cost after retirement...$82,234 Other costs (e.g. medical) prior to retirement $39,173 Other costs after retirement...$6,934 (9) The introduction of the equipment has improved efficiency by allowing more work to be performed in an efficient and timely manner. It is not possible to quantify cost savings. (Question No. 5082) Mr Scott asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 18 February 1987: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a document entitled ``Marketing and Communication-Guidelines for Acceptance and Usage of Food Irradiation''. (2) Was this document the product of a task force set up at the second meeting of the International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation (ICGFI) held in Vienna in October 1985. (3) Is the Minister able to say whether the task force met between 15 and 19 September 1986; if so, where did the meeting take place. (4) Is the Minister also able to state the composition of the ICGFI and the task force; if so, what are the details. (5) Are any Australians members of either the ICGFI or the task force; if so, (a) who are they, (b) who authorised their involvement, (c) what are their qualifications and (d) for which Department or authorities do they work. (6) Has the Australian Atomic Energy Commission (AAEC) been involved with the task force; if so, what is the justification for its involvement in such a marketing plan. (7) Does the AAEC conduct workshops on food irradiation; if so, are these workshops conducted at the AAEC Lucas Heights Research Laboratories. (8) Have any workshops been conducted elsewhere; if so, where have workshops been conducted. (9) Is the marketing plan a commercial operation, as distinct from research and development; if not, what is the nature of the plan. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. (2) No. The document, ``Marketing and Communications Guidelines for Acceptance and Usage of Food Irradiation'', was prepared as a working draft document by two consultants, Mr R.W. Urbain and Ms F. Defesche, contracted by the Secretariat of the International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation (ICGFI), for consideration by the Task Force on Marketing/Public Relations of Food Irradiation established at the second meeting of the ICGFI in Vienna on 21-22 October 1985. (3) The ICGFI Task Force on Marketing/Public Relations of Food Irradiation met on 15-19 September 1986 in Ottawa. (4) The member countries of the ICGFI as at 5 November 1986 were: Country Date of membership Syrian Arab Republic... 4 July 1983 Argentina... 3 August 1983 Iraq... 30 September 1983 Turkey... 5 October 1983 Egypt... 10 October 1983 Israel... 12 October 1983 Bangladesh... 30 October 1983 The Netherlands... 22 November 1983 Philippines... 24 November 1983 France... 6 December 1983 Hungary... 8 February 1984 Mexico... 8 February 1984 Federal Republic of Germany... 22 February 1984 Canada... 12 April 1984 India... 2 July 1984 Malaysia... 16 July 1984 Yugoslavia... 3 December 1984 Australia... 5 December 1984 United States of America... 11 December 1984 Poland... 18 September 1985 Thailand... 27 September 1985 New Zealand... 11 October 1985 Chile... 17 December 1985 Pakistan... 6 February 1986 Indonesia... 6 October 1986 Italy... 13 November 1986 The participants in the Task Force on Marketing/Public Relations of Food Irradiation were: Australia: John Samson, Principal, Strategy Planning Pty Ltd, Melbourne. Chile: Mauricio Meyer de Goyesneche, Quality Control Program, Agrindustrial Department, Fundacion. Canada: Marilyn Young, Chairperson, National Food Issues Committee, Consumers' Association of Canada, Nepean, Ontario; Shelagh Kerr, Director, Scientific Affairs, Grocery Products Manufacturers of Canada; Don Mills, Ontario. France: Michel Mooq, Director, SOPAD, Nestle, Paris. Hungary: George Venczel, Deputy Director, Commercial Relations, Comack, Budapest. Japan: Dr Toru Hayashi, National Food Research Institute, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Ibaraki-ken. New Zealand: Peter Roberts, Irradiation Biologist, Institute of Nuclear Sciences, Lower Hutt. United Kingdom: Jane Howard, Director, Kingsway Public Relations Limited, London. United States of America: Michael Petruzzello, Vice President, E. Bruce Harrison Company, Washington. SECRETARIAT: M. Satin, Chief, Food Industry Service, FAO, Rome; P. Loaharanu, Head, Food Preservation Section, Joint FAO/IAEA Division, Vienna. (5) Yes. (a) Membership of the ICGFI is on a country basis. The persons designated to attend ICGFI meetings to date have been Mr W.J. Wright, then Counsellor (Atomic Energy) Vienna; Mr P. Bull, Counsellor (Atomic Energy) Vienna; and Dr G. De Cean, Director, Food Administration Section, Department of Health. Mr J. Samson, Principal, Strategy Planning Pty Ltd, Melbourne was invited by the International Atomic Energy Agency, on behalf of ICGFI, to participate in the Task Force referred to in part (3) as a technical expert. Additionally, Dr C. Rigney, a Senior Research Officer of the New South Wales Department of Agriculture is presently a member of the Food Preservation Section in the Joint FAO/IAEA Division in Vienna. Dr Rigney's duties include coordination of ICGFI activities. (b) The attendance of Mr Wright and Mr Bull was authorised by the Department of Foreign Affairs following consultation with relevant Departments and Agencies; the attendance of Dr G. De Cean was authorised by the Department of Health, in consultation with the Department of Foreign Affairs. Mr Samson's involvement required no governmental authorisation as he was invited directly on behalf of the ICGFI to participate in the Task Force. (c) As officers of the Austrlian Atomic Energy Commission (AAEC) seconded to the position of Counsellor (Atomic Energy) Vienna, Mr Wright and Mr Bull were required to be familiar with all aspects of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, including the use of ionising energy for food irradiation. Dr De Cean is head of the Food Administration Section of the Commonwealth Department of Health. This section is required to develop policy advice on all food issues and provides secretariat and technical support to the National Health and Medical Research Council (NH&MRC) food committees. Dr De Cean is Chairman of the NH&MRC Food Science and Technology Sub-Committee and was involved in NH&MRC considerations on food irradiation from 1980 onwards. Mr Samson has experience in the marketing, public relations and advertising fields. (d) See (a) and (c) above. (6) No. (7) The AAEC (now ANSTO) has to date conducted one workshop on food irradiation. This was a Workshop on the Commercialisation of the Ionising Energy Treatment of Food held at Lucas Heights on 29 April-10 May 1985 as the first activity under Phase II of the Asian Regional Cooperative Project on food Irradiation (RPFI). Phase II of RPFI came into force on 11 April 1985, following Australian Government agreement to sponsor the project. RPFI activities are separate from ICGFI activities. (8) Apart from the workshop referred to in part (7) above, the only other ICGFI or RPFI workshop conducted to date has been an ICGFI Training Workshop on Economic Feasibility of Food Irradiation at the International Facility for Food Irradiation Technology, Wageningen, The Netherlands, on 25 August-5 September 1986. (9) The working draft document, ``Marketing and Communication Guidelines for Acceptance and Usage of Food Irradiation'', put forward as its ``overall objective'': ``Achieve the approval, acceptance and usage of food irradiation on a worldwide basis''. Insofar as the document reflects the views of the consultants who prepared it, it could be said to be intended to assist moves toward the commercialisation of food irradiation. This is of direct interest to a number of Member Countries. (Question No. 5083) Mr Scott asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 18 February 1987: (1) Further to the Minister's answer to question No. 3821 (Hansard, 16 September 1986, page 685), does the Minister have responsibility under section 31 of the Atomic Energy Act for operations of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission (AAEC), (2) Did the AAEC in its annual report for 1984-85, say on page 4 that it played a leading role in the second phase of the Asian Regional Co-operative Project on food irradiation which is being sponsored by the Australian Government; if so, is the statement correct. (3) Who authorised the sponsorship on behalf of the Government. (4) Which Minister is or was responsible for the involvement of the AAEC in the second phase of the Asian Regional Co-operative Project. (5) What information or reports did that Minister receive either from time to time or annually, and what other Ministers or Departments received copies. (6) Which Minister is responsible for the International Atomic Energy Agency Regional Co-operative Agreement (RCA). (7) Which provision of the RCA allows or commits the Government to participate in or sponsor the second phase of the Regional Project on Food Irradiation (Phase II RPFI). (8) Was the Department of Health consulted prior to Australian sponsorship of Phase II RPFI; if so, when was the Department consulted. (9) If the Department of Health was not consulted, why not. (10) Did the Australian sponsorship consist of $US260 000 over a 3 year period. (11) How many employees of AAEC or other Departments, are still working on Phase II RPFI. (12) Where are AAEC or other departmental employees working on Phase II RPFI located and how many are based in Vienna. (13) What is the cost of salaries, travelling allowances, and other support for Australian involvement in the project. (14) To whom do these employees report and how regularly are they required to do so. (15) Was the payment of $US260 000 for Phase II RPFI Federal Executive Council decision. (16) Is the Minister able to say whether the payment was made by the Department of Foreign Affairs from development assistance funds. (17) Is the Minister also able to say whether the Department of Foreign Affairs subsequently assessed Phase II RPFI as more of a commercial operation and unsuited for assistance from its development assistance vote. (18) Does the Minister agree with this assessment; if not, why not. (19) If Phase II RPFI was not a commercial operation, why did Australia agree to fund the transfer of food irradiation technology to local industries at the meeting in May 1985. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The Minister for Resources and Energy has the responsibility for the operations of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) and its predecessor the Australian Atomic Energy Commission (AAEC). (2) Yes; the statement is correct. (3) The authority for AAEC and now ANSTO involvement in the second phase of the Asian Regional Cooperative Project on Food Irradiation (RPFI) derives from a decision of the Executive Council agreeing to Australia becoming a party to the Agreement establishing RPFI (see also answer to Question No. 4395 in HOR Hansard of 17 February 1987). (4) The Minister for Resources and Energy. (5) The AAEC's Annual Reports to the Minister for Resources and Energy contain information on RPFI. The AAEC has also forwarded to the Department of Foreign Affairs copies of the reports of the two Project Committee Meetings held to date under RPFI Phase II (see answer to Question No. 4395 in HOR Hansard of 17 February 1987). (6) Relations with the International Atomic Energy Agency come within the portfolio responsibilities of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Where matters overlap other portfolios, relevant Ministers are consulted. (7) Under Article 1 of the IAEA's Regional Cooperative Agreement (RCA), Governments party to the RCA `agree, in cooperation with each other and the Agency, to promote and coordinate cooperative research, development and training projects in nuclear science and technology through their appropriate national institutions'. (8) Yes, during interdepartmental consideration of Australia's involvement in RPFI, prior to Australia becoming a party to the Agreement. (9) See (8). (10) Yes. Australia agreed to sponsor Phase II RPFI to the extent of $US260 000 over a three year period 1985-87. Cash payments and in kind contributions as at 28 May 1987 totalled $US206 453.29. The late commencement of some of the research contracts under the project will lead to research carrying over into 1988, meaning there will be a further Australian contribution in 1987-88. However it is expected that less than $US260 000 will be required in total owing to savings which have been achieved, principally on air travel. (11) Much of the ongoing research and development work of the Irradiation Research and Technology Section of the ANSTO Isotope Division is of relevance to the aims of RPFI Phase II. This section has a current staff complement of two professional and two technical officers. The Section does however, carry out specific research work under the terms of the Coordinated Research Program (CRP) for RPFI Phase II. Research under the CRP has involved one professional officer at approximately 0.1 of a staff year and one technical officer at approximately 0.2 of a staff year for the period May 1986 to April 1987. (12) ANSTO technical specialists working on Phase II of RPFI are located at the Lucas Heights Research Laboratories. The Counsellor (Atomic Energy) Vienna provides direct contact with the IAEA as required as part of his duties. (13) As indicated in answer to (11), it is impractical to artificially divide the salaries and support effort between the ongoing research and development work of the Irradiation Research and Technology Section of the ANSTO Isotope Division and ANSTO work specifically in support of RPFI Phase II. No travelling expenses in relation to RPFI were incurred by ANSTO during the period May 1986 to April 1987. (14) The ANSTO staff involved are responsible to the Chief, Isotope Division in ANSTO. Under the terms of the Coordinated Research Program referred to in (11), ANSTO staff report annually to the IAEA. (15) No. It was the decision of the then Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs based on the Executive Council decision. (16) Yes. (17) The Department of Foreign Affairs has advised that it is satisfied that payment of Australia's contribution to RPFI Phase II from development assistance funds is an appropriate use of those funds. (18) Yes. The Minister agrees with the Department of Foreign Affairs' decision as indicated in para 17 above. (19) The first Phase II RPFI Project Committee Meeting held on 13-15 May 1985 drew up the work program for Phase II. The meeting agreed that the work to be carried out would emphasise technology transfer of food irradiation to relevant industries. Australia's willingness to fund Phase II was based on an assessment of the interest shown by countries in the region and the potential utility of food irradiation to their economies. Australian involvement was not based on any commercial interest. (Question No. 5112) Mr Tim Fischer asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 February 1987: (1) Is he able to say what is the assessed opium and heroin production for the Laotian section of the Golden Triangle for each year since 1980. (2) Is he able to say whether the Lao Government has altered its policies and activities in the Golden Triangle section of Laos to facilitate a renewal of opium and heroin production to help support the Lao communist economy. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. There is no reliable official estimate of opium and heroin production in Laos for the period since 1980. The relevant United Nations bodies, the Division of Narcotic Drugs in the UN Secretariat and the International Narcotics Control Board (the INCB) have no official estimates for narcotics production for Laos in this period. The INCB report for 1986 comments that: ``In the past, illicit opium production has taken place in the Lao People's Democratic Republic. There is no information as to the present situation. The authorities have supplied to the Board some of the information required under the 1961 and 1971 Conventions. The Board hopes to develop its dialogue with the Government and for that purpose to send a mission to the country at the earliest possible opportunity.'' In accordance with Article 19 of the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, to which Laos is a party, Laos has provided the INCB with estimates of narcotic drugs in 1986. Laos has not, however, supplied information concerning the production and cultivation of illicit narcotic drugs within its territory. There are unconfirmed reports from other sources which variously estimate the annual production of opium in Laos in 1985 and 1986 at between 50 to 100 metric tonnes. Annual output in years before 1985 has been estimated at approximately 30-50 tonnes, although once again no reliable figures are available. The US State Department in testimony to Congress stated recently that production of opium in 1986 was between 100 and 290 tonnes. 2. I am aware of reports that the Lao Government may be facilitating or tolerating production and export of narcotic drugs. My Department is seeking to clarify these allegations. In view of the importance the Government attaches to curbing abuse and illicit traffic in narcotic drugs, the Australian Ambassador in Vientiane has expressed concern, at a senior level, to the Lao Government about reports of increased production of narcotic drugs, suggestions that the Lao Government is involved in the production and export of illicit opiates and marijuana and the alleged use of Lao territory by Burmese and Thai traffickers. The Lao Government has denied involvement in narcotics production or trafficking but acknowledges that the growing of opium poppy and marijuana is traditional among certain Lao groups. (Question No. 5129) Mr Wright asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 23 February 1987: (1) What funding has been made available to Queensland in each year since 1977 through the Rural Adjustment Scheme and the Rural Reconstruction Scheme. (2) Is he able to say what proportion of these funds has (a) been made available by the Queensland Government to primary producers, (b) been transferred to Consolidated Revenue or (c) not been lent to primary producers as agreed. (3) Is it a fact that the Government makes these funds available to the Queensland Government at an 8 per cent interest rate. (4) Is it a fact that the Queensland Government is only required to repay 85 per cent of loans, with the remaining 15 per cent being for alleged bad debts. (5) Is it a fact that the Queensland Government is not required to pay interest during the first 3 years of the loan period. (6) Has his attention been drawn to claims that the Queensland Government is receiving Federal funds, not at 8 per cent, but because of the special conditions, at closer to 4 1/2 per cent, and is lending that money to primary producers at approximately 15 per cent. (7) What powers does the Government have to (a) provide loans direct to primary producers and (b) require the Queensland Government to use the money for the purposes stated in the original Rural Reconstruction and Rural Adjustment Scheme agreements. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Since 1977 there have been changes to the schemes which have provided funds for rural adjustment. The following reply to the honourable member's question is provided in two parts. The first covers the Rural Adjustment Scheme (RAS) which was in place from 1 January 1977 to 30 June 1985. That Scheme replaced the Rural Reconstruction Scheme and was based on the Commonwealth providing funds to the States for on-lending to primary producers. From 1 July 1985 a new RAS was introduced under which the Commonwealth provided a 50 per cent subsidy on interest rates for loans taken out by either State rural adjustment authorities or farmers. (1) Under the 1977-1985 RAS funds could be used for the following purposes: Part A: debt reconstruction, farm build-up, farm improvement, rehabilitation. Part B: carry on finance (jointly funded with the States), and Part C: household support. Between 1 January 1977 and 30 June 1985 the Commonwealth provided the following funds to Queensland. Year Payment $m 1977 (January to June)... 3.7 1977/78... 9.6 1978/79... 9.3 1979/80... 2.1 1980/81... 2.9 1981/82... 2.7 1982/83... 2.8 1983/84... 15.6 1984/85... 9.5 Total... 58.2 From 1 January 1977 to 30 June 1985 Queensland provided $19.8m to the RAS for Part B assistance to the sugar and beef industries. According to its 1984-85 Annual Report the Queensland Rural Reconstruction Board which administered the RAS, had made payments to primary producers of $77.6m under the Scheme to 30 June 1985. Two million dollars had been credited to State Consolidated Revenue. The Queensland Rural Reconstruction Board operated a Rural Reconstruction fund for the purposes of the Rural Reconstruction Scheme and a Rural Adjustment Fund for the purpose of the Rural Adjustment Scheme and similar schemes. The balance in the Rural Adjustment Fund stood at $19.6m and the balance in the Rural Reconstruction Fund stood at $19.2m on 30 June 1985. Part A funding was provided by Commonwealth loans (85 per cent) and grants (15 per cent). Before 1982 the loans were made at 7 per cent interest for 20 years. From 1982 interest on Commonwealth loans and outstanding balances was raised to 8 per cent. The States were not required to make any repayments for the first four years of a loan. The grant component was provided to cover losses on loans to farmers, asset write-offs and the conversion of loans to grants. Part B carry-on finance was jointly funded by the Commonwealth and the State on a dollar for dollar basis. The Commonwealth generally made funds available at 4 per cent, repayable over 7 years with a 12 month repayment holiday. Funds lent to Queensland at 4 per cent were provided to Queensland beef producers at 4 per cent. The agreement allowed the States to determine the interest rate which they charged farmers and obliged them to return recipients to commercial interest rates as soon as possible. Thus older borrowers who were judged commercially viable would have been paying commercial interest rates. Funding for household support (Part C) was provided to the States as a loan but only those loans repaid by household support recipients were repayable to the Commonwealth. Household support payments could have been converted from loans to grants as the State decided. (2) The funding arrangements changed from 1 July 1985 and since then the Commonwealth has provided grants under Part A to subsidise loans taken out by the State or farmers for debt reconstruction, farm build-up and farm improvement. The subsidy is equivalent to 50 per cent of the interest rate of a nominated commercial lender on the amount of borrowing the Commonwealth decides is appropriate after consultation with the States. The nominated lender for 1986-87 is the Primary Industry Bank of Australia and the nominated interest rate is 17.5 per cent. Part B funding for carry-on finance is jointly subsidised by the Commonwealth and States with the Commonwealth providing a 25 per cent interest subsidy. Household support and rehabilitation are funded on the same basis as in the previous scheme. The Commonwealth provided $1.03m RAS funding to Queensland in 1985-86 ($0.54m for Part A, $0.44m for Part C and $0.05m for administration costs) and Queensland approved $8.4m of assistance. In 1986-87 the Commonwealth will provide an estimated $5.06m of RAS funding to Queensland comprising $4.02m for Part A, $0.75m for Part C and $0.29m for administration costs. Because of these new arrangements the Queensland Government is currently receiving Part A RAS funding as grants rather than loans. It is, in general, applying these funds so as to reduce an applicant's interest rate by around six per cent. The Commonwealth has the power to provide loans directly to primary producers but it is more efficient and less costly to use established State organisations to administer the RAS. The Rural Reconstruction Scheme and 1977-85 RAS agreements allow the States to retain any surpluses generated by the operation of the schemes and do not require these funds to be used for rural adjustment purposes. Queensland has operated the schemes in accordance with the agreements. (Question No. 5151) Mr Hollis asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 25 February 1987: (1) Further to his answer to part (4) of my question no. 1936 (Hansard, 21 November 1985, page 2595), has the Copyright Law Review Committee completed its report; if not, when does it hope to complete it. (2) Which countries have become parties to the Convention since he gave his answer. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Copyright Law Review Committee completed its report on performers' protection in early May. Adoption of the Committee's recommendations for new legislative protection for performers would enable Australia to comply with the performers' protection provisions of the Rome Convention. I have asked my Department to consult with relevant interests concerning the necessary minor amendments to the broadcasting provisions of the Copyright Act 1968 which would enable Australia to accede to the Convention. Copies of the Committee's report will shortly be available to the public. (2) Since giving my answer the Dominican Republic and Monaco have become parties to the Convention. (Question No. 5154) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 25 February 1987: Is he able to say whether the number of Soviet Jews who were allowed to emigrate from the USSR between (a) October 1968 and April 1985 accession of Mr Gorbachev as General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union totalled 264 930 and (b) April 1985 and December 1986 totalled 1614. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The number of Soviet Jews allowed to emigrate from the Soviet Union between October 1968 and the accession of Mr Gorbachev in April 1985 was 264,930. I will include the following table from the Winter 1987 edition of Foreign Affairs. The larger figure of 265,657 results because it counts Jewish emigration for the entire 12 months of 1985. JEWISH EMIGRATION FROM THE SOVIET UNION 1968-1985 Year Emigres 1968... 229 1969... 2,979 1970... 1,027 1971... 13,022 1972... 31,681 1973... 34,733 1974... 20,628 1975... 13,221 1976... 14,261 1977... 16,736 1978... 28,864 1979... 51,320 1980... 21,471 1981... 9,447 1982... 2,688 1983... 1,314 1984... 896 1985... 1,140 Total... 265,657 A variety of reliable sources provide different totals for the number of Soviet Jews allowed to emigrate between April 1985 and December 1986. These figures range between 1641 and 1714. On 1 May 1987 the State Department spokesman noted that in April 1987, 717 Soviet Jews were allowed to emigrate. This gave a total of 1,431 for the first four months of 1987. The April emigration figures are the highest for any month since July 1981, when 779 Jews emigrated. The figures for the first four months of 1987 are the largest number in any single year since 1982, when 2,688 Jews departed. (Question No. 5163) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 17 March 1987: (1) Further to his answer to question No 4763 (Hansard, 17 February 1987, page 31) is it a fact that the Australian Embassy in Washington obtains Australian wine and beer, meat pies and sausages for its staff, but uses NZ butter and cheese; if so, why is not Australian butter and cheese provided. (2) Which other Australian Embassies make available Australian products and what products are made available. (3) Do any Australian Embassies offer Australian dairy products. (4) Which Australian Embassies do not offer Australian dairy products and why not. (5) Does this situation help our export and Australian-made campaigns. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Australian Embassy Washington is not officially responsible for import and distribution of any food products for staff. Such purchases are made by a Staff Social Club based on normal commercial criteria for sale to members. New Zealand dairy products are purchased through a private US commercial organisation which specialises in supply to diplomatic missions. It is understood there is not a comparable supply source for Australian dairy products, nor does the Australian Dairy Corporation provide such a service. Australian beer, meat pies and sausages are however available through commercial organisations and are purchased by staff members. (2), (3) and (4) Australian missions do not import or purchase foodstuffs on behalf of staff. Such purchases are properly considered the responsibility of individuals. (5) Notwithstanding this, Australian Embassy officials overseas use Australian products, subject to normal commercial criteria, when they are available. (Question No. 5164) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 17 March 1987: Is it a fact that question No. 341 is the longest outstanding unanswered question appearing on the Notice Paper, and that question No. 1010 has remained unanswered for almost as long; if so, when may I expect answers to the questions Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: See answer to question No. 341 which explains why the two questions remained unanswered for some time. (Question No. 5171) Mr Scott asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 17 March 1987: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a joint publication, issued in 1981, by the FAO, WHO, and the International Atomic Energy Agency entitled Wholesomeness of Irradiated Food. (2) Was Australia represented on the expert committee which drew up this document; if so, by whom. (3) Has the document been accepted by IAEA; if so, when, and was Australia represented at the IAEA meeting when it was accepted. (4) If it has been accepted by IAEA, was the Minister's Department asked to comment on it before it was accepted; if so, when. (5) Is the Minister able to say whether any further documents have been issued by the joint expert committee; if so, (a) when, (b) what are they and (c) what action has been taken on them. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. (2) The Expert Committee, which convened in 1980, comprised experts who were selected by FAO/IAEA/WHO because of their specialised knowledge and experience in the field of food irradiation. They served in a personal capacity, rather than as representatives of governments or other bodies. The publication lists Professor M.J. Rand, University of Melbourne, as the Committee Chairman. (3) The disclaimer on page 1 of the document advises that the report ``contains the collective views of an international group of experts and does not necessarily represent the decision or the stated policy of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency, or the World Health Organisation''. It is the practice of the IAEA to note the views of such expert committees, but not to formally adopt them. For instance, the Expert Committee's findings as in the above document were noted in the IAEA's 1980 Annual Report. (4) Not applicable. (5) I am not aware of any subsequent documents being issued by the Expert Committee. Previous joint expert committee meetings of the IAO/IAEA/WHO to consider aspects of food irradiation were held in 1964, 1969 and 1976. The documents produced by these meetings have been published as WHO Technical Report Series Nos 316, 451 and 604. These three documents have similarly not been formally adopted by the FAO, IAEA or WHO. (Question No. 5174) Mr Scott asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 17 March 1987: (1) Has his attention been drawn to an organisation called the International Life Sciences Institute, Australian Branch (ILSI Australia). (2) Is he able to say whether ILSI Australia is an industry funded organisation, with an annual subscription fee of $1500 per company, and whose major supporters are Amatil Ltd, Coca-Cola Australia and CSR Sugar Division. (3) Is he able to say whether the President of the Board of Trustees of ILSI Australia is Professor R.A. Edwards, and that one of the Trustees is Dr J.H.B. Christian. (4) Is, or was, Professor Edwards Chairman of the Food Standards Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council and Dr Christian a member of that Committee. (5) Is he able to say whether Dr Christian is a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency's International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) My Department has advised that the following information is included in the information brochure published by ILSI Australia: (a) `ILSI is a public, non profit, scientific organisation'. (b) The ILSI Australia branch was formed in 1983 and its fifteen members represent a cross-section of Australian food, pharmaceutical and toiletry companies including Amatil Ltd, Coca-Cola Australia and CSR Sugar Division. The Secretary of ILSI Australia has advised my Department that all member companies pay the same annual subscription fee of $1,750. (3) ILSI Australia has stated that Professor R. A. Edwards is President of ILSI Australia and Chairman of its Board of Trustees and that Dr J. H. B. Christian is a Trustee of ILSI. (4) Yes. (5) I am advised that Dr Christian is not a member of the joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation/International Atomic Energy Agency/World Health Organisation, International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation. (Question No. 5184) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 18 March 1987: Is he able to say whether Mr P. Agee (a) made an application to visit Australia during 1983, and, (b) has applied to visit Australia in July 1987. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) We can trace no application by Mr Agee to visit Australia in 1983. (b) Mr Agee has applied to visit Australia this year but the application has not been approved. (Question No. 5187) Mr Nehl asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 18 March 1987: What substantive achievements of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation justify Australia's continued financial contribution to that organisation. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: UNESCO activities are based on programs encompassing education, natural sciences, social sciences, cultural identity and exchanges between cultures, and free and balanced circulation of information. In these fields, UNESCO encourages international intellectual co-operation, provides a world forum for the discussion of global problems, provides operational assistance to member states and provides funds for development projects, research and training programs. UNESCO also acts as the executing agency for many development projects funded by agencies such as the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the World Bank and numerous foundations. Practical examples of UNESCO programs include the development and application of new methods of literacy teaching, the identification and protection of World Heritage sites, the timely preservation of ancient monuments and improved management of world water resources. Australia gains from its membership of UNESCO by the participation of Australians in international and regional conferences and meetings and through involvement in international and regional program activities involving consultancy and technical field engagements. Membership of UNESCO is also valuable in pursuing Australia's regional interests and in complementing bilateral development assistance objectives and activities. Participation at UNESCO expense by more than 100 Australians each year in UNESCO activities overseas promotes Australia as a source of expert knowledge. Delegations and individual specialists have contributed to a distinctive Australian image in the international community. In dollar terms, Australia also benefits from UNESCO sponsored activities held in Australia or involving Australians. In the 12 month period commencing December 1986 UNESCO will provide over $600,000 for such activities. Selected areas of UNESCO programs from which Australia benefits include: INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS Thirty UNESCO Conventions set international standards. In some cases, as with the World Heritage Convention, the UNESCO instrument has been the precursor to the enactment of Commonwealth legislation to preserve Australia's own unique natural heritage sites and cultural property. TRAINING Australia has a major role as a provider of skilled human resources for UNESCO in its Asia and Pacific regional programs. UNESCO is increasingly seeking to use Australian expertise and educational institutions to provide, at full cost, specialist training to students from developing countries. This participation in training and also in consultancies sponsored by UNESCO bring additional benefits in new opportunities for trade with regional countries, involving such exports as textbooks and technology. The involvement of Australian experts in operational activities sponsored by UNESCO constitutes a significant contribution to Australia's relations with developing countries, particularly those in our region, at little or no financial cost to the Australian Government. EDUCATION UNESCO is the primary international agency operating in education at the school level. Australia is a leading participant in the UNESCO Asian Pacific Program of Educational Innovation for Development (APPEID), a regional cooperation activity through which member states pool and exchange knowledge and techniques in this area. SCIENTIFIC COOPERATION International collaboration is an essential part of progress in science. Australia makes a major contribution to and benefits from all UNESCO's programs in this area, particularly the internationally highly regarded programs in water resources, earth sciences, marine and environmental science. Australia was recently contracted by UNESCO to begin a new program dealing with the science and technology needs of the Pacific. As a founding member and supporter of the ideals of UNESCO, Australia will continue to participate in the work of the organisation, with the object of encouraging good management, efficient and effective program delivery, clear priorities and budgetary restraint. (Question No. 5208) Mr Sinclair asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1987: (1) Has any application to visit Australia in 1987 been received by or on behalf of Mr P. B. F. Agee, a former officer of the US Central Intelligence Agency; if so, what action has been taken. (2) Is he able to say whether Mr Agee's US passport was revoked in 1979 and whether he has been barred from residence in the UK, Holland, Sweden and Switzerland, and is currently resident in West Germany following his marriage to a West German citizen. (3) Is he able to say whether Mr Agee possesses a passport issued by the former Marxist Government of Grenada. (4) Have any representations regarding a proposed visit to Australia by Mr Agee been made to him; if so, by whom were such representations made. Mr Hayden —The answer to the right honourable member's question is as follows: (1) An application has been received from Mr Agee to visit Australia in 1987, and a decision taken not to approve issue of a visa. (2) I understand Mr Agee's US passport was revoked in 1979. He does, however, hold a US Card of Identity and Registration which would allow him to return to the US if he so wished. As far as the Government is aware, Mr Agee has been denied residence in the UK, France and the Netherlands. It is understood that Mr Agee is currently resident in West Germany and is married to a West German citizen. (3) Mr Agee currently uses a passport issued by the Government of Nicaragua. (4) No member of the public has made representations to me or my Department on this matter. (Question No. 5210) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1987: (1) Further to his answer to question No. 4685 (Hansard, 18 November 1986, page 3365), has his attention been drawn to a recent statement by the U.S. Navy Secretary saying that the U.S. Navy was proceeding with plans to shift its Antarctic support operations from Christchurch to Hobart. (2) Have there been any discussions between U.S. and Australian officials about this transfer; if so, is he able to say when such a transfer might be implemented and whether the U.S. facilities will be located at Hobart or an alternative location. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I believe the statement referred to in the first part of the honourable member's question was made by retiring U.S. Navy Secretary, John Lehman, on 2 April 1987. The statement appears to have been made in a private interview with a Radio New Zealand journalist, following an appearance by Mr Lehman before the National Press Club in Washington. Mr Lehman's personal views on this issue are well known, but do not reflect official U.S. Policy. The United States Government has denied any suggestion that plans are being made to transfer the National Science Foundation's Polar Program logistical support activity from Christchurch to Hobart (or to any other location for that matter). Following the ANZUS talks in San Francisco last August, U.S. Secretary of State Shultz stated that he did not foresee a shift of the Antarctic facility away from Christchurch. The Government has not been advised of any change in the position of the United States Administration since that date. (2) Former Navy Secretary Lehman and officials of his Department visited Australia in November and December last year. During that time a range of issues was discussed, including with Australian officials. Operation Deep Freeze was discussed only informally and at no stage have United States officials requested Australia to consider hosting their Antarctic support facilities. The position of the United States Administration on this matter is as enunciated above by Secretary of State Shultz. (Question No. 5243) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 25 March 1987: (1) Is he able to say whether Switzerland, Austria, Finland, Sweden and Yugoslavia have adopted general defence policies which incorporate planned civil resistance to invaders. (2) Is he able to say whether US forces have studied organised civilian non-violent defence as a supplement to military defence. (3) What relevant studies are proposed in Australia for (a) the defence forces and (b) academic centres and institutes. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am advised that Switzerland, Austria, Finland, Sweden and Yugoslavia all have defence policies which embody variations of a total defence or comprehensive defence posture involving the integration of military, economic, civil and psychological measures. One of the main aims of these types of policies is to involve a large part of the population in the military defence effort. I am unable to say whether these countries' defence policies embody a major emphasis on civil non-military (passive) resistance as distinct from civilians taking up arms to assist in national defence. (2) I am unable to say whether US Forces have studied organised civilian non-violent defence as a supplement to military defence. (3) (a) and (b) This question should be referred to my colleague the Minister for Defence for reply. (Question No. 5260) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 1 April 1987: (1) Is he able to say what transport facilities are currently available to enable Pitcairn Islanders to get to and from the island; if so, what is the (a) frequency of any services which exist and (b) cost of the transport to passengers. (2) What action can the Government take to assist the Pitcairn Islanders with their transportation problems in view of the close relationship between Pitcairn Island and Norfolk Island. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. (a) There is no scheduled passenger transport service. Cargo vessels travelling between New Zealand and Panama provide an approximately tri-monthly (northbound) service to Pitcairn. Although this service is under review, we understand that a proposal exists for a regular Cook Islands-Tahiti-Pitcairn cargo/passenger service to be established. Other vessels and yachts make unscheduled stops. During 1985, 30 ships and 11 yachts visited Pitcairn. (b) There is no standard fee for transport to and from Pitcairn. 2. The Australian Government provides no special assistance for Norfolk Island's transport requirements. Pitcairn Island is a British territory and assistance for Pitcairn Islanders is consequently a British responsibility, although in view of the close links with Norfolk Island, any proposals to Australia for assistance would naturally be carefully considered. (Question No. 5281) Mr Sinclair asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 28 April 1987: (1) Is it a fact that Mr R. Kandasamy, a Malaysian-born Tamil, was sentenced to 5 months gaol in Melbourne Magistrates Court on February 1987 after pleading guilty to 3 counts each of imposition, making a false statement for the purpose of obtaining a passport, and entering Australia as a prohibited non-citizen. (2) Is it a fact that the sentence was upheld on appeal to the County Court on 6 April 1987. (3) Is it a fact that the court was told that Mr Kandasamy had obtained a passport by falsely representing himself to be an Australian named Ran Damieen, and that because Mr Kandasamy had posed as an Aboriginal, his Department issued a passport without requiring a birth certificate. (4) Is it also a fact that the court was told that Mr Kandasamy had travelled overseas on the passport. (5) How did Mr Kandasamy obtain the passport referred to in the County Court. (6) What checks were undertaken. (7) Were any references sought or representation received in relation to the application for the passport; if so, from whom were references or representations received. (8) Has any action been taken to close this loophole in Australia's passport application procedures; if not, why not. (9) Did Mr Kandasamy subsequently claim to have lost his Australian passport and apply for a replacement; if so what action was taken. (10) What guarantee can he give that other persons not entitled to an Australian passport have received a passport using the same procedure as Mr Kandasamy. Mr Hayden —In view of the content of the question, it was transferred to me for reply. The answer to the right honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) Yes. (4) Yes. (5) In 1979, Mr Kandasamy represented himself to the Passport Office to be a person of Aboriginal descent for whom no Birth Certificate had been issued. (6) A letter from the Victorian Aboriginal Service Cooperative Ltd on 2 November 1977 in connection with a job application, certifying that Ran Damieen was of Aboriginal descent and was born in Darwin on 23 November 1955, was accepted at face value. (7) As reported in (6) above. (8) Yes: see (10) below. (9) Yes. In 1984 applications in the name Ran Damieen at Sydney Passport Office, and at Melbourne Passport Office, were declined and the applicant was referred to the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to clarify his citizenship status. (10) Passport issuing procedures introduced in July 1983 following the Government's consideration of the recommendations of the Stewart Royal Commission require that applicants produce formal documentary evidence of Australian citizenship and proof of identity. Passports issued prior to July 1983 are no longer accepted as evidence of citizenship and identity for passport renewal and consequently, if there had been any similar case of a passport having been issued incorrectly, it would now be ineligible for renewal or expired. (Question No. 5290) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 29 April 1987: Did the Government make any commitment to assist the International Fund for Agricultural Development in 1985-86 and 1986-87, if so, what level of assistance has been provided as at 29 April 1987. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Yes. Australian assistance to IFAD in the years 1985-86 and 1986-87 consisted of payments made against a promissory note lodged with IFAD on 29 June 1982. This note enabled Australia to fulfill funding commitments made to IFAD during the first replenishment negotiations (IFAD-1). In 1985-86 Australia paid $A2,769,000 to IFAD and in 1986-87 $A1,700,000. The total level of assistance provided to IFAD as at 29 April 1987 is $A12,461,220. (Question No. 5291) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 29 April 1987: Is he able to say whether the commitment of resources to military expenditure by the Soviet Union has increased from between 12 and 14 per cent of Gross National Product in 1970 to between 15 and 17 per cent by the mid-1980's. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Soviet Union does not make available plausible data on its military expenditure. Official United States estimates, based in large part on costing directly the observed dimensions of the Soviet Union's military effort, result in the figures cited in the question. (See, for example, the United States Department of Defense publication Soviet Military Power, 1981 edition p.13 and 1987 edition p.103). The Government is not in a position independently to validate these estimates but considers them more realistic than the official figures provided by the Soviet Union. (Question No. 5303) Mr Sharp asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 29 April 1987: (1) Has the Australian Development Assistance Bureau recently conducted an inquiry into Australia's participation in the World Bank, International Development Association, Asian Development Bank, Asian Development Fund and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). (2) Has he received the report of the Bureau; if so, (a) what are the conclusions and recommendations of the report and (b) will he say whether and, if so, when, he will present the report to the House. (3) Has Australia made a pledge to IFAD for the 1985-87 triennium; if so, what sum has been pledged and when will the pledge be honoured. (4) If Australia has not made a pledge, why not. (5) Has Australia made a pledge to IFAD's Special Program for sub-Saharan Africa; if so, what sum has been pledged and when will the pledge be honoured. (6) If Australia has not made a pledge to the IFAD program, why not. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) The report is nearing finalisation but has yet to be formally lodged. It is designed to assist the Government's consideration of formal commitments to these organisations and will therefore be a restricted document. (3) Australia pledged $8.48 million to the second replenishment of IFAD (IFAD-2) but has yet to ratify that commitment. The Government is considering Australia's participation in IFAD-2 in the context of the recommendations of the above-mentioned report. (4) See answer to (3). (5) No. (6) Any contribution to IFAD's Special Program for sub-Saharan Africa will be considered in the context of the review. (Question No. 5310) Mr Conquest asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 30 April 1987: (1) Is it a fact that (a) section 135te of the Social Security Act provides that a pensioner must advise any change in circumstances and (b) failure to inform his Department of increased earnings may result in an overpayment which can be recovered retrospectively. (2) Does the same recourse to retrospectivity apply when the change in circumstances would have resulted in an increase in the rate of pension applicable; if not is reference manual section 16.620 the appropriate policy interpretation in these cases. (3) Is any discretion exercised in these cases referred to in part (2) where the change in circumstances can be fully substantiated; if not, is it a long standing policy which has been applied consistently without discrimination. (4) Will all cases involving a failure to advise a change in circumstances be treated equitably, especially in the area of retrospectivity. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Yes-Where the event might affect the payment of a pension, benefit or allowance. (b) Consistent with (a) above, failure to notify of increased earnings within the allowable period results in an overpayment commencing from the payday after the increase in earnings occurred. (2) A decline in income giving rise to a potential increase in pension is generally notified promptly. It is normal practice to increase the rate of pension as from the first pension pay-day on or after receipt of advice from the pensioner. The relevant manual references are 16.620 and 19.200. (3) Discretion does exist to increase the rate of pension from an earlier date. Officers are instructed that this may be appropriate where: the department is aware that a pensioner's circumstances will change from a future date, and the case was not noted for review; or the pensioner alleges that an earlier application for increase was made at or about the time the circumstances changed; or the request for payment had been delayed through circumstances beyond the pensioner's control and is attributable to causes other than mere ignorance of entitlement or failure to inquire on his or her part (eg. ill health or where incorrect advice has been provided to the pensioner by a person or authority upon whose advice it was reasonable for them to rely). (4) The Social Security Act specified the date from which an overpayment exists where a change in circumstances leading to reduction or termination of entitlement is involved. The Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill 1987 contains an amendment which will promote uniformity of treatment where a change in circumstances leading to an increase in entitlement is involved by specifying that the date of change is the pension payday on or after the day of notification. Background: Although it is the department's policy to pay an increase from the next pension pay-day at present the legislation does not preclude payment of arrears where a person advises of a change of circumstances that took place some time ago. However, on the basis that a person entitled to an increase in pension will normally notify promptly, the discretion is generally only applied in limited circumstances as outlined in the answer. The proposed amendment arising from the May measures will give full legal support to this long standing policy of no arrears and will ensure that review activity is not made more complex and costly by the necessity to review entitlement over a lengthy past period. (Question No. 5314) Mr Adermann asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 30 April 1987: (1) Has the Government taken note of petitions (a) supporting the retention of the present Australian Flag and (b) requesting that the House gives passage to the Flags Amendment Bill 1984 [1985]. (2) Will the Government give a complete and indicative response to the requests of the petitioners; if so, when. Mr Young —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. (2) The Prime Minister has indicated on a number of occasions that the Government has no intention of changing the National Flag. The honourable member is also referred to the reply by the Leader of the House to question upon notice No. 5313 (Hansard of 27 May 1987, page 3464). (Question No. 5327) Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 1 May 1987: Is it a fact that, including grants, approximately $25m has been allocated to Aboriginal organisations and services in north Queensland by the Aboriginal Development Commission while southern Queensland has received only $1.5m, despite a similar Aboriginal population; if so, why. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The ADC/DAA Joint Housing Needs Survey of 1985 discloses the Aboriginal population of Queensland to be 82,996 as detailed at Table 1. The Aboriginal population of Southern Queensland, which is assumed to cover that portion of the State south of the Tropic of Capricorn, was shown to be 25,175 or 30% of the population. Northern Queensland was shown to have an Aboriginal population of 57,821 or 70% of the State population. As detailed by Tables 2, 3 and 4, ADC funds allocations for Southern and Northern Queensland during the period 1981-87 have comprised the following: Type of funding S. Qld N. Qld Total $m % $m % $m Housing ... 30.301 45 36.378 55 66.679 Land & Enterprise ... 3.392 30 8.386 70 12.007 Total ... 33.922 44.764 78.686 % Allocations ... 44% 56% % Population ... 30% 70% Per capita expenditure ... $1,347 $774 From the foregoing, it is clear that Southern Queensland has received proportionately more than the north with the result that per capita expenditure in Southern Queensland is 74% greater than in the north. The question asked is therefore shown to have no basis in fact. (Question No. 5328) Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 1 May 1987: (1) Is he investigating the Maranoa Housing Company over allegations of misappropriation and mismanagement. (2) Has his attention been drawn to allegations that the company has not had an annual general meeting, nor audit reports, for 3 years. (3) Is he investigating the Downs Aboriginal Housing Company for alleged misappropriation of funds and is the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC) and his Department still funding this organisation. (4) Has the Redfern Housing Company received $200,000 in funds from the ADC to purchase a hotel on the corner of Everleigh Street; if so, for what purpose will this site be used and what will happen to the liquor licence. (5) What compensation will be paid to the owners of property in Redfern whose buildings have been destroyed and the sites subsequently cleared following court orders for construction of new homes by the Redfern Housing Company. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The Maranoa Aboriginal Housing Company Limited was incorporated under the Queensland Companies Act on 13 April 1976. It is not the responsibility of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to investigate allegations that a company is in breach of the legislation under which it was incorporated or the manner in which it conducts its affairs. However, agencies of the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio do require acceptable standards of accountability and conduct on the part of those organisations they fund. I am informed by the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC) that it is aware of these allegations and has received complaints from members of the Company, who were advised to pursue their concerns with the Corporate Affairs Office in Brisbane. The ADC is also aware that the Company has not held Annual General Meetings or provided Audit Reports for the past 3 years. Because of this, and the unsatisfactory way in which the Company has conducted its affairs, the Commisison ceased funding it in March 1986. No ADC funding has been provided over the last 14 months, nor does the Commission intend to resume funding until it is satisfied with the conduct of Company affairs. However, it should be noted that Maranoa has satisfactorily acquitted all monies provided to it by the ADC in 1985-86 and previous financial years. (3) No. My Department provides funds to the Downs Housing Company through an accountant's trust account and therefore such funds are properly accounted for. My reply to part (12) of Question No. 5329 is also relevant. (4) No. The Company is currently negotiating to purchase the Railway View Hotel and if these negotiations are concluded satisfactorily, funds will be provided by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. The site will probably be used for office space and the supermarket run by the Aboriginal Housing Company. The Liquor Licence is to be sold and proceeds allocated to the costs of redevelopment of West Redfern. Both the Aboriginal community and the Government agencies involved, Local, State and Commonwealth, consider the closure of the Hotel essential to the success of any attempts to address the problems of the area. (5) None. The buildings have been demolished. The Sydney City Countil issued demolition orders on derelict properties. (Question No. 5329) Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 1 May 1987: (1) Who authorised the restructuring of the QEB Legal Service and why is it taking place. (2) Did the Secretary of his Department instruct the Director of his Department in Queensland not to proceed with any restructuring. (3) Are officers of his Department being investigated under subsection 61 (2) of the Public Service Act; if so, what are the alleged offences. (4) Has the Charleville Aboriginal Housing Company taken out a writ of defamation against officers of his Department for allegedly making false allegations to the police. (5) Has his Department examined the affairs of the Cherbourg Council, and has his attention been drawn to allegations that the Council has a deficit of $75,000. (6) Have funds from the Aboriginal Legal Service been transferred to the Cherbourg Council. (7) What other funds have been provided by his Department to the Cherbourg Council. (8) What action will be taken to overcome the alleged deficit. (9) What funds have been provided through his Department or the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC) to the Toowoomba Housing Cooperative. (10) Were funds misappropriated from the Cooperative in 1984-85. (11) What action has been taken to investigate this matter and what have been the results. (12) Is the Cooperative still receiving funding from his Department or the ADC; if so, why. (13) Why is the Charleville Aboriginal Housing Company under investigation. (14) Has the ADC stopped funding the company. (15) Has an investigation been made of the Charleville Aboriginal Housing Company's auditors' reports and do these reports show that there were misappropriations of funds. (16) Did Commissioners of the ADC, following a meeting with Mr R. Robinson in Canberra earlier in 1987, recommend that funds be released to the Charleville Aboriginal Housing Company. (17) Has his attention been drawn to the refusal of the ADC to sign over a property of the Community Centre in Charleville to the Charleville Aboriginal Housing Company, and that the company has spent approximately $60,000 in renovations and rates for approximately 4 years. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The restructuring of the QEB Legal Service was approved by the Queensland State Director of my Department after discussion with other senior Departmental staff. The restructuring responded to widespread community demands expressed over a lengthy period of time. (2) No. (3) On 15 December 1986, solicitors for Mr R. Robinson wrote to several Commonwealth authorities alleging improper actions by the Director of the Queensland Office and the Regional manager of the Roma Office of my Department. These matters were investigated under the procedures laid down by s. 61 of the Public Service Act. The allegations were found to be entirely without substance. Had the honourable member approached me before placing this part of his question on notice and thereby allowing the reputations of officers to be impugned by implication, I would have been prepared to provide to him a copy of the investigation report. I am still prepared to provide one to him, should he seek it, for his personal information. (4) One writ for defamation has been taken out against the Queensland State Director of my Department by the Charleville Housing Company and Mr R. Robinson. The writ does not specify the basis for the action, so it would seem that the honourable member may have information so far denied to the defendant. This action will be defended. The honourable member will know, from a letter I wrote to him on 12 March 1987, that the unsatisfactory state of affairs of certain Aboriginal organisations in Charleville has been of concern to my Department for some time. He will recall that I told him also that a number of police charges had been laid and that investigations were continuing. That remains the position. (5) My Department is aware of rumours concerning the operations of the Cherbourg Canteen. As no Commonwealth funds are involved and all funds provided by my Department to the Cherbourg Council have been satisfactorily accounted for, the rumours are not matters requiring attention by my Department. (6) On 20 March 1987, $6,470 was approved for reallocation from 1986/87 allocation of funds for the QEB Legal Service to allow the employment of a field officer by the Cherbourg Council. (7) Other funds provided by my Department to the Cherbourg Aboriginal Council for 1986/87 are as follows: $ Operating Subsidy of Council... 167,700 Employ Community Worker... 25,500 Sports Grant-Cherbourg Police Citizens Youth Club... 650 Purchase Plant & Equipment... 35,000 Training for Council Staff... 7,500 (8) See reply to (5) above. (9) I take it that this question refers to the Downs Aboriginal and Islander Housing Company Limited, of Toowoomba. Funds provided to the Company by my Department for 1986/87 are as follows: $ Operating Costs of Community Centre... 42,000 Employ Community Worker... 30,000 Sports Grant-Gary Martin... 120 Employ Legal Service Field Officer... 6,720 Sports Grant-Qld. All Blacks Golf... 1,000 Employ Youth Worker... 6,720 The ADC has provided that Company with the following funds: Year Sum Purpose $ 1986-87 593,392 Purchase of Alma Vale property as a social facility and associated costs; 194,456 Administration and acquisition of housing; 1985-86 20,139 Administration and acquisition of housing; 1984-85 46,087 Administration and acquisition of housing; 1983-84 47,083 Administration and acquisition of housing; 1982-83 . . . . (10) On 31 December 1986, Mr R. L. Robinson, Chairman of the Charleville Aboriginal Housing Company, published an allegation that the ``Toowoomba Aboriginal Housing Company'' had misappropriated $7,000. His claim made it clear that he was in fact referring to Downs Aboriginal and Islander Company Limited of Toowoomba. Mr Robinson has never produced any evidence to my Department or to the ADC in support of his allegation. The audited Annual Financial Statements for 1984/85 as provided by my Department did not disclose misappropriation as alleged by Mr Robinson. However, the 1984/85 audit did reveal some discrepancies, resulting in all Departmental funds now being provided through an accountant's trust account. (11) I am informed that the ADC has undertaken normal examination of audited financial statements for the Downs Aboriginal and Islander Company Limited in respect of the financial years 1983/84, 1984/85 and 1985/86 as well as such financial statements (unaudited) as are available for 1986/87. None of these disclosed theft or misappropriation of the kind alleged by Mr Robinson. Although the auditors have been consistently critical of the Company's standards of accounting, they have not made any suggestions of misappropriation. Company standards of accounting are of concern and the Company has been informed of ADC expectations for improvement in this area. The ADC also informed the Company of allegations made by Mr Robinson and asked that it undertake an inquiry and advise of any improper use of its funds. The Company is understood to be undertaking this inquiry with the assistance of their accountants. The ADC has also written to the Company advising that any matters involving misappropriation of monies ought to be referred to the Police for detailed investigation. The Company has also been advised to have a separate, independent audit of its books of account conducted. The Company has also been informed that the ADC, as a principal funding body, would expect to be fully informed of the results of such investigations and that future funding by the ADC will be heavily dependent on their outcome. My Department would likewise expect such action to be taken and such standards to be observed. (12) The Commission has approved funding for 1986/87 as indicated in response to part (9) of Question No. 5329 and the balance of these funds were released to the Downs Aboriginal and Islander Company Limited in April 1987. I am informed that further funds will not be released directly to the Company by the ADC until it has satisfactorily acquitted funds provided by the ADC in 1986/87, demonstrated improved administration of and accounting for its funds, and provided explanations regarding any misuse and recovery of monies to the satisfaction of the ADC. These are normal Commission requirements applying to all Aboriginal housing organisations. The Company has already indicated improvement in the area of administration and accounting. It is expected to respond to other ADC requirements prior to 30 September 1987. The Company has recently held its Annual General Meeting at which members elected an almost entirely new Board. I am advised that the latter is expected to promote further administrative improvement. (13) The Charleville Housing Company was the subject of a detailed financial investigation by Departmental officers. Their report was subsequently referred to the police and investigations are continuing. The honourable member would be well aware of these actions from my letter to him of 12 March 1987. Had the honourable member approached me before placing this part of his question on notice, I would have been prepared to give him access to the officials' report. I would be prepared to provide this document to him for his personal information, should he seek it. (14) I am informed the Commission has neither offered nor released funds to the Company during the past 12 months and does not intend doing so until it is satisfied as to the ability of the Company to: (a) account for public funds, including those provided by the ADC; (b) abide by ADC terms and conditions of grant funding; (c) respond to audit queries to the satisfaction of the ADC; (d) conduct its affairs in a lawful and responsible manner; and (e) comply with ADC expectations in relation to its operations. The ADC tells me that it is most concerned by the irresponsible manner in which the affairs of the Company have been conducted while Mr Robinson has been in office. Rental arrears have increased by 239% over the past 2 years and, at 30 June 1986, apparently stood at $11,963 but may be considerably higher. There are no records of any Board meetings having been held in 1985/86 or that the Board has deliberated on Company administration. With regard to its 1985/86 accounting responsibilities, the Company has failed to provide the ADC with an adequate audited: Income and Expenditure statement; Balance Sheet; detailed list of Debtors and Creditors; certified accurate Assets Ledger; and certified accurate Insurance Schedule. ADC grant funding has not been recorded in the Statement nor are there reliable records to show how those funds were used. The ADC will not provide further funds to the Company until all previously provided monies have been accounted for and the Commission has been so advised. (15) Yes. An investigation has been made which discloses evidence of extensive misappropriation, forgery of cheques as well as theft and misuse of funds. The audit reports and subsequent inquiries indicate gross incompetence in the conduct of Company affairs, including a failure to maintain proper records or report to the police evidence of criminal offences. Income derived from rental paid by the tenants of ADC/DAA funded houses owned by the Company appears to have been misappropriated by being applied to pay expenses incurred by Mr R. L. Robinson, Chairman of the Company. These expenses have included paying for Mr Robinson's telephone bill, fares and travelling expenses, as well as making him 9 personal loans ($15,000), appartently interest-free and for an indefinite period. In addition, income derived from rental also appears to have been used to make other loans to individuals, pay the wages of employees of other organisations, pay monies owed to Aboriginal Hostels Limited, purchase paintings, meet the cost of parties and other entertainment, and for capital expenditure (over $10,000) on the Charleville Community Centre. Personal loans appear to have been made, interest-free, for unspecified periods and without approval of the Company's Board at the time they were made. In December 1986, the ADC asked the Company for explanations concerning some 105 irregularities and qualifications raised by the auditor. To date, the Company has not provided satisfactory replies. (16) No. Immediately following the closing of the 46th Commission Meeting (19 February 1987), Mr Robinson met with the Deputy Chairman and three of the Commissioners to whom he made representations seeking their support for the provision and release of ADC grant funds to the Charleville Aboriginal Housing Company. The meeting was thus a private one between Mr Robinson and 4 of the 10 Member Board of Commissioners. Neither the Deputy Chairman nor any of the 3 other Commissioners who attended that meeting has subsequently made a recommendation for or sought the provision or release of ADC funds to the Charleville Aboriginal Housing Company. The Deputy Chairman did seek advice from Commission staff as to the reasons why no offer of funding had been made to the Company and was provided with the reasons and concerns in relation to Company performance. (17) The ADC has never been asked to sign over property to which it holds title and which is currently used as a Community Centre in Charleville. In the absence of a request for transfer of title, the Commission has neither agreed to nor rejected such transfer. If a request was made, the Board of Commissioners would consider it in the light of the administrative standards and managerial competence of the organisations seeking ownership. The Charleville Aboriginal Housing Company leases the Community Centre property from the ADC and, under the terms of that lease, it is responsible for payment of rates, repairs and maintenance. The ADC is not aware of the precise amount expended on the property by the Company in accordance with the terms of its lease. The current 5-year lease expires on 28 March 1989. (Question No. 5330) Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 1 May 1987: (1) What arrangements have been made to meet the legitimate legal expenses of Aboriginals in southern Queensland who would normally be assisted by the QEB Legal Service, including Aboriginals extradited from Toolemah for the Goondiwindi trial. (2) Were any funds released to the Cherbourg Council from the legal service without the approval of his Department or the committee of the legal service. (3) What arrangements have been made to wind up the affairs of the QEB Legal Service and who will be responsible for meeting any debts incurred during this process. (4) Has his attention been drawn to the intention of the legal service to take action against his Department before the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, the Commonwealth Ombudsman and in the Queensland courts, for breach of contract. (5) What arrangements have been made to protect the interests of the employees of the legal service in the event of its dissolution. (6) Was any commitment given to Mr R. Robinson by his Department that Mr Robinson would be employed following completion of Mr Robinson's training. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) After extensive community consultations, agreement has been reached that the provision of Legal Assistance to Aboriginals in South West Queensland will be delivered in the following manner: (a) funds will be provided to the QEB Legal Service to enable it to retain the services of the solicitors it currently employs. The funds for this purpose will be paid through an accountant's trust account in order to ensure that the funds provided are expended solely on the purposes for which they are provided and that they are properly accounted for; (b) field officers will be provided through locally based Aboriginal organisations. These arrangements are expected to improve the delivery of legal aid in South West Queensland. This will not affect the case of people who I note have not, as yet, been extradited to Queensland in connection with the Goondiwindi `riots'. (2) No. (3) There is currently no intention by the Government to wind up the QEB Legal Service. The Department is aware that the Legal Service has incurred debts in the private sector which will need to be satisfied. The fact that these debts have been incurred is of concern because the Legal Service has been funded quarterly in advance to meet its normal operating costs. (4) No. (5) See (3) above. (6) The Department of Aboriginal Affairs wrote to the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations on two occasions (18 September 1986 and 9 February 1987) indicating support at those times for the position of coordinator, based at Charleville. Mr Robinson was the occupant of the position of trainee coordinator at the time the letters were written. The position of coordinator is now inappropriate and will remain so at least until the financial affairs of the organisations being coordinated are satisfactorily resolved. The honourable member will find that information relevant to Mr Robinson's employment status was included in my letter to him of 12 March 1987. I made it clear in that letter that the possibility of any future grant to enable employment of Mr Robinson would be determined by a number of factors, including the outcome of police investigations and community attitudes towards his future employment. As to the present situation with police investigations, see my reply to para (4) of Question No. 5329. (Question No. 5335) Mr Tim Fischer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 5 May 1987: In each year since 1980-81 what was the value of unused overseas travel entitlements which were forfeited to the Treasury by Members and Senator who (a) continued to be a Member or Senator after a General Election (b) resigned or died and (c) did not stand or were defeated at a General Election. Mr Young —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The entitlement of a Member or Senator to overseas study travel accrues (after an initial qualifying period of three years service in Parliament) only once in the life of each Parliament. The following schedule lists unavailed of credits for each Parliament since 1980-81. UNAVAILED OF OVERSEAS STUDY TRAVEL ENTITLEMENT-31ST PARLIAMENT TO THE 34TH PARLIAMENT Parliament (a) Unavailed of entitlement of Member and Senators who continued after a General Election Number Amount (b) Unavailed of entitlement of Members and Senators who resigned or died Number Amount (c) Unavailed of entitlement of Members and Senators who did not stand or were defeated at a General Election Number Amount $ $ $ 31st Parliament (10 December 1977 to 19 September 1980) (i) Ministers/Presiding Officers* ... 29 62,077.33 . . . . 2 5,144.00 (ii) Senators and Members ... 106 49,056.43 1 1,716.80 31 33,242.77 (iii) Total ... 135 111,133.76 1 1,716.80 33 38,386.77 32nd Parliament (18 October 1980 to 4 February 1983) (i) Ministers/Presiding Officers* ... 23 144,226.72 6 27,636.13 4 36,214.52 (ii) Senators and Members ... 93 173,969.56 1 6,656.25 26 77,816.16 (iii) Total ... 116 318,196.28 7 34,292.38 30 114,030.68 33rd Parliament (5 March 1983 to 26 October 1984) (i) Ministers/Presiding Officers* ... 29 148,721.61 3 27,963.80 . . . . (ii) Senators and Members ... 105 125,804.18 2 5,631.30 11 19,584.96 (iii) Total ... 134 274,525.79 5 33,595.10 11 19,584.96 34th Parliament (1 December 1984 to present) (i) Ministers/Presiding Officers* ... n.a. n.a. 3 31,604.40 n.a. n.a. (ii) Senators and Members ... n.a. n.a. 1 308.26 n.a. n.a. (iii) Total ... n.a. n.a. 4 31,916.66 n.a. n.a. *By decision of successive Governments, Ministers and Presiding Officers do not utilise the overseas study travel entitlement during the term of appointment to the relevant Office. (Question No. 5340) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 5 May 1987: (1) Has his attention been drawn to media reports concerning the relocation of large numbers of refugees under Khmer Rouge control in inaccessible Thai-Kampuchean border camps and the barring of access by relief agencies to the refugees. (2) What action has the Government taken in relation to this matter. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) According to the latest reports some of those relocated have told relief workers that their move to Na Trao and other camps was voluntary and that they are happy to be there. Access to the camps is unavailable to Australian officials. Following the Vietnamese offensive against Khmer resistance bases along the Thai/Cambodian border in early 1985, about 250,000 Cambodian civilians were evacuated to Thailand. The evacuees have been provided with temporary sanctuary in camps administered by the Thai Supreme Command in co-operation with the United Nations Border Relief Organisation (UNBRO). UNBRO co-ordinates relief measures for the evacuees while the International committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has prime responsibility for their protection. Australia has provided $705,000 in cash grants and food supplies during 1986/87 to UNBRO. It is, of course, the prerogative of the Thai Government to decide how to give effect to its responsibilities towards refugees and evacuees on Thai territory. As one of the UNBRO donor countries Australia is in regular contact with the Thai authorities and with the United Nations personnel co-ordinating Kampuchean assistance programs. The Government attached a high priority to the welfare and safety of evacuees and continues to express its concerns to both the Thai authorities and International Agencies as the opportunities arise. (Question No. 5341) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 5 May 1987: (1) Was a security quarantine station established on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands despite the presence there of rare and, in some cases, endangered migratory birds. (2) How has the Government ensured that the quarantine station is not a risk to the local population, their domestic animals and the island's native fauna. (3) If the quarantine station is safe, why was it not placed on some isolated point on the Australian mainland. (4) What consultations have taken place between successive Governments and the local population regarding the establishment of the quarantine station and its continued operation. (5) Has the local population been informed of the value of the station to the Australian cattle industry. (6) Does the local population receive any royalty or payment for any risk to which they are subject. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. A livestock quarantine station was established in 1981. However, the disease concerns relating to the livestock imported through the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Animal Quarantine Station (cattle, sheep, goats etc) were extensively considered in advance and are such that they pose no risk to native or migratory bird life. It is not planned to import live birds or avian genetic material through this station. (2) Prior to the quarantine station being opened, an extensive epidemiological survey was undertaken by experts from Departments of Primary Industry, Health and CSIRO to establish the potential for disease transmission to and retention in native fauna on the islands. The islands' native fauna is limited to birds, lizards and crustaceans, none of which is potentially threatened by any disease that may be introduced by the livestock imported into the quarantine station. The local population's domestic animals (currently confined to cats and chickens) are not considered to be at risk in the unlikely event of a disease being encountered at the quarantine station. A small goat herd is owned by the Clunies-Ross family on Home Island. This herd consists entirely of goats which were extensively tested prior to introduction from Australia. Serum samples from these goats are regularly collected to permit retrospective disease surveys should this be warranted. These goats are on Home Island on the opposite side of the lagoon to the island containing the quarantine station. Operational procedures at the quarantine station are specifically designed to minimise the spread of any disease from the station. Casual visitors are not permitted while a livestock quarantine is in operation. A quarantine service was established at Cocos Islands at the time of establishment of the quarantine station. This involves normal quarantine controls over arrivals of aircraft, ships and itinerant yachts. It ensures that the Cocos (Keeling) Islands have the same quarantine controls over arrivals of people, animals, plants and goods, including controls over quarantine waste disposal, as are in place on the Australian mainland. On establishment of the station, the Department of Health, which then had the responsibility for Quarantine, undertook to provide animal health services to the local population. This continues to be part of the ongoing program, utilising the expertise of the staff employed on the station and providing regular health checks on local domestic animals. The controls and programs outlined above are designed to enhance the health status of the local animal population. It must be noted that, prior to shipment to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Animal Quarantine Station, imported livestock are subject to isolation and extensive health testing. Australian conditions for importation of livestock are comprehensive and require exhaustive testing regimes to be met. This reduces to a minimum the possibility of introduction of an infected animal into the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. (3) The answer to the Honourable Member's question can best be summarised by quoting from the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works' fifth report of 1973 in relation to the construction of an offshore high security animal quarantine station: ``If the quarantine station is on an island sufficiently removed from the mainland and Tasmania, in the unlikely event of an outbreak of exotic disease in the quarantine station it would not be considered as implicating the mainland and for purpose of trade Australia would be considered free of that disease. An off-shore island location presents the most satisfactory solution to the interacting requirements of security, maintenance of normal trade, safety and convenience. In addition, an island location presents enormous capital cost savings in that expensive works to make animal accommodation virus proof will not be required. The selected site should be at least 100 miles from the mainland to obviate the risk of infected insects travelling to or from the island and the possibility of droplet transmission by wind of virus particles such as foot-and-mouth disease. It was noted that foot-and-mouth disease virus has been suspected of carrying 40-60 miles downwind in Europe. Insect vectors of certain diseases could be expected to carry approximately 100 miles in favourable weather conditions.'' (4) Again, the honourable member's question can best be answered by quoting from a report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. The following is from the Committee's second report of 1978 in relation to the construction of the quarantine station: ``Land acquisition. Following agreement with the Clunies-Ross Estate, the Government has now purchased the land on Cocos Island on which it is proposed to locate the quarantine station. At various times the Islanders have indicated their support for the Station. Late in 1977 the Department of Health was advised that the Islanders and Mr J. Clunies-Ross had no objection to the Commonwealth constructing and operating the station with its own resources.'' ``Committee's conclusion. The committee notes that arrangements have now been made about the purchase of the land on which the station is to be built and that the local people have indicated their support''. Cocos Malays have been employed on the quarantine station since it opened in 1981 and offers of work experience programs have frequently been extended to the Cocos Malay community. Discussions have also been held regarding the possibility of Cocos Malays being trained in animal quarantine procedures on the mainland for future employment on the Cocos Islands as Quarantine Officers. To date none have accepted this government offer. There has been ongoing liaison with the Cocos Malay community regarding animal and plant health on the islands and any activities on the station which may affect their community. This has included discussions with the Cocos Malay Council on the possible importation of pigs through the station. (5) Yes. The local population has over several years been informed of the value of the station. Local people are aware of the value of the animals being imported through the station and the reasons for the extensive quarantine procedures being followed. Following the health clearance of consignments for export to the mainland, an open day is often held permitting the local population to view the animals and to have any questions answered by the station staff. (6) No. Due to the design and operational procedures of the quarantine station, it is not considered to constitute any risk to the local population. The Cocos Malay community, as Australian citizens, benefit indirectly from the operations of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Animal Quarantine Station which is regarded as being a national asset. (Question No. 5346) Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 5 May 1987: 1. Has his attention been drawn to allegations of corruption and political interference occurring within his Department made by the former chairman of the Aboriginal Arts Board, Mr G. Foley. 2. Is he able to say whether Mr Foley has called for a Royal Commission into these allegations. 3. Will he recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to conduct an investigation into these allegations. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. Yes. My attention has been drawn to recent media reports of allegations by the former Director of the Aboriginal Arts Board of the nature outlined in the honourable member's question. 2. I am aware that Mr Foley has been reported in at least one media report as having called for a Royal Commission. 3. No. (Question No. 5348) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 6 May 1987: (1) Did the Government make a decision in January 1986 to contribute to the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) for the 1985-87 triennium. (2) Has that funding commitment been met; if not, why not, and when is it expected to be made. (3) Is Australia the only member country not to have met its commitment to IFAD. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) In January 1986, during IFAD's 9th Governing Council meeting, the Australian Government made known its intention to participate in the second replenishment of IFAD (IFAD-2) which covers the years 1985/87. Australia's pledges to multilateral organisations become commitments once they have been formally endorsed by the Government and legislation has been passed which enables Australia to lodge an instrument of contribution with the organisation. In the case of IFAD-2 this process has yet to be completed. (2) As the honourable member will be aware from my answers to previous questions regarding IFAD, the Government has undertaken a comprehensive review of Australia's participation in international financial institutions and IFAD. A decision on Australia's participation in IFAD-2 will be made in the context of the recommendations of this review. Australia will not be in a position to deposit an instrument of contribution with IFAD until enabling legislation is in place. (3) As at 22 April 1987, 21 out of 31 donor countries had deposited their instruments of contribution to IFAD's second replenishment. (Question No. 5366) Mr Rocher asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 7 May 1987: (1) How many consultant architects, engineers, quantity surveyors and other specialists were commissioned by his Department to complete designs or tender documentation during 1985/86. (2) In how many projects were specialists referred to in part (1) involved. (3) What proportion of the design workload of the Department was placed with private practitioners in 1985/86. (4) In 1985/86 in each State and Territory, (a) how many consultants were engaged on new projects, (b) what was the value of projects and (c) what proportion of the design workload for projects was placed with private practitioners. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. My Department placed 626 new commissions in 1985/86 with architects, engineers, quantity surveyors and other specialists to undertake design and documentation activities; the figures do not include commissions solely for technical advice. 2. There were some 458 new projects involved. 3. My Department placed 59% of its design workload with private practitioners in 1985/86. 4. The following table details for each Regional Office for 1985/86: (a) how many consultants were engaged on new projects; (b) the value of those new projects; and (c) the proportion of the design workload placed with private practitioners (a) (b) (c) Region Number of consultancies on new projects Value of projects Percentage of design workload placed with private practitioners ($m) A.C.T.... 68 245 60 N.S.W.... 251 580 66 Vic./Tas. 109 167 47 Qld... 54 76 53 S.A./N.T. 97 30 74 W.A.... 47 31 44 (Question No. 5379) Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 7 May 1987: (1) How often do officers of his Department visit Kintore community and how many days in total are spent in the community. (2) What efforts are being made to improve transportation and access to the community. (3) Is he able to say what is the estimated value of wrecked cars lying around the community. (4) Do Aboriginals have access to a mechanic in the community and is anybody being trained to fill this role. (5) How many vehicles have been purchased by the council and organisations operating in the community in the last year and what was the cost of purchasing the vehicles. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) An officer or officers visit Kintore approximately once every two months. A total of ten days a year, on average, are spent in the community. (2) Access roads to the community are a Northern Territory Government responsibility. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs (DAA) does not fund vehicles for travel to and from the community. (3) All wrecked cars at the community are private property; as such DAA officers have not estimated their value. (4) There is no mechanic in the community; no community member is being trained to fill this role. (5) The Walungurra Council, funded by the Northern Territory Government, does not have a vehicle. DAA funds the purchase and operating costs for vehicles belonging to the Outstation Resource Centre, and to the Pintubi Homeland Health Service (PHHS). The outstation Resource Centre operates two vehicles one of which was replaced in 1986/87 at a cost of $24,000. PHHS maintains a fleet of four vehicles, two of which are replaced each year. Replacement costs to the Department for two vehicles was $44,000 in 1986/87. Estimated costs of replacements in 1987/88 is $46,000. (Question No. 5380) Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 7 May 1987: 1. Has his Department held discussions with Aboriginal artists and arts organisations over their boycott of Aboriginal Arts Australia's attempts to centralise promotion and sale. 2. On what basis was this move taken by his Department. 3. What are the artists' objections to this move. 4. Under what body are these functions to be co-ordinated. 5. What is the annual budget and staffing of this organisation and will these be increased to cover the new arrangements. 6. Is this organisation profitable. 7. For what reasons has his Department taken over this function from successful private organisations and placed them under a Government body. 8. What attempts has his Department made to meet the demands of Aboriginal artists who have placed a boycott on dealing with the Government agency since 2 April 1987. 9. Are buyers for Inada Holdings still operating and entering Aboriginal land without permits at Yirrkala. 10. Will his Department establish a review of these matters before proceeding any further with this move. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. Desite rumours circulating in the Aboriginal arts community and statements by the Association of Northern and Central Australian Artists Association (ANCAAA), there has been no attempt by Aboriginal Arts Australia Ltd to centralise promotion and sale of Aboriginal Art. Further there has been no suggestion on the part of Government, the Aboriginal Development Commission or the Department of Aboriginal Affairs that that company or any other organisation assume such a centralised or controlling role. I am aware of the present boycott on sales to Aboriginal Arts Australia Ltd imposed by the ANCAAA and I have written to the Association indicating my willingness to meet and discuss with its representatives matters of concern to its members. I have also indicated publicly my general concern that returns and accountability to Aboriginal artists in respect of sales of their work could be improved and within my own portfolio have held preliminary discussions with the Aboriginal Development Commission and Aboriginal Arts Australia Ltd about upgrading their operations in financing, distribution and marketing of Aboriginal Art. 2. Not applicable. See (1) above. 3. As indicated above there is no move to centralise the promotion and sale of Aboriginal art through Aboriginal Arts Australia Ltd or any other organisation. Nevertheless ANCAAA has introduced the boycott in support of independently owned and controlled craft centres and I understand is also seeking an ongoing commitment to funding support for itself. As mentioned above I have written to the Association indicating my willingness to meet with its representatives and discuss its concerns. 4. Not applicable. See (1) above. 5. Not applicable. See (1) above. 6. Not applicable. See (1) above. 7. No function of marketing or promotion of Aboriginal art has been taken over from private organisations and placed under a Government body. 8. See (1) and (3) above. 9. I am seeking information from Aboriginal Arts Australia Ltd on the matter raised in this part of the honourable member's question. 10. Not applicable. See (1) above. (Question No. 5381) Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 7 May 1987: (1) What funding has the Kintore Health Service received from the Government in every year of its operation. (2) Which communities and how many persons are serviced by this organisation. (3) What vehicles have been purchased by the health service and what has been the cost of purchasing the vehicles. (4) Are the vehicles ever used for private purposes and are they always available to transport patients. (5) How many staff operate the service. (6) On what basis are appointments and dismissals made by the health service. (7) What is the management structure of the service, how often are meetings held and how many members attend the meetings. (8) How many persons have had to be evacuated to Alice Springs Hospital by Royal Flying Doctor Service or chartered aircraft in the past year. (9) How many persons from communities serviced by the health service have died in the past year. (10) What is the incidence of (a) gastroenteritis, (b) childhood deaths and malnutrition, (c) enteric disease, (d) chronic ear infections, (e) eye disease, (f) leprosy, (g) sexually transmitted diseases and (h) deaths from external causes in the communities serviced by the organisation. (11) How many cases referred to in part (10) are treated each week. (12) What costs are incurred through delivery of drugs, treatments and transport and what are the costs of salaries and administration. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Funding for the Pintubi Homelands Health Service (PHHS) in every year of its operations is as follows: 1982/83 Establishment grant ... $30,000 1983/84 Capital and Recurrent ... $455,500 1984/85 Capital and Recurrent ... $536,000 1985/86 Capital and Recurrent ... $460,857 1986/87 Capital and Recurrent ... $492,070 1987/88 Estimated, Capital and Recurrent $548,100 (2) The communities serviced by PHHS are as follows: Kintore, Kiwikurra, Ininti, Moyin, Montarti, Tjinki, Tjalpiratjara, Pinpirinya, Neugelna, Neunman, Yuwalki, Kalipimpa. The total population served fluctuates between 700-1200, depending on traditional and seasonal influences. (3) PHHS maintain a fleet of four Toyota Landcruiser Station Wagons, two of which are replaced each year. Replacement costs to the Department for two vehicles was $44,000 in 1986/87, including trade-ins. Estimated costs of replacements in 1987/88, including trade-ins is $46,000. (4) Until recently, intense pressure had been put on PHHS staff by community Aboriginals for private use of these vehicles. This matter was investigated by Departmental staff, discussed with community members, and corrected; future funding has been made strictly dependent on correct use of PHHS vehicles. Two recent instances of vehicles not being available to transport patients contributed to this DAA intervention. DAA are now satisfied that vehicles are available to transport patients and are not used for private purposes. (5) Staffing positions of PHHS are as follows: one doctor, two sisters, one Administrator (all non-Aboriginal); one Administrative understudy and seven health workers (all Aboriginal). (6) Non-Aboriginal appointments are made by the Executive of PHHS. Advertising, assessing of applications and interviews are undertaken by the Executive with DAA assistance. There have been no dismissals to date, but these, too, would be finalised by the Executive. (7) Meetings of the PHHS Health Committee are held approximately monthly, with other meetings as necessary to deal with crises. Attendance at these meetings varies between 6 and 15. The committee is not a formal western model, being structured along traditional lines. The whole of the Wallangura Council, and other interested community members are on the Committee. The operational and management structures of PHHS were most recently revised in April 1987. Patients see the health workers first for any treatment, then, as necessary, the sister, and the doctor. The Administrative understudy does the budgets and ordering, under the Administrator's supervision. The Doctor controls the use of vehicles. The Doctor and the Administrator (together with the TAFE Adult Educator) undertake community health education programs and Aboriginal Health Worker training programs. (8) The receipt of the 1986 Medical Report from the PHHS is still pending; preliminary indications are 144 evacuations. (9) As indicated, the 1986 Medical Report has not yet been received. In 1985, 3 persons in communities served by PHHS died. (10) As indicated, the 1986 Medical Report has not yet been received. Figures for 1985 are as follows: (a) Gastroenteritis-child days, 1431; evacuations, 96. (b) Childhood deaths, 1. (c) Enteric Disease-See (a) above. (d) Chronic ear infections-44 ears of 102 screened had ear infections or had signs of former infection, 12 children of 29 tested did not pass audiometry. (e) Eye disease-100% of children had active trachoma. (f) Leprosy-not mentioned. (g) Sexually Transmitted Diseases-figures not available. (11) A total of approximately 450 cases are treated each week. No breakdown of treatment figures has been provided. (12) 1986/87 costs of the service and salaries were: $ Service delivery (including drugs, treatments, repairs, maintenance and other service operations costs) ... 110,900 Salaries including Administrator and Administrative understudy ... 302,670 Administration, accounting, insurance, office expenses, postage, recruitments etc. ... 27,500 440,070 (Question No. 5382) Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 7 May 1987: (1) How many Aboriginal Health Services are funded by his Department. (2) What is the annual allocation to these services. (3) How many services jointly receive funding from State Government. (4) Which services are under review by his Department. (5) What measures are being taken by his Department to ensure that Aboriginals are receiving medical attention equivalent to other Australians through State run health organisations. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1 to 3) There are 54 independent Aboriginal community controlled organisations being funded by the Department throughout Australia this financial year at a total projected cost of $18,547,996 to provide health services to Aboriginal communities. Of these, four jointly receive funding from State or Territory Governments. (4) All Aboriginal Health Services are regularly reviewed in accordance with Program Performance Budgetting requirements. (5) Department of Aboriginal Affairs programs operate to overcome Aboriginal disadvantage but are not intended to replace those programs administered by a Commonwealth, State or Territory authority which provide services to the general community. In the Aboriginal health field DAA funding should be directed to overcoming the additional disadvantage experienced by Aboriginal people while also ensuring that other Commonwealth, State and Territory programs provide appropriate services which are accessible to Aboriginals. The Government's broad objective in Aboriginal health is to raise the standard of Aboriginal health to that enjoyed by the Australian community overall. To this end, the strategy of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs is to: (a) Give greater priority to, and place greater emphasis on, improving the physical environment in which Aboriginal people live, especially in regard to housing and essential services. (b) Subject all major policy and project proposals to an assessment of their impact on the environment, lifestyle and well-being of Aboriginal people. (c) Ensure that all programs reflect this total approach, that they are developed in the context of such an assessment and that they are accompanied by appropriate education and training initiatives. (d) Facilitate the development of integrated programs through joint State/Federal and Aboriginal consultative mechanisms. (e) Include educative and training programs to assist Aboriginal people to obtain the maximum benefit from programs. All programs are planned and implemented in close consultation with both State/Territory authorities and the Aboriginal community, to seek to ensure that Aboriginal citizens have full access to health services. The Department will provide a total of some $13.67m in grants to the States in 1986-87 to supplement their health programs for Aborigines in recognition of their special disadvantage. (Question No. 5387) Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 11 May 1987: Is there a Defence Offsets Committee; if so which Departments are represented on it and when did the Committee last meet. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There is no Defence Offsets Committee as such however the terms of reference of the Defence Industry Committee (DIC) have been expanded to include the function to oversight the defence offsets programme and advise the Minister for Defence on matters relating to his functional responsibilities to the Defence Offsets Programme and Australian Industry Involvement in Defence purchases. In addition meetings of officers from appropriate areas occur on a regular basis as required. There is a standing offsets Interdepartmental Committee jointly chaired by Departments of Industry, Technology and Commerce (DITAC) and Defence, on which a number of Departments are represented. The IDC last met on Wednesday 29 April 1987. Also a Defence/DITAC working party has been established to co-ordinate offsets policy and its operation. The working party will meet again on 5 June 1987. (Question No. 5394) Mr Maher asked the Minster for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 12 May 1987: (1) Has Mrs S. Cullen of Strathfield, NSW, been denied the right to sponsor her 69 year-old father from Sri Lanka for permanent residency because of his alleged ill health. (2) Has Mrs Cullen sought a review of the interim decision by submitting fresh medical reports; if so, when will a determination be made. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) Mrs Cullen has not been denied the right to sponsor her father. Unfortunately, he was found to be unable to meet normal health requirements for entry to Australia and his application was refused. Mrs Cullen then sought a review of this decision. Subsequently, medical reports and x-rays were submitted to my Department and to the Commonwealth Department of Health. On 24 March 1987, the Department of Health reported that the applicant had an untreated medical condition and, as a consequence, did not meet the medical standards for entry but advised that a review of the case could be undertaken following treatment over a period of 6 months. (Question No. 5400) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 12 May 1987: (1) Is he able to say whether the Lenin Shipyards in Gdansk refused Mr Lech Walesa the leave of absence which was necessary for him to obtain a passport to travel to Italy for a trade union conference and an audience with the Pope in April 1987. (2) Is he able to say whether the French Socialist Trade Union Federation offered to send a fully qualified Polish speaking electrician to the Lenin Shipyards to take the place of Mr Walesa and thus enable Mr Walesa to travel to Italy. (3) Is he able to say whether the French Christian Democratic Trade Union Federation offered to send its General-Secretary, who is a qualified electrician, to take the place of Mr Walesa and thus enable Mr Walesa to travel to Italy. (4) Is he able to say whether Mr Walesa was able to obtain a passport for travel to Italy. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. Mr Walesa applied for leave from the Lenin Shipyards on March 31 in order to obtain a passport. His request for leave was refused on April 13. 2. Our Embassy in Warsaw understands that the French Socialist Trade Union Federation offered to send a replacement for Walesa. Mr Walesa's colleagues from his own work group also offered to work in his place. 3. The French Christian Democratic Trade Union Federation is also understood to have offered to send its Secretary-General as a replacement. 4. As noted in (1) above, Mr Walesa was unable to apply for a passport. (Question No. 5406) Mr Hodges asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 12 May 1987: (1) What has been the cost of implementing Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) programs in the Minister's Department, including all costs associated with the recruitment of EEO officers, advertising, office facilities, training and development programs. (2) How many (a) full-time and (b) part-time EEO officers are employed in the Department and what salaries do they receive. (3) What is the estimated annual recurrent expenditure to maintain the EEO unit. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The implementation of EEO is the responsibility of all Managers within the Department, and the costs associated with EEO are met from funds prescribed for the recurring expenses of the Department and are not separately identified. There is however one segment of the training and development program which can be identified as a direct EEO cost and this segment has cost $9,700 since 1985. (2) (a) A full-time EEO Co-ordinator, Clerical Administrative Class 9, $35,040, is employed by the Department. (b) See (1). (3) See (1) and 2 (a). (Question No. 5411) Mr Hodges asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 12 May 1987: (1) What has been the cost of implementing Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) programs in the Minister's Department, including all costs associated with the recruitment of EEO officers, advertising, office facilities, training and development programs. (2) How many (a) full-time and (b) part-time EEO officers are employed in the Department and what salaries do they receive. (3) What is the estimated annual recurrent expenditure to maintain the EEO unit. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) As the Department does not maintain a separate vote for EEO Unit activities, it is unable to identify all the costs of establishing the Unit. Advertisements to fill EEO Unit vacancies were placed through the Australian Government Publishing Service. Office facilities were provided within Central Office by Foreign Affairs. Furnishings and office equipment transferred from Departmental stocks to establish the unit would cost approximately $7320 to replace. Training is part of the general staff development program and is not an additional cost. (2) There are two officers employed on EEO functions for approximately sixty percent of their time. 1 x CAC 11-$40,686 p.a.; 1 x CAC 7-$30,079 p.a. In addition, an officer has been nominated at each State office and overseas post to monitor implementation of EEO programs. (3) The annual recurrent expenditure to maintain the EEO unit includes $42,456 for 60 per cent of the two officers salaries, plus separate amounts for stationery, telephone, and postage. These last items are included in the Department's Administrative votes. It is not possible to identify separate expenditure figures. The estimate for travel in 1987-88 is $3,000. (Question No. 5415) Mr Hodges asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 12 May 1987: (1) What has been the cost of implementing Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) programs in the Minister's Department, including all costs associated with the recruitment of EEO officers, advertising, office facilities, training and development programs. (2) How many (a) full-time and (b) part-time EEO officers are employed in the Department and what salaries do they receive. (3) What is the estimated annual recurrent expenditure to maintain the EEO unit. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) My Department has had resources dedicated to EEO programs since 1979, well before EEO requirements were established in the legislative provisions of 1984. It is not possible to itemise all costs specific to implementation, as many of the actions have been absorbed into normal personnel management practices eg. in respect of training and development, any activities are now part of existing courses. Duties prescribed for EEO officers in relation to the fulfilment of legislated responsibilities of employers, are only part of the total duties performed by these officers. Other duties include staff counselling and welfare and general participation in personnel management activities. The costings listed below take account of an estimate that on average EEO officers in the Department spend some 35% of their time on other matters. The recruitment of EEO officers has been undertaken through the normal Gazette processes. Advertising has been confined to the Gazette. Office facilities $11,484 (rent only). Training and development programs $97,517. (2) Nine (9) full-time officers are employed in the Department (Central Office and Six Regions). The salary component for EEO purposes is $174,515. (3) The estimated annual recurrent expenditure to maintain the EEO unit is $185,999. (Question No. 5444) Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 13 May 1987: (1) What proceeds were collected from the dinner held on 6 September 1986 at the Adelaide Hilton hotel to present the National Aboriginal Sports Council's Aboriginal Sports Star Awards. (2) Who is responsible for this money and what purpose has it been put to. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) $5280 was received from sale of tickets. (2) The National Aboriginal Sports Council Aboriginal Corporation. The funds were then used to partially offset the cost of the dinner. (Question No. 5447) Mr Adermann asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 13 May 1987: (1) Has he stated that programming is entirely the responsibility of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. (2) Will he continue to make this statement and maintain that there should be no direction by the Government where such programs (a) affect international relations to the extent that (i) Australian representatives are expelled, and (ii) there is a threat to the continuation of our diplomatic posts, and (b) seriously jeopardise trade relations to the extent of threats of recrimination by the curtailment or reduction of primary industry export commodities. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) As the honourable member would be aware, it has been a long standing Government policy not to interfere with programming decisions of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. This situation is not unique to Australia and is in keeping with the well established tradition of freedom of the media in western democracies. Nevertheless, I would expect the ABC to exercise discretion in its editorial policy so far as matters impinging on the national interest are concerned. (Question No. 5463) Mr Beddall asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 14 May 1987: (1) What are the guidelines for granting enrolment to those voters who do not wish to have their address shown on the roll under section 104 of the Act. (2) How does this section apply in Queensland where there is a joint electoral card but a separate electoral roll. (3) What criteria are the Commonwealth Commission adopting in accepting or rejecting applications in Queensland. Mr Young —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The guidelines for granting silent enrolment status to electors on application are laid down in s. 104 (1)-(6) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. An applicant must lodge with the appropriate Divisional Returning Officer (DRO) a request in the approved form that his address be deleted from the roll. The request must give particulars of the relevant risk and must be verified by statutory declaration by the applicant or some other person. Where the DRO is satisfied that having the applicant's address shown on the roll places or would place the personal safety of the person or members of the person's family at risk, the applicant's address is removed from the roll. (2) Applications for silent enrolment in Queensland where a joint claim card exists but separate rolls are maintained are referred to the State Electoral Office in an attempt to reach agreement in regard to the acceptance or rejection of the application. (3) The criteria adopted by the Electoral Commission in evaluating claims for silent enrolment are as follows: All applications for silent enrolment must comply with the provisions laid down in s. 104 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The DRO has the authority to evaluate each case and to accept a claim only in those cases where the applicant has a genuine fear of violence and concern for personal safety should the address appear on the roll. The applicant's occupation alone is insufficient justification for the approval of silent enrolment. Each applicant must provide details of specific threats to personal safety which would result from the publication of the address. In cases where one member of a family has been granted silent enrolment, other members can apply by stating on their application their relationship with the person who has been approved as a silent elector. One supporting statutory declaration is acceptable where it covers the necessary separate but concurrent applications from both husband and wife. (Question No. 5475) Dr Watson asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 26 May 1987: (1) Since 1 December 1984, has the Minister's Department engaged any public relations consultants or other consultants to assist in preparing material for presentation to the Parliament, any joint committee of the Parliament, any committee of the House of Representatives or any committee of the Senate; if so (a) for what purpose, (b) what was the extent of the work undertaken, (c) what are the names of the consultants who have been engaged and (d) what fees were paid to the consultants. (2) Has it been the normal practice of the Minister's Department to engage consultants for other activities; if so, (a) for what purpose, (b) what was the extent of the work undertaken, (c) what are the names of the consultants who have been engaged and (d) what fees were paid to the consultants. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. (2) Yes-details on consultants employed in the Department in the period March 1983 to May 1985 were provided in response to question number 1245 (Hansard of 29 November 1985, Page 4125). Details of consultants employed by the Department since May 1985 are as follows: (a) + (b) Conduct review of scientific literature on superficial scald on apples and pears. (c) Dr E. W. Barlow. (d) $8,000. (a) + (b) Advise on Procedures at Torrens Island Quarantine Station. (c) Dr P. Howe. (d) $5,335. (a) + (b) Develop Repetitive Strain Injury training and rehabilitation programs. (c) Mrs K. Tapsall. (d) $22,100. (a) + (b) Conduct Southern Bluefin Tuna sampling program. (c) WW Fisheries Pty Ltd. (d) $101,600. (a) + (b) Conduct fish stock assessment workshops. (c) Dr K. Radway-Allan. (d) $3,000. (a) + (b) Design uniforms for Quarantine Officers. (c) Read Uniforms Pty Ltd (d) $7,438. (a) + (b) Conduct supervision course for meat inspection staff. (c) Mr B. Nott. (d) $1,140. (a) + (b) Conduct quit smoking seminar. (c) M/s L. Thurecht. (d) $280. (a) + (b) Development of Integrated Financial Management System (Stage 4). (c) Touche Ross Services Pty Ltd. (d) $392,000. (a) + (b) Examine and report on use of antimicrobial products in the intensive animal industries. (c) Sarus Pty Ltd. (d) $6,000. (a) + (b) Conduct Team Building course for dairy inspection staff. (c) Slade Consulting Group Pty Ltd. (d) $2,000. (a) + (b) Conduct seminars on negotiation skills. (c) Insight Counselling Services Pty Ltd. (d) $300. (a) + (b) Prepare material for inclusion in publication on the Australian Animal Quarantine Service. (c) Mr G. J. Skillman. (d) $6,000. (a) + (b) Conduct review of fisheries management charges. (c) Price Waterhouse. (d) $30,315. (a) + (b) Conduct study of ADP requirements. (c) C. R. Eckermann & Associates. (d) $34,748. (a) + (b) Specialist consultant to Operational Management Review of the Brucellosis and Tuberculosis Eradication Campaign. (c) Dr W. Ray. (d) $69,091. (a) and (b) Conduct Operational Management Review of the Brucellosis and Tuberculosis Eradication Campaign. (c) Arthur Young and Associates. (d) $200,790. (a) and (b) Staff Development consultancy. (c) Dalmau and Associates Pty Ltd. (d) $18,144. (a) and (b) Conduct staff development course. (c) The Pacific Institute Incorporated. (d) $2000. (a) and (b) Conduct Advanced Supervision course. (c) David Shave & Associates. (d) $2,880. (a) and (b) Review of Department's Public Relations activities. (c) Mr R. Macklin. (d) $5,000. (a) and (b) Training consultant for the Australian Fisheries Service. (c) McIver Associates. (d) $3,133. (a) and (b) Review legislation affecting exotic animal disease control. (c) Professor D. J. Whalan. (d) $20,000. (a) and (b) Advice on Southern Bluefin Tuna monitoring survey proposal. (c) Mr P. Lorimer, Mr J. Robins. (d) $350 (Lorimer), $1050 (Robins). (a) and (b) Review regulation of agricultural and veterinary chemicals. (c) Mr J. T. Snelson. (d) $14,000. (a) and (b) Conduct Tuna Tagging Project. (c) WW Fisheries Pty Ltd. (d) $23,020. (a) and (b) Review and rewrite Volume 2 of the Animal Health in Australia Series. (c) Dr A. A. Seawright. (d) $6,000. (a) and (b) Review computing requirements for the Australian Fisheries Service. (c) Computer Power. (d) $18,864. (a) and (b) Conduct negotiating skills course. (c) Rose & Heriot. (d) $5,034. (a) and (b) Soil Conservation consultancy. (c) Mr R. Andrews. (d) $9,600. (a) and (b) Review of Forestry Research Arrangements. (c) Mr J. Quick and Mr H. Booth. (d) Mr Quick $25,000, Mr Booth $25,000. (a) and (b) Conduct Middle Management Workshop. (c) Mr R. Begbie. (d) $3,600. (a) and (b) Conduct Management Skills Training Workshop. (c) Professional Training and Development. (d) $6,540. (a) and (b) Conduct an office automation trial. (c) Computer Sciences of Australia. (d) $57,300. (a) and (b) Act as facilitator at management conference. (c) Amtek Consulting Group. (d) $2,150. (a) and (b) Conduct Client Liasion Workshop. (c) NIS Associates Pty Ltd. (d) $3,800. (a) and (b) Conduct Job Design Workshop. (c) M/s V. Read. (d) $2,600. (a) and (b) Prepare inspection manual for fresh fruit and vegetables. (c) Mr K. Branston. (d) $10,000. (a) and (b) Develop training program for Agricultural Quarantine and Export Inspection. (c) Dr R. Banyer. (d) $6,250. (a) and (b) Develop legislative framework for exotic animal disease legislation. (c) Mr K. Kaney. (d) $20,000. (a) and (b) Conduct corporate and operational planning workshop. (c) Peat Marwick & Mitchell. (d) $2,400. (a) and (b) Provide advice on Department's Corporate Plan. (c) Coopers & Lybrand, WD Scott. (d) $31,313. (a) and (b) Review office and management systems in the Department's Agriculture and Veterinary Chemicals. (c) Arthur Young and Associates. (d) $23,050. (a) and (b) Conduct training seminars. (c) Computer Power. (d) $3,650. (a) and (b) Conduct assignments relating to feral animal control. (c) Allan Fox and Associates. (d) $23,400. (a) and (b) Conduct Managing Meetings Workshop. (c) Mr P. Boas. (d) $3,304. (a) and (b) Conduct a Negotiation Skills Workshop. (c) Coopers and Lybrand, WD Scott. (d) $2,300. (a) and (b) Conduct enquiry into plant breeding needs and alternatives to plant variety rights. (c) Professor A. Lazenby. (d) $21,320. (a) and (b) Develop microcomputing system. (c) Micro Solution. (d) $3,200. (a) and (b) Undertake economic assessment of South East Trawl Fishermen operating from Portland. (c) Mr C. Lightfoot. (d) $2,500. (a) and (b) Conduct training course for ADP Staff. (c) Northern Computing Services. (d) $3,084. (a) and (b) Development of ADP system and associated support for the Australian Fisheries Service. (c) Control Data Australia. (d) $12,120. (a) and (b) Provide media skills training for BAE staff. (c) Ekani Consultancy and Management Services. (d) $10,500. (a) and (b) Act as outsider reviewer of the final report for the project on evaluation of wool promotion in the USA. (c) Dr B. Griffiths. (d) $1,200. (a) and (b) To lead additional BAE research into the inter-sectoral effects of the European Community's agricultural policies. (c) Centre for International Economics. (d) $26,970. (a) and (b) Provide advice and training on repetitive strain injury prevention. (c) K. Tapsall. (d) $700. (a) and (b) Prepare graphics for BAE publications. (c) S. Olle. (d) $968. (Question No. 5508) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 27 May 1987: (1) Is he able to say whether the U.S. moved to condemn the treatment of political dissidents in Cuba at a United Nations forum held in Geneva during April 1987. (2) Is he able to say whether these moves by the U.S. delegation were prevented by procedural means initiated by the Indian delegation. (3) Was there a vote taken on the Indian procedural initiative; if so, how did the Australian delegation vote. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The United States tabled a draft resolution condemning human rights abuses in Cuba during the 43rd Session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights which was held in Geneva from 2 February to 13 March 1987. The draft resolution drew attention to Cuban treatment of political prisoners. (2) The United States move was blocked when a motion, proposed by the Indian delegation, to take no action on the United States draft resolution was narrowly passed. (3) The Indian procedural motion was voted on at the meeting. The Australian delegation voted against it. (Question No. 5523) Mr Sinclair asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 28 May 1987: (1) 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 Hayden —The answer to the right honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes, officers from the Department of Foreign Affairs have visited Libya on official business since March 1983. Records are not available of private visits undertaken by officers. (a) Records available to the Department indicate the official visits were undertaken in May 1983 and June 1986 by officers of the Australian Embassy at Rome. (b) The purpose of the visits was to provide consular assistance to Australians in Libya. (c) Costs were met by the Department. (Question No. 5526) Mr Sinclair asked the Minister for Primary Industry, 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 Kerin —The answer to the right honourable member's question is as follows: One officer from the Department of Primary Industry visited Libya in 1985. The details of this trip are: (a) Visit was from 15 April 1985 to 20 April 1985. (b) The officer was a Veterinarian accompanying a live shipment of sheep. (c) The cost of the trip was met on a shared basis between the exporter and the Department. Two similar trips were undertaken by officers from the Western Australian Department of Primary Production on behalf of the Department of Primary Industry. These were in May and June 1986 and the purpose and funding arrangements were the same. (Question No. 5527) Mr Sinclair asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, 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 West —The answer to the right honourable member's question is as follows: No officers of my Department or statutory authorities under my responsibility have travelled to Libya for official purposes since March 1983. (Question No. 5542) Mr Sinclair asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, 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 Young —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the right honourable member's question: I am advised that no officers who come under my portfolio responsibilities have visited Libya since March 1983. (Question No. 5551) Mr Wright asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 29 May 1987: (1) What assistance has been provided by the Government to overcome problems in the Aboriginal and Islander Communities in Australia in relation to (a) alcoholism, (b) unemployment, (c) sub standard housing, (d) upgrading employment skills, (e) education disadvantages and (f) other welfare needs. (2) What has been the value of this assistance since 1983. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I refer the honourable member to a recent publication by my Department entitled ``Achievements in Aboriginal Affairs 1983-1987''. This document, which is available in the Parliamentary Library, sets out activities in Aboriginal affairs since the Government came to power in 1983 and includes the levels of assistance made available as well as the outcomes arising from that assistance in all areas including those mentioned by the honourable member. (Question No. 5563) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 1 June 1987: (1) How many pensioners and beneficiaries, including family allowance recipients, were in receipt of benefit in each year since 1981-82. (2) What type of benefit were these beneficiaries receiving. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The numbers of pensioners, beneficiaries and allowees in receipt of payments since 1982, and the type of payment received, are contained in the Statistical Tables of the Annual Report of the Department of Social Security for 1985-86. The latest available figures are as follows: Pensioners Number as at 1.5.1987 Age pensioners ... 1,323,272 Recipients of wife's pension (age) ... 22,238 Invalid pensioners ... 287,548 Recipients of wife's pension (invalid) ... 85,856 Sheltered employment allowees (incl. wives) ... 10,550 Rehabilitation allowees (incl. wives) ... 3,798 Class `A' widows ... 70,183 Class `B' widows ... 82,382 Class `C' widows ... 140 Supporting parent beneficiaries Males ... 10,255 Females ... 170,131 Carers ... 6,303 Total pensioners ... 2,072,656 Beneficiaries Numbers as at 29.5.1987 Unemployment beneficiaries ... 561,698 Sickness beneficiaries ... 70,082 Special beneficiaries ... 19,886 Total beneficiaries ... 651,666 Payments to families Numbers as at 14.4.1987 Family allowances- No. of families ... 2,130,633 No. of children/students ... 4,101,953 Children in institutions ... 10,258 Handicapped child's allowance- No. of children ... 30,901 Double orphan's pension- No. of children ... 4,484 Family income supplement-(at 1.5.1987) No. of families ... 31,552 No. of children ... 89,545 (Question No. 4396) Mr Scott asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) Are the members of the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) responsible for all the recommendations made by that body. (2) Who were the members on 1 June 1986 of (a) the NHMRC and (b) the following NHMRC committees (i) Public Health, (ii) Food Standards and (iii) Food Science and Technology sub-committee. (3) In respect of these members (a) what are (i) their academic qualifications, (ii) their professional qualifications and (iii) the organisations they represent and (b) what is their specific medical and scientific expertise. (4) Does his Department provide the secretariat and administrative support for the NHMRC. (5) During 1985-86 how many departmental officers were employed on NHMRC work (a) full-time and (b) part-time. (6) What was the expenditure on the NHMRC for 1985-86 and how much of this was for research grants. (7) What was his Department's expenditure on NHMRC activities for 1985-86. (8) Will he supply a list of all committees, sub-committees and working parties of the NHMRC, together with the names and affiliations of the members of each, as at 1 June 1986, indicating those members who were paid a sitting fee and the amount of any such fee. (9) Are NHMRC chairpersons required to sign a declaration on possible conflicts of interest. (10) if so, (a) have any declarations been signed, (b) what chairpersons have signed up to 31 July 1986 and (c) are such declarations available for public inspection; if not, why not. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Pursuant to the Order-in-Council under which the National Health and Medical Research Council is constituted, the Council is required to assess the recommendations of committees established under the Order-in-Council. The process adopted by the Council for this purpose is one of ratification of committee recommendations by the Council. (2) Membership details are provided in Attachment A which has been collated for the honouable member, but which is too lengthy to be published in Hansard. A copy of Attachment A is filed in the Table Office of the House of Representatives where it may be read or a copy of it obtained. (3) See Attachement A. (4) Yes. (5) Full-time: 46, Part-time 102. (6) Total NHMRC Expenditure: $55.025 million. Expenditure on Research Grants: $51.236 million. (7) $55.025 million. (8) I refer the honourable member to the `National Health and Medical Research Council General Information Document' and the `National Health and Medical Research Council Working Parties Information Document'. These documents contain the names of all NHMRC committees, sub-committees and working parties, together with their memberships. Copies have been forwarded to the honourable member. Daily sitting fees set by the Remuneration Tribunal are paid to Council and Committee (including sub-committee and working party) members other than those who are officers or employees of the Public Service of the Commonwealth or of a State or of the Northern Territory. The rates are $173 a day (Chairperson) and $139 a day (Members). In applying the exclusion `Public Service' is interpreted to include statutory authorities of the Commonwealth (e.g. CSIRO) or of a State. (9) and (10) No. Oral assurances have been obtained and recorded in respect of Ministerial appointments. ATTACHMENT A NATIONAL HEALTH AND MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL Summary of Member's Expertise 1. Title and Name: Dr. A. Adams. 2. Designation: Chief Health Officer. 3. Place of Work: NSW Department of Health. 4. Membership: NHMRC. 5. Nominee/Representative of: NSW Department of Health. 6. Academic Qualifications: M.B., B.S. (Adelaide) 1959; M.P.H. (Harvard) 1961. 7. Professional Qualifications: F.Am.P.H.A.; F.A.P.H.A. 1. Title and Name: Professor K. Adkins. 2. Designation: Professor. 3. Place of Work: University of Queensland. 4. Membership: NHMRC. 5. Nominee/Representative of: Health Care Committee. 6. Academic Qualifications: B.D.Sc. (Queensland) 1955; M.D.Sc. (Queensland) 1962; Ph.D. (Queensland) 1967. 7. Professional Qualifications: F.R.C.P. (London); F.I.C.D.; F.R.A.C.P.S. 1. Title and Name: Dr B. Armstrong. 2. Designation: Director, NHMRC Research Unit in Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, University of W.A. 3. Place of Work: NHRMC Epidemiology Queen Elizabeth II Medical Centre. 4. Membership: NHMRC. Public Health Committee. 5. Nominee/Representative of: (i) NHMRC: Public Health Committee. (ii) Public Health Comm.: Public Health Assoc. of Australia and New Zealand (formerly ANZSERCH). 6. Academic Qualifications: B.Sc. Med. (Uni of W.A.) 1967; M.B., B.S. (Uni of W.A.) 1969; Ph.D. Philosophy (University of Oxford) 1975 7. Professional Qualifications: M.R.C.P., F.R.A.C.P. 1. Title and Name: Dr. R. W. Beal. 2. Designation: Director. 3. Place of Work: Australian Red Cross Society Blood Transfusion Service. 4. Membership: NHMRC. 5. Nominee/Representative of: Health Care Committee. 6. Academic Qualifications: M.D. (Adelaide) 1969; M.B., B.S. (Sydney) 1958 7. Professional Qualifications: F.R.A.C.P., F.R.C.P.A., F.R.A.C.M.A., F.A.I.M. 1. Title and Name: Professor L. J. Beilin. 2. Designation: Professor of Medicine and Head of University, Department of Medicine. 3. Place of Work: Medical School Building, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth W.A. 6000 4. Membership: NHMRC. 5. Nominee/Representative of: Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee 6. Academic Qualifications: M.B., B.S., (Hons) London M.D. (London). 7. Professional Qualifications: F.R.C.P., F.R.A.C.P., M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P. 1. Title and Name: Mr. J. A. Bissett. 2. Designation: General Manager. 3. Place of Work: A.C.T. Health Authority 4. Membership: NHMRC. 5. Nominee/Representative of: A.C.T. Health Authority. 6. Academic Qualifications: Diploma of Health, Administration. 1. Title and Name: Dr. V. Brown. 2. Designation: Director, Health Advancement Branch. 3. Place of Work: A.C.T. Health Authority. 4. Membership: NHMRC. 5. Nominee/Representative of: Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations. 6. Academic Qualifications: Dip. Ed. (Canberra College of Advanced Education); B.Sc. (Queensland); Ph.D. (Australian National University). 1. Title and Name: Professor J. P. Chalmers. 2. Designation: Professor of Medicine. 3. Place of Work: Flinders Medical Centre. 4. Membership: NHMRC. 5. Nominee/Representative of: Chairperson, Medical Research Committee. 6. Academic Qualifications: M.B., B.S. (Sydney) 1963; B.Sc. Med. (Sydney) 1960; Ph.D. Physiology (N.S.W.) 1967. 7. Professional Qualifications: F.R.A.C.P., M.R.A.C.P. 1. Title and Name: Miss J. F. Cochrane. 2. Designation: Executive Director, College of Nursing, Australia. 3. Place of Work: College of Nursing, Australia, 23/431 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, 3004. 4. Membership: NHMRC. 5. Nominee/Representative of: Health Care Committee. 6. Academic Qualifications: B.App. Sc. (Advanced Nursing), Dip. Nurse Ed., Midwifery Nursing Certificate, General Nursing Certificate. 7. Professional Qualifications: F.C.N.A., F.NSW.C.N., M.A.C.E. 1. Title and Name: Dr. J. P. Coghlan. 2. Designation: Deputy Director. 3. Place of Work: Howard Florey Institute. 4. Membership: NHMRC. 5. Nominee/Representative of: Medical Research Committee. 6. Academic Qualifications: Ph.D., D.Sc. 1. Title and Name: Dr. R. W. Cumming. 2. Designation: Secretary of Council. 3. Place of Work: Commonwealth Department of Health. 4. Membership: NHMRC, Public Health Committee. 5. Nominee/Representative of: Commonwealth Department of Health. (i) NHMRC. (ii) Public Health Committee. 6. Academic Qualifications: M.B., B.S. (1st Class Hons.) (Sydney); Dip. P.H. (Sydney) 1971. 1. Title and Name: Dr. D. de Souza. 2. Designation: Chief Commonwealth Medical Officer. 3. Place of Work: Commonwealth Department of Health. 4. Membership: NHMRC. 5. Nominee/Representative of: Commonwealth Department of Health. 6. Academic Qualifications: M.B. Ch.B. (Leeds). 7. Professional Qualifications: M.R.C.S. (England), L.R.C.P. (London), F.R.A.C.P. (Edinburgh), M.R.C.P. (Edinburgh), F.R.A.C.P., F.R.A.C.M.A., F.A.C.R.M. 1. Title and Name: Sir Max Dillon. 2. Designation: Chairman. 3. Place of Work: Oriton Pty Ltd, 33 Church St, Pymble N.S.W. 4. Membership: NHMRC. 5. Nominee/Representative of: Confederation of Australian Industry. 6. Academic Qualifications: F.A.I.M., Assoc. Soc. of Accountants (senior), Assoc. Chartered Institute of Secretaries. 1. Title and Name: Professor R. Kalucy. 2. Designation: Professor of Psychiatry. 3. Place of Work: Department of Psychiatry, Flinders Medical Centre. 4. Membership: NHMRC, Public Health Committee. 5. Nominee/Representative of: Medical Research Committee. 6. Academic Qualifications: M.B., B.S. (Sydney University) 1966. 7. Professional Qualifications: F.R.A.C.P., F.R.A.N.Z.C.P., F.I.C.P.M., F.R.C.P. (London). 1. Title and Name: Mr L. M. L'Huillier. 2. Designation: Chief General Manager. 3. Place of Work: Health Department Victoria 4. Membership: NHMRC. 5. Nominee/Representative of: Victorian Health Department. 6. Academic Qualifications: B. Com (Hons) (University of Melbourne), M. Phil. (University of London), M.B.A. (University of Chicago). 7. Professional Qualifications: F.A.I.M. 1. Title and Name: Dr. P. G. Livingstone. 2. Designation: Director-General of Health and Medical Services. 3. Place of Work: Queensland Department of Health. 4. Membership: NHMRC,. Public Health Committee. 5. Nominee/Representative of: Queensland Department of Health. 6. Academic Qualifications: M.B., B.S. (Queensland), Dip. P.H. (Sydney). 7. Professional Qualifications: F.R.C.P. (Edinburgh), F.R.A.C.P., F.A.C.M.A. 1. Title and Name: Prof. Emeritus R. R. H. Lovell. 2. Designation: Consultant. 3. Place of Work: Faculty Epidemiology Unit, University of Melbourne, 151 Barry St, Carlton, Vic. 4. Membership: NHMRC. 5. Nominee/Representative of: Medical Research Ethics Committee. 6. Academic Qualifications: M.D. (London). 7. Professional Qualifications: F.R.C.P., F.R.A.C.P., F.A.C.P. (Hon). 1. Title and Name: Dr. G. Mackay-Smith. 2. Designation: Director-General of Health Services (Tasmania). 3. Place of Work: Department of Health Services, Hobart, Tas. 4. Membership: NHMRC. 5. Nominee/Representative of: Tasmanian Department of Health Services. 6. Academic Qualifications: M.B., B.S. (Queensland) 1950, B.H.A. (University of N.S.W.) 1971. 7. Professional Qualifications: F.R.A.C.M.A., A.H.A. 1. Title and Name: Mr B. V. McKay. 2. Designation: Secretary Department of Health. 3. Place of Work: Department of Health. 4. Membership: NHMRC. 5. Nominee/Representative of: Commonwealth Department of Health. 1. Title and Name: Dr J. C. McNulty. 2. Designation: Executive Director. 3. Place of Work: Health Department of Western Australia. 4. Membership: NHMRC, Public Health Committee. 5. Nominee/Representative of: Health Department of Western Australia. 6. Academic Qualifications: M.B., B.Ch., B.A.O., B.E.C.F. 1949, D.I.H. (London) 1964, D.P.H. (Sydney) 1971. 7. Professional Qualifications: F.R.A.C.M.A., M.F.O.M., F.A.C.O.M., M.A.A.S., F.A.M.A. 1. Title and Name: Professor R. Porter. 2. Designation: Director. 3. Place of Work: John Curtin School of Medical Research-ANU. 4. Membership: NHMRC. 5. Nominee/Representative of: Australian Academy of Science. 6. Academic Qualifications: B.Med. Sc. (University of Adelaide) 1953, B.A. (1st Class Hons)-(Oxon) 1956, B.M. B.ch (Oxon) 1959, M.A. (Oxon) 1960, D.M. (Oxon) 1970, D.Sc. (Adelaide). 7. Professional Qualifications: F.R.A.C.P., F.A.A. 1. Title and Name: Mrs J. M. Roberts. 2. Designation: Voluntary Community Worker. 3. Membership: NHMRC. 4. Nominee/Representative of: Australian Council of Social Services. 5. Academic Qualifications: Nursing Certificate. 1. Title and Name: Professor G. Ryan. 2. Designation: Dean of Medicine, University of Melbourne. 3. Place of Work: Department of Anatomy, University of Melbourne. 4. Membership: NHMRC. 5. Nominee/Representative of: Medical Research Committee. 6. Academic Qualifications: M.B., B.S. (Melbourne) 1961, Ph.D. (Melbourne) 1965, M.D. (Melbourne) 1977. 7. Professional Qualifications: F.R.C.P.A., F.R.A.C.P. 1. Title and Name: Dr R. J. Scott. 2. Designation: Senior Medical Advisor. 3. Place of Work: National Occupational Health and Safety Commission (NOHSC) 4. Membership: NHMRC, Public Health Committee. 5. Nominee/Representative of: (i) NHMRC, Public Health Committee; (ii) PHC, HOHSC. 6. Academic Qualifications: M.B., B.S. (Queensland), Dip. Occ Health (Sydney) 7. Professional Qualifications: M.F.O.M. (London), F.F.O.M. (Ireland), F.A.C.O.M. 1. Title and Name: Dr B. J. Shea. 2. Designation: Senior Visiting Specialist (Psychiatry). 3. Place of Work: Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, S.A. 4. Membership: NHMRC. 5. Nominee/Representative of: Health Care Committee. 6. Academic Qualifications: M.B., B.S. (Adelaide) 1951, D.P.M. (Melbourne) 1961, M.D. (Flinders) 1986. 7. Professional Qualifications: F.R.A.N.Z.C.P., F.R.C.M.A., F.R.C. Psych., F.H.A. 1. Title and Name: Dr E. M. Stack. 2. Designation: Secretary. 3. Place of Work: N. T. Department of Health. 4. Membership: NHMRC. 5. Nominee/Representative of: N. T. Department of Health. 6. Academic Qualifications: M.B., B.S. 7. Professional Qualifications: F.R.A.C.G.P., M.P.H., F.A.C.O.M. 1. Title and Name: Mr H. White. 2. Designation: Assistant State Secretary. 3. Place of Work: Health and Research Employees' Association. 4. Membership: NHMRC. 5. Nominee/Representative of: A.C.T.U. 6. Academic Qualifications: Dip. of Pharmacy (Sydney). 7. Professional Qualifications: M.P.S.A., M.S.H.P.A., M.A.D.F. NSW. 1. Title and Name: Vacant. 2. Designation and 3. Place of Work: Representation by the Health Commission of South Australia is currently being sought. 4. Membership: NHMRC. 5. Nominee/Representative of: Health Commission of S.A. 1. Title and Name: Dr C. Baker. 2. Designation: Executive Director Public Health Service. 3. Place of Work: Health Commission of S.A. 4. Membership: Public Health Committee. 5. Nominee/Representative of: Health Commission of S.A. 6. Academic Qualifications: M.B., B.S. (London), E.C.F.M.G. Certificate, Dip. of Anaesthetics, Dip. of Ind. Health, M.Sc. Occupational Medicine (London). 7. Professional Qualifications: M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., Member Faculty of Occup. Med. (R.C.P. London), F.R.I.P.H.H., F.F.A.C.O.M. 1. Title and Name: Dr A. Black. 2. Designation: Medical Services Adviser (Toxicology. 3. Place of Work: Commonwealth Department of Health. 4. Membership: Public Health Committee. 5. Nominee/Representative of: Commonwealth Department of Health. 6. Academic Qualifications: M.B., B.S. (Sydney), B.Sc. (Hons) (Newcastle), Ph. D. (Newcastle). 7. Professional Qualifications: M.B.T.S., M.A.N.Z.E.M.S., M.C.S.C.E.P., M.A.T.S. 1. Title and Name: Ms H. Boulden. 2. Designation: Assistant Director Aboriginal Health Branch. 3. Place of Work: N.T. Department of Health. 4. Membership: Public Health Committee. 5. Nominee/Representative of: College of Nursing. 6. Academic Qualifications: M.P.H. (New York) B.App.Sc. Nursing (Admin.), Dip. Comm. Health Nursing Child Health Nursing Cert., Midwifery Cert., General Nursing Cert. 7. Professional Qualifications: F.C.N.A. 1. Title and Name: Mr R. Brown. 2. Designation: Director. 3. Place of Work: Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations. 4. Membership: Public Health Committee. 5. Nominee/Representative of: A.F.C.O. 6. Academic Qualifications: B.A. (Australian National University). 1. Title and Name: Dr G. Duggin. 2. Designation: Toxicologist. 3. Place of Work: Toxicology Unit Royal Prince Alfred Hospital. 4. Membership: Food Science & Technology Sub Committee Public Health Committee. 5. Nominee/Representative of: Personal Expertise. 6. Academic Qualifications: Ph.C. (Sydney) 1960 M.B., B.S. (Hons) (Sydney) 1968 7. Professional Qualifications: F.R.A.C.P. 1. Title and Name: Dr D. Fox 2. Designation: Director. 3. Place of Work: Institute of Public Health (Biosciences). 4. Membership: Public Health Committee. 5. Nominee/Representative of: NSW Health Department. 6. Academic Qualifications: M.B., B.S., D.P.H. (Sydney) 7. Professional Qualifications: F.R.A.C.M.A. 1. Title and Name: Dr S. D. MacLeod. 2. Designation: Director of Environmental Health. 3. Place of Work: ACT Health Authority. 4. Membership: Public Health Committee. 5. Nominee/Representative of: ACT Health Authority. 6. Academic Qualifications: B.Sc. (Glasgow) 1944, M.B., Ch.B. (Glasgow) 1948. 1. Title and Name: Professor J. D. Mathews. 2. Designation: Director. 3. Place of Work: Menzies School of Health Research, Darwin, N.T. 4. Membership: Public Health Committee. 5. Nominee/Representative of: Medical Research. 6. Academic Qualifications: M.B., B.S., BSc. M.D. Ph.D. (Melbourne). 7. Professional Qualifications: F.R.A.C.P. 1. Title and Name: Dr E. J. McArdle. 2. Designation: Director of Public Health. 3. Place of Work: Department of Health Services. 4. Membership: Public Health Committee. 5. Nominee/Representative of: Tasmanian Dept. of Health Services. 6. Academic Qualifications: M.B., C.h. B.A.O. (University of Ireland) 1950 D.Ph. (University of Ireland) 1953, D.I.H. (R.C.P. & S) England, D.I.H. (London) 1962, M.B., B.S. (Tasmania) 1978. 7. Professional Qualifications: M.S.C.M., F.A.C.M.A. 1. Title and Name: Dr P. R. Mudge. 2. Designation: Senior Lecturer. 3. Place of Work: Royal Hobart Hospital Clinical School. 4. Membership: Public Health Committee. 5. Nominee/Representative of: Health Care Committee. 6. Academic Qualifications: M.B., B.S (Adelaide) 7. Professional Qualifications: M.R.A.C.G.P., F.R.A.C.G.P. 1. Title and Name: Mr M. J. Overland. 2. Designation: Secretary/Director, International Affairs. 3. Place of Work: Confederation of Australian Industry. 4. Membership: Public Health Committee. 5. Nominee/Representative of: Industry. 6. Professional Qualifications: Assoc. F.A.I.M. 1. Title and Name: Dr J. V. Quinn. 2. Designation: Deputy Secretary. 3. Place of Work: N.T. Department of Health. 4. Membership: Public Health Committee. 5. Nominee/Representative of: N.T. Department of Health. 6. Academic Qualifications: M.B., B.S. (University of Sydney) 1948. 1. Title and Name: Dr G. J. Rouch. 2. Designation: A/g General Manager Inspection & Regulation. 3. Place of Work: Health Department, Victoria. 4. Membership: Public Health Committee. 5. Nominee/Representative of: Health Department, Victoria. 6. Academic Qualifications: M.B., B.S. (Melbourne) 1958, D.P.H. (Sydney) 1967. 7. Professional Qualifications: M.S.I.D. (Australia). 1. Title and Name: Dr J. S. Wilkey. 2. Designation: Assistant Director-General (Scientific Support Services). 3. Place of Work: Queensland Department of Health. 4. Membership: Public Health Committee. 5. Nominee/Representative of: Queensland Department of Health. 6. Academic Qualifications: M.B., B.S. (Queensland) 1963, B.Sc. (Queensland) 1960, LL.B. (Queensland) 1977. 7. Professional Qualifications: F.R.C.P.A. 1. Title and Name: Mr G. Bates. 2. Designation: .Chief Health Inspector 3. Place of Work: ACT Health Authority, Health Surveillance Service. 4. Membership: Food Standards Committee. 5. Nominee/Representative of: ACT Health Authority. 6. Academic Qualifications: Chief Health Surveyors Certificate (NSW), Principal Bldg Inspectors Certificate (NSW). 1. Title and Name: Dr J. H. B. Christian. 2. Designation: Chief. 3. Place of Work: CSIRO. Division of Food Research. 4. Membership: Food Standards Committee. 5. Nominee/Representative of: CSIRO. 6. Academic Qualifications: Ph.D. (Cantab.), B.Sc. Agr. (Hons I) Sydney. 7. Professional Qualifications: M.A.S.M., F.A.I.F.S.T., F.A.A.T.S. 1. Title and Name: Dr G. De Cean. 2. Designation: Director, Food Administration Section. 3. Place of Work: Commonwealth Department of Health. 4. Membership: (i) Food Standards Committee (ii) Food Science & Technology Sub Committee. 5. Nominee/Representative of: Commonwealth Department of Health. 6. Academic Qualifications: M.B., B.S. (Sydney), M.S.c. Human Nutrition (London). 1. Title and Name: Mr A. H. Downer. 2. Designation: National Secretary. 3. Place of Work: CAFTA, Sydney. 4. Membership: (i) Food Standards Committee (ii) Food Science & Technology Sub Committee. 5. Nominee/Representative of: CAFTA. 6. Academic Qualifications: `A' Level (United Kingdom), Cert. National College of Food Technology (University of Reading). 7. Professional Qualifications: Assoc. A.I.F.S.T. 1. Title and Name: Prof. R. A. Edwards. 2. Designation: Head, Department of Food, Science & Technology. 3. Place of Work: University of N.S.W. 4. Membership: Food Standards Committee. 5. Nominee/Representative of: Chairperson. 6. Academic Qualifications: ASTC (Food Technology), B.Sc. (Hons I) (NSW), Ph.D. (NSW). 7. Professional Qualifications: F.A.A.T.S., F.A.I.F.S.T. 1. Title and Name: Mr L. J. Erwin. 2. Designation: Principal Executive Officer. 3. Place of Work: Department of Primary Industry. 4. Membership: Food Standards Committee. 5. Nominee/Representative of: Department of Primary Industry. 6. Academic Qualifications: B.Agr. Sc. (Melbourne), Dip. Ed. (Melbourne). 7. Professional Qualifications: F.A.I.S.T. 1. Title and Name: Mr B. Holt. 2. Designation: Executive Director. 3. Place of Work: Grocery Manufacturers of Australia Ltd. 4. Membership: Food Standards Committee. 5. Nominee/Representative of; FICA. 1. Title and Name: Mr M. P. Jackson. 2. Designation: Principal Food Scientist. 3. Place of Work: Health Department of W.A.. 4. Membership: Food Standards Committee. 5. Nominee/Representative of: Health Department of W.A. 6. Academic Qualifications: B. Sc. (Hons). 7. Professional Qualifications: A.I.F.S.T. 1. Title and Name: Mr P. L. Knott. 2. Designation: Chief Health Inspector and Chief Inspector of Food. 3. Place of Work: Department of Health Services, Tasmania. 4. Membership: Food Standards Committee. 5. Nominee/Representative of: Department of Health Services, Tasmania. 6. Academic Qualifications: Tas. Modern Schools Board Cert., Health Inspection Cert., Meat and Other Foods Cert., P.H. Engineering Cert. 1. Title and Name: Mr L. O'Connor. 2. Designation: Regional Health Surveyor. 3. Place of Work: Health Department, N.T. 4. Membership: Food Standards Committee. 5. Nominee/Representative of: Health Department of N.T. 6. Academic Qualifications: Dip. Health Services, Dip. Public Health Surveying, Dip. Pollution Control, Ass. Dip. Health Education, Dip. Meat and Other Foods Inspection. 7. Professional Qualifications: M.A.I.H.S., M.W.W.W.A.A. 1. Title and Name: Miss J. Rogers. 2. Designation: Chief Dietitian and Food Service Manager. 3. Place of Work: Royal Prince Alfred Hospital. 4. Membership: Food Standards Committee. 5. Nominee/Representative of: Dietitians Assoc. of Aust. 6. Academic Qualifications: B.Sc. (Sydney) 1945 Cert. of Dietetics (Royal Prince Alfred Hospital) 1946. 1. Title and Name: Dr J. Powles. 2. Designation: Senior Lecturer. 3. Place of Work: Monash Medical School. 4. Membership: Food Standards Committee. 5. Nominee/Representative of: AFCO. 6. Academic Qualifications: M.B., B.S. (Sydney) 1968. 7. Professional Qualifications: Member, Faculty of Community Medicine, Royal College of Physicians (United Kingdom). 1. Title and Name: Mr G. L. Robinson. 2. Designation: Director. 3. Place of Work: S.A. Health Commission. 4. Membership: Food Standards Committee. 5. Nominee/Representative of: S.A. Health Commission. 6. Academic Qualifications: Cert. P.H. Inspection, Cert. Meat and Other Foods Inspection, Cert. Sanitary Science Applied to Public Works and Bldgs. 7. Professional Qualifications: F.A.I.H.S. 1. Title and Name: Mr W. J. Shields. 2. Designation: Chief Inspector of Foods. 3. Place of Work: Department of Health Qld. 4. Membership: Food Standards Committee. 5. Nominee/Representative of: Department of Health Qld. 6. Academic Qualifications: Royal Soc. of Health (London), Cert. in Building, (Queensland Institute of Technology). 7. Professional Qualifications: A.I.H.S. 1. Title and Name: Mr D. D. Sibraa. 2. Designation: Chief Food Inspector. 3. Place of Work: Macquarie Hospital, Wicks Road, North Ryde. 4. Membership: Food Standards Committee. 5. Nominee/Representative of: N.S.W. Department of Health. 6. Academic Qualifications: Cert. Meat Insp., Sydney, Technical College, Cert. Health Inspection, Sydney Technical College, Dip. Public Health Inspection, Dip. (Lau) B.A.B., (Sydney). 1. Title and Name: Mr R. C. Stanhope. 2. Designation: Assistant Director (Public Health and Consumer Protection). 3. Place of Work: State Chemistry Laboratory, Victoria. 4. Membership: Food Standards Committee. 5. Nominee/Representative of: Health Department, Victoria. 6. Academic Qualifications: B.Sc. (Melbourne) 1948, M.Sc. (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) 1963. 7. Professional Qualifications: F.A.I.F.S.T., F.P.A.C.I. 1. Title and Name: Dr I. Calder. 2. Designation: Toxicologist. 3. Place of Work: S.A. Health Commission. 4. Membership: Food Science & Technology Sub Committee. 5. Nominee/Representative of: Personal Expertise. 6. Academic Qualifications: B.Sc. (Hons) Adelaide, Ph.D. (Adelaide). 7. Professional Qualifications: A.R.A.C.I. 1. Title and Name: Dr K. Farrer OBE. 2. Designation: Consultant Food Scientist & Technologist. 3. Place of Work: Farrer Consultants. 4. Membership: Food Science & Technology Sub Committee. 5. Nominee/Representative of: Personal Expertise. 6. Academic Qualifications: B.Sc. (Melbourne), M.Sc. (Melbourne), Ph.D. (Melbourne), M.A. (Latrobe). 7. Professional Qualifications: F.R.S.C., F.R.A.C.I., F.I.F.S.T. 1. Title and Name: Dr F. Peters. 2. Designation: Consultant. 3. Place of Work: Curtin, A.C.T. 4. Membership: Food Science & Technology Sub Committee. 5. Nominee/Representative of: A.F.C.O. 6. Academic Qualifications: B.Sc. (Hons) Sydney, M.Sc. Sydney, Ph.D., Cert. Bus. Admin. (Melbourne). 7. Professional Qualifications: F.R.A.C.I., F.A.I.F.S.T., M.A.C.S. 1. Title and Name: Mr J. Harris. 2. Designation: Consultant Food Technologist. 3. Place of Work: Self Employed. 4. Membership: Food Science & Technology Sub Committee. 5. Nominee/Representative of: Personal Expertise. 6. Academic Qualifications: B.Sc. (Sydney) 1947. 7. Professional Qualifications: M.I.F.T., Assoc. A.I.F.S.T., F.A.I.S.T. 1. Title and Name: Dr B. Priestly. 2. Designation: Toxicologist. 3. Place of Work: University of Adelaide, Department of Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology. 4. Membership: Food Science & Technology Sub Committee. 5. Academic Qualifications: B. Pharm. (Sydney), M. Pharm. (Sydney), Ph.D. (Sydney). 6. Professional Qualifications: Member of the Royal Society of Chemistry. 1. Title and Name: Dr K. Richardson. 2. Designation: Industrial Liaison Officer. 3. Place of Work: CSIRO Division of Food Research. 4. Membership: Food Science & Technology Sub Committee. 5. Nominee/Representative of: CSIRO. 6. Academic Qualifications: B.Sc. (Queensland) 1961, B.ED. (Home Science). 7. Professional Qualifications: Assoc. A.I.F.S.T., M.S.A.A., F.T.S.B., M.A.F.F.C. (Question No. 5428) Mr Hodges asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 12 May 1987: (1) What has been the cost of implementing Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) programs in the Minister's Department, including all costs associated with the recruitment of EEO officers, advertising, office facilities, training and development programs. (2) How many (a) full-time and (b) part-time EEO officers are employed in the Department and what salaries do they receive. (3) What is the estimated annual recurrent expenditure to maintain the EEO unit. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) A figure is not available on the cost of implementing the Department's EEO (Equal Employment Opportunity) Program. Costs are included within the Department's salaries and administrative costs, which are not itemised on a unit staffing cost basis. Recruitment for EEO staff is carried out in the same way as for other staff, i.e. through advertisement in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette, and office facilities and training are available to EEO staff under the same conditions and arrangements as for other staff. (2) (a) Full time EEO Co-ordinators are employed within the Department as follows: Central Office One CLAD 11-Salary $40,686 One CLAD 8-Salary $32,326 NSW Branch Office One CLAD 7-Salary $29,269 NSW RGH (Concord) One CLAD 7-Salary $29,269 Victorian Branch Office One CLAD 7-Salary $29,269 Victorian-RGH (Heidelberg) One CLAD 7-Salary $29,269 Queensland Branch Office One CLAD 7-Salary $29,269 South Australia One CLAD 6-Salary $26,640 Western Australia One CLAD 6-Salary $26,640 (b) One part-time position-i.e. half of this officer's duties are devoted to EEO-has been established in Tasmania: Tasmania Half of one CLAD 6-Salary $26,640 (3) As with question (1), no figure is available for recurrent costs for EEO implementation.