Friday, 18 September 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Mr DUNCAN(Makin-Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support) —I table a statement in respect of Australian Federal Police advice to the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support and the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) and their departments in relation to the suitability of Amann Aviation to hold the Coastwatch contract, which was tabled in the Senate this day by the Minister for Transport and Communications. Mr BEALE(Deakin) —I seek leave to move that the House take note of the paper. Leave not granted. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(10.02) —I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Deakin from moving that the House take note of the paper. In seeking to move that the House take note of the paper I draw the attention of the House to the whole sorry, sordid chain of events that has led the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) and the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan) to table this document in the Parliament today. The first thing to be said is that it is clear from this fiasco that the ministerial arrangements announced by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) recently are in an absolute shambles. Yesterday, in response to a question in this House from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard)-- Mr Young —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. If the honourable member gives reasons as to why he wants the House to take note of the paper I will sit here with some patience. If he debates the matter I will take a completely different attitude altogether. I draw your attention to what he is debating. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for Deakin will stick to the reasons why he wishes to suspend Standing Orders. Mr BEALE —Madam Speaker, with great respect, in seeking to have the House take note of the paper it is necessary to establish some of the background so that the House can understand fully-- Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for Deakin will be careful not to debate the issue. Mr BEALE —In answer to a question yesterday, the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support said: My understanding of the situation is that some time in August a minute was received by the Minister for Transport and Communications-- Motion (by Mr Young) put: That the honourable member be not further heard. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 47 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 23 —— Baldwin, P. J. Kelly, R. J.Beazley, K. C. Kent, L.Beddall, D. P. Kerin, J. C.Blanchard, C. A. Kerr, D. J. C.Brumby, J. M. Klugman, R. E.Campbell, G. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Charles, D. E. Langmore, J. V.Charlesworth, R. I. Lavarch, M. H.Chynoweth, R. L. Lee, M. J.Cleeland, P. R. Lindsay, E. J.Courtice, B. W. McHugh, J.Crawford, M. C. McLeay, LeoCross, M. D. Martin, S. P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B.Darling, E. E. Milton, P.Dawkins, J. S. Morris, PeterDubois, S. C. Mountford, J. G.Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Sciacca, C.Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, J. L.Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Harvey, E. R. Snowdon, W. E.Hollis, C. Staples, P. R.Humphreys, B. C. Theophanous, A. C.Hurford, C. J. Tickner, R. E.Jakobsen C. A. Uren, T.Jenkins, H. A. West, S. J.Johns, G. T. Willis, R.Jones, Barry Young, M. J. Aldred, K. J. Lloyd, B.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J.Blunt, C. W. MacKellar, M. J. R.Braithwaite, R. A. McVeigh, D. T.Brown, N. A. Miles, C. G.Burr, M. A. Millar, P. C.Cameron, Donald Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ewen Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ian Porter, J. R.Carlton, J. J. Prosser, G. D.Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K.Connolly, D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Dobie, J. D. M. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fischer, Tim Smith, W. L.Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M.Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W.Hall, Steele. Webster, A. P.Halverson, R. G. Wilson, I. B. C.Hawker, D. P. M. Woods, R. L.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wooldridge, M. R. L.Jull, D. F. Brown, Robert Sullivan, K. J.Morris, Allan Macphee, J. M.Hayden, W. G. Adermann, A. E.Duffy, M. J. White, P. N. D. Question so resolved in the affirmative Mr LLOYD(Murray)(10.11) —Madam Speaker, I wish to second the motion that so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would-- Motion (by Mr Young) put: That the honourable member be not further heard. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 47 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Bilney, G. N. Kerin, J. C.Blanchard, C. A. Kerr, D. J. C.Brumby, J. M. Klugman, R. E.Campbell, G. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Charles, D. E. Langmore, J. V.Charlesworth, R. I. Lavarch, M. H.Chynoweth, R. L. Lee, M. J.Cleeland, P. R. Lindsay, E. J.Courtice, B. W. McHugh, J.Crawford, M. C. McLeay, LeoCross, M. D. Martin, S. P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B.Darling, E. E. Milton, P.Dawkins, J. S. Morris, PeterDubois, S. C. Mountford, J. G.Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Sciacca, C.Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, J. L.Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Harvey, E. R. Snowdon, W. E.Holding, A. C. Staples, P. R.Hollis, C. Theophanous, A. C.Howe, B. L. Tickner, R. E.Humphreys, B. C. Uren, T.Hurford, C. J. West, S. J.Jakobsen, C. A. Willis, R.Jenkins, H. A. Young, M. J.Johns, G. T. Aldred, K. J. Lloyd, B.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J.Blunt, C. W. MacKellar, M. J. R.Braithwaite, R. A. McVeigh, D. T.Brown, N. A. Miles, C. G.Burr, M. A. Millar, P. C.Cameron, Donald Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ewen Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ian Porter, J. R.Carlton, J. J. Prosser, G. D.Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K.Connolly, D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Dobie, J. D. M. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fischer, Tim Smith, W. L.Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M.Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W.Hall, Steele Webster, A. P.Halverson, R. G. Wilson, I. B. C.Hawker, D. P. M. Woods, R. L.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wooldridge, M. R. L.Jull, D. F. Brown, Robert Sullivan, K. J.Morris, Allan McPhee, I. M.Hayden, W. G. Adermann, A. E.Duffy, M. J. White, P. N. D. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(10.20) —Madam Speaker-- Motion (by Mr Young) put: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 47 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C.Brumby, J. M. Kerr, D. J. C.Campbell, G. Klugman, R. E.Charles, D. E. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Charlesworth, R. I. Langmore, J. V.Chynoweth, R. L. Lavarch, M. H.Cleeland, P. R. Lee, M. J.Courtice, B. W. Lindsay, E. J.Crawford, M. C. McHugh, J.Cross, M. D. McLeay, LeoCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Martin, S. P.Darling, E. E. Mildren, J. B.Dawkins, J. S. Milton, P.Dubois, S. C. Morris, PeterDuncan, P. Mountford, J. G.Edwards, Ronald O'Keefe, N. P.Fatin, W. F. O'Neil, L. R. T.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Price, L. R. S.Free, R. V. Punch, G. F.Gayler, J. Saunderson, J.Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D.Gorman, R. N. J. Sciacca, C.Grace, E. L. Scott, J. L.Griffiths, A. G. Simmons, D. W.Hand, G. L. Snow, J. H.Harvey, E. R. Snowdon, W. E.Holding, A. C. Staples, P. R.Hollis, C. Theophanous, A. C.Howe, B. L. Tickner, R. E.Humphreys, B. C. Uren, T.Hurford, C. J. West, S. J.Jakobsen, C. A. Willis, R.Jenkins, H. A. Young, M. J.Johns, G. T. Aldred, K. J. Lloyd, B.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J.Blunt, C. W. MacKellar, M. J. R.Braithwaite, R. A. McVeigh, D. T.Brown, N. A. Miles, C. G.Burr, M. A. Millar, P. C.Cameron, Donald Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ewen Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ian Porter, J. R.Carlton, J. J. Prosser, G. D.Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K.Connolly, D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Dobie, J. D. M. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fischer, Tim Smith, W. L.Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M.Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W.Hall, Steele Webster, A. P.Halverson, R. G. Wilson, I. B. C.Hawker, D. P. M. Woods, R. L.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wooldridge, M. R. L.Jull, D. F. Brown, Robert Sullivan, K. J.Morris, Allan Macphee, I. M.Hayden, W. G. Adermann, A. E.Duffy, M. J. White, P. N. D. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the motion (Mr Beale's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Aldred, K. J. Lloyd, B.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J.Blunt, C. W. MacKellar, M. J. R.Braithwaite, R. A. McVeigh, D. T.Brown, N. A. Miles, C. G.Burr, M. A. Millar, P. C.Cameron, Donald Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ewen Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ian Porter, J. R.Carlton, J. J. Prosser, G. D.Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K.Connolly, D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Dobie, J. D. M. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fischer, Tim Smith, W. L.Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M.Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W.Hall, Steele Webster, A. P.Halverson, R. G. Wilson, I. B. C.Hawker, D. P. M. Woods, R. L.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wooldridge, M. R. L.Jull, D. F. Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C.Brumby, J. M. Kerr, D. J. C.Campbell, G. Klugman, R. E.Charles, D. E. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Charlesworth, R. I. Langmore, J. V.Chynoweth, R. L. Lavarch, M. H.Cleeland, P. R. Lee, M. J.Courtice, B. W. Lindsay, E. J.Crawford, M. C. McHugh, J.Cross, M. D. McLeay, LeoCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Martin, S. P.Darling, E. E. Mildren, J. B.Dawkins, J. S. Milton, P.Dubois, S. C. Morris, PeterDuncan, P. Mountford, J. G.Edwards, Ronald O'Keefe, N. P.Fatin, W. F. O'Neil, L. R. T.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Price, L. R. S.Free, R. V. Punch, G. F.Gayler, J. Saunderson, J.Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D.Gorman, R. N. J. Sciacca, C.Grace, E. L. Scott, J. L.Griffiths, A. G. Simmons, D. W.Hand, G. L. Snow, J. H.Harvey, E. R. Snowdon, W. E.Holding, A. C. Staples, P. R.Hollis, C. Theophanous, A. C.Howe, B. L. Tickner, R. E.Humphreys, B. C. Uren, T.Hurford, C. J. West, S. J.Jakobsen, C. A. Willis, R.Jenkins, H. A. Young, M. J.Johns, G. T. Sullivan, K. J. Brown, RobertMacphee, I. M. Morris, AllanAdermann, A. E. Hayden, W. G.White, P. N. D. Duffy, M. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, for Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Small Business)(10.36) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to provide for the establishment of the Australian Horticultural Corporation (AHC). The Bill forms one essential element of the package of measures being introduced primarily to enhance the capacity of the horticultural industries to expand exports. The other measures in the package are the Horticultural Research and Development Corporation Bill, the Horticultural Policy Council Bill, the Horticultural Levy Bill, the Horticultural Levy Collection Bill, the Horticultural Export Charge Bill, the Horticultural Export Charge Collection Bill and the Australian Horticultural Corporation (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill. The package of Bills implements the institutional initiatives for the horticultural sector which form part of the Government's economic and rural policy statement of April 1986 and for which the Government has committed a total of $9m over five years to assist in their establishment and early operation. The sector's output in 1985-86 was valued at some $2 billion, with exports amounting to around $400m in that year. While the horticultural sector has achieved significant increases in exports in recent years, opportunities exist for further substantial increases. For the sector's full export potential to be realised, however, there needs to be a more co-ordinated and sustained activity both in horticultural products marketing and in research. The Bills relating to the two corporations provide for the establishment of complementary institutions which will be required, as their main task, to assist the horticultural industries to develop their export marketing and research efforts. The four Bills dealing with product levies and export charges provide for funds to be raised from participating industries to help finance the ongoing activities of the two corporations. The Horticultural Policy Council Bill fits into the package by providing the means for developing more consistent and comprehensive policies at the national level for the horticultural industries. The Council will be funded wholly by the Commonwealth for five years. Funding and the Council's continuance will be reviewed in its fifth year of operation. The Australian Horticultural Corporation (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill provides for things such as the transfer to the AHC of staff, assets and liabilities from the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation on its abolition. Many views were conveyed to the Government by industry organisations and other groups throughout Australia during the extensive consultation process that was undertaken on the initiatives. These views were carefully considered and many of the suggestions which were put forward are now reflected in the Bills before the House. The Government believes that, in their present form, the Bills address constructively the needs of the industries and that the horticultural sector will benefit significantly from these new institutions. Participation in the AHC by horticultural industries is voluntary. In the case of industries currently covered by statutory marketing arrangements, namely the canned fruits, dried fruits and apple and pear industries, the situation is as follows: for canned fruits, the Government has decided that the statutory marketing powers of the Australian Canned Fruits Corporation are to be extended by one year only, to December 1988, and that the Corporation be wound up in 1989. Whether or not any of its other functions would be passed over to the AHC is a matter for consideration by the industry. The question of merging the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation with the AHC is being deferred until 1988. In the meantime the Minister for Primary Industry and Energy (Mr Kerin) is currently exploring with the industry the question of a separate corporation in line with the Government's policy on primary industry statutory marketing authorities. The Minister advised the Australian Apple and Pear Growers Association in May 1987 that he considered it would be in the best interests of the industry if it were encompassed in the AHC from the outset. The Minister has had further consultations with that organisation's executive since then and, as a result, modifications to the details of the proposals were made to accommodate the industry's concerns. Mr Peter Fisher —Good decision. Mr BARRY JONES —What would we expect from a Minister such as John Kerin? Mr Peter Fisher —Where is he? Mr BARRY JONES —Representing the nation. At its annual conference in July 1987 the Association agreed to participation in the AHC. The inclusion of apple and pear activities under the AHC makes the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation redundant. The Bill thus provides for the repeal of the principal and amending Apple and Pear Corporation Acts and, as I mentioned earlier, there is an associated Bill which deals with transitional and other provisions arising from the abolition of this Corporation. I turn now to the specific provisions of the Bill. Objects, Functions and Powers The objects, functions and powers of the AHC are set out in part II, division 1 of the Bill and additional powers are described in part V. The principal object of the AHC is to assist Australian horticultural industries to achieve their full potential in overseas markets. To achieve this it will encourage, facilitate and co-ordinate export activities, and provide a link from exporting and marketing back to growers to encourage production in line with market needs. It will complement, not replace, the marketing efforts of private exporters. An important subsidiary object of the AHC is to contribute to the development of horticultural production and marketing within Australia. In particular, it will be able to undertake domestic promotional activities on behalf of horticultural industries and, in this respect, will continue to handle the extensive domestic promotion relating to apples and pears. Not all horticultural industries will require the same services from the AHC and, for that reason, the Bill provides flexibility for the AHC in meeting varying industry needs; it also empowers the Corporation to carry out work for indivi- duals and groups on a fee-for-service basis on the one hand, and on the other, it will have the power to appoint agents to perform any tasks on its behalf. In addition to the range of powers that will enable the Corporation to undertake general activities for and on behalf of industries, the Bill provides it with export trading powers. These powers are, however, subject to the written approval of the Minister, and the Government is firmly of the view that they would be applied only in circumstances where there is general support from the relevant industry. To facilitate such export trading, the Corporation may buy and sell horticultural products and it may enter into contracts concerning transport and insurance. In part V of the Bill the AHC will also be empowered, if appropriate, to control exports and provide for licensing arrangements. The exercise of such powers is to be fully consistent with the Corporation's primary object of assisting the horticultural industries to achieve their full potential in export markets. The Government will agree to the making of regulations and ministerial orders for this purpose only if it is satisfied that this is the case and that the controls are in the best interests of the industry. Organisational Structure The Government's policy for primary industry statutory marketing authorities provides that it is not appropriate for boards of such authorities to have as members persons representing various sectors of industry but rather that the members should have the skills appropriate to their corporate responsibilities. In conformity with that policy, the Bill provides that membership of the AHC is based on qualifications and experience in various specific fields of endeavour. Part II, division 2 of the Bill provides that the membership will comprise an independent Chairperson, one Government member, the Managing Director and six other members. The six other members are to be selected on the basis of their expertise in one or more of a number of fields such as horticultural growing, horticultural exporting, business management, finance and marketing. Members, other than the Managing Director, will be appointed by the Minister on a part time basis; except for the Government member, the appointments will be for periods of up to three years but members will be eligible for re-appointment. Under this provision, membership terms can be staggered to ensure that the Corporation always has some members with experience of its activities and knowledge of current issues. The Managing Director will be appointed by the Board but with the terms and conditions of employment being approved by the Minister. The diversity of products and industries in the horticultural sector means the Board will need product-specific advice. Part II, division 8 of the Bill therefore empowers the Corporation to establish such specialist committees as it considers necessary. The number of product group committees and the range of products a particular committee might cover will be decided by the Corporation after consultation with the industries participating in the AHC. Given its size and importance, the apple and pear industry can confidently anticipate that there would be a separate committee for its products; and so, too, can the citrus industry, which has given its firm commitment to participate in the AHC. The members of a product group committee will be appointed by the Corporation and comprise a chairperson, who is to be a member of the Corporation Board, and from three to five other members with product-specific expertise in areas which are, in general terms, the same as those laid down for Corporation members. As it is the Board of the Corporation that is accountable for actions performed on its behalf, product group committees will not be autonomous. However, the Corporation will be empowered to delegate its powers to the committees and I would expect, for example-indeed the Minister would expect-that the bulk of any activity undertaken on domestic promotion would be so delegated. This will free the Board to focus on the broader, general, export policy issues. Selection Procedures Part III of the Bill provides for the establishment of the Australian Horticultural Corporation Selection Committee. The function of the Committee will be to identify and nominate persons with expertise in one or more specified fields for appointment by the Minister of Corporation members. The Selection Committee will comprise a chairperson selected by the Minister, six members appointed from nominations put forward by relevant horticultural producer organisations and one member nominated by horticultural exporting interests. In the longer term, when levy arrangements have been put in place, national organisations representing those industries which provide the levy proceeds for funding the Corporation will be the ones to be prescribed as eligible to provide producer nominations. However, as the apple and pear industry is the only industry for which levies will be collected for the AHC from its outset, and as the citrus industry is, so far, the only other industry which has given a firm commitment to participate and contribute by way of levies, the Government has decided that their respective national organisations will be invited to furnish the bulk of nominees for the first round of appointments to the AHC Selection Committee. Thus, the Australian Apple and Pear Growers Association will be invited to furnish nominees for three positions and the Australian Citrus Growers Federation for one position. The Australian Horticultural Growers Council will also be invited to provide two nominees and, in recognition of the Corporation's export focus, one nominee is to be put forward by a horticultural exporter organisation. All these organisations will be prescribed for this purpose. It is intended that the Australian Horticultural Growers Council, before furnishing its nominations, will be required to consult with industry organisations and to have particular regard to the views of those industries wishing to participate in the Corporation at an early stage. Part IV of the Bill provides for the establishment and operation of product group selection committees. These are to consist of the Chairperson of the Corporation Selection Committee, two Corporation members and from three to six nominated members. The number of nominated members in each case will be determined by the Corporation in consultation with the relevant industry organisations. The Bill provides for the Corporation to appoint the members-other than the chairperson-of a product group selection committee. The nominated members are to be appointed from nominees furnished by the relevant industry organisations. The arrangements mean that those industries which provide levy or export charge proceeds for funding the Corporation will play a major part in determining who will be on the AHC Selection Committee and on product group committees. Cost and Accounting Matters The Bill also puts in place provisions which deal with the manner in which financial transactions and costs are to be treated. To facilitate financial accountability and protect the interests of participating industries, funds provided by each industry will be held by the Corporation in separate accounts. In this regard, the assets and liabilities of the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation will be transferred immediately to a separate account on commencement of the AHC's operation. In consultation with different participating industries, the AHC will need to put in place mechanisms to ensure that funds derived from one industry will not be used to support activities for other industries but this will not preclude agreed joint-industry funding for particular projects, should this be required. All participating industries will need to contribute to meeting the basic overheads of the AHC. The sharing of these costs will be determined by the Board of the Corporation on an equitable basis, with the composition of the costs being identified. An important consideration that has been of particular interest to the horticultural industries is that of cost. As I have already mentioned, the Corporation will be a commercially oriented organisation. Its structure will reflect industry requirements. For example, separate product group committees will only be established, where justified, in consultation with the relevant industry or industries. Similarly, the Corporation will be able to respond in terms of staffing and other resources as needs dictate. Over the longer term, the Corporation will be funded fully by industry and the consultation and accountability requirements of the Bill will ensure that proper pressures are extended for its cost efficient and effective performance. The Commonwealth has allocated to the Corporation $5.85m over five years to assist it to get programs of activities under way quickly. Pending the implementation of levy arrangements for those industries wishing to participate, some $300,000 a year of this may be used to defray basic overheads, thus presenting significant savings for participating industries in the early years whilst leaving a considerable pool of funds for commercial activities. Planning and Accountability Provisions in part II, division 3 of the Bill ensure that the Corporation will carry out its functions in a businesslike manner and spell out the basis for its relationship with the Minister. These require the Corporation to prepare a corporate plan with a five-year horizon, to be reviewed and extended annually. The corporate plan is to define the principal objectives of the Corporation, assess the industry outlook and outline the strategies it will pursue. Before preparing or revising the corporate plan the Corporation will be required to consult with eligible bodies. The Corporation will also be required to develop for each successive period an annual operational plan which sets out, among other things, the details of the strategies to be pursued by the Corporation in the coming year. Both the corporate and annual operating plans are to be submitted to the Minister for approval. In this way, the accountability arrangements with the Minister will focus on the strategies and longer term performance of the Corporation and free it from the need for constant reference to the Minister for approval of individual activities proposed. Apart from its corporate and operational planning provisions, the Bill contains a number of accountability requirements which are designed to further ensure that the AHC will carry out its operations in a businesslike manner. These requirements are covered in part III, division 4 of the Bill. Not only will the Corporation be required to present an annual report covering its operations, including its audited financial statements for each financial year, to the Minister for tabling in the Parliament, but also to each eligible industry body. As well, the Corporation will be required to arrange with some individual, eligible industry bodies for the chairperson to attend either their next annual conference or a meeting of their executives. For other eligible industry bodies, the Corporation will be required to convene a meeting to which their representatives would be invited to attend. At such meetings the chairperson will be required to provide an address and to be questioned on the activities of the corporation as covered by the annual report and the Corporation's intended activities for the coming year. The horticultural sector has considerable potential to develop further, particularly in terms of exporting. This potential will be more readily realised if the sector is assisted by an appropriate organisational infrastructure. This Corporation is an important part of that infrastructure. I commend the Bill to honourable members. I do not think honourable members could say that the second reading speech has not been unsparing in detail. I now present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Lloyd) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, for Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Small Business)(10.55) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Horticultural Research and Development Corporation Bill 1987 is to provide for the establishment of a Horticultural Research and Development Corporation (HRDC) as part of the package of measures outlined in my second reading speech for the Australian Horticultural Corporation Bill 1987. It has been recognised that the horticultural sector has under-invested in research and development with continuing national programs having been few and far between. The Horticultural Research and Development Corporation provided for in this Bill is designed to overcome these problems by funding more, and by better co-ordinating, horticultural research and development. I turn now to the specific provisions of the Bill. Objects, Functions and Powers The objects, functions and powers of the HRDC are set out in part II, division 1 of the Bill. The Corporation's primary object is to improve production by, and market performance of, horticultural industries. This is to be achieved in three main ways; firstly, by identifying areas of horticultural research and development which are relevant to the needs of these industries; secondly, by improving the efficiency and effectiveness of horticultural research and development; and, thirdly, by encouraging the more effective use of the resources and skills available in the community, especially in the scientific community, for horticultural research and development. The Corporation is also charged with developing awareness in the Australian horticultural industries as to the positive contribution that research and development can make to improving their efficiency and competitiveness. Industry diversity has meant that, due to the limited scope of their operations, smaller individual industries have had difficulties in identifying their potential for research. The Corporation will, in time, become a source of information for these industries with respect to the advantages that might exist for them. The functions of the Corporation detailed by the Bill include evaluation of research and development plans and, of course, funding the carrying out by others, or, if appropriate, by itself carrying out, relevant research and development activities. Subject to certain restrictions, the Corporation is to be empowered to do all things that are necessary to perform its functions. This includes fee-for-service charging, employing staff and accepting contributions. Importantly-I have asked the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce not to use that word in second reading speeches and I stumbled over it here; but a lot of people around here say `importantly'. As a body corporate, it is important that it should be able to make applications for, and deal with patents, participate in joint ventures and enter into agreements for the carrying out of research and development projects by other persons. Membership and Selection Part II, division 2 of the Bill provides the composition of the Board of the Corporation. The nine-member Board will consist of an independent chairperson, one government member, the Executive Director and six other members. The six other members are to be selected on the basis of expertise in one or more fields such as growing or processing horticultural products, horticultural or other research and development, administration or marketing. These members are to be nominated by a selection committee as provided for in part III of the Bill. Members, other than the Corporation-appointed Executive Director, will be appointed by the Minister on a part time basis. Except for the government member, appointments will be for periods of up to three years, but members will be eligible for re-appointment. Under this provision, membership terms can be staggered to ensure that the Corporation always has some members with experience of its activities and knowledge of current issues. Part III of the Bill provides for the establishment of the Corporation Selection Committee. The function of that Committee will be to identify and nominate persons for appointment by the Minister of Corporation members based on one or more fields of expertise defined by the Bill. The Committee will consist of seven members. Four members, including the Chairperson, will be drawn from the existing Rural Industries Research Councils Selection Committee. The other three members will be nominated by eligible industry bodies for appointment by the Minister. For the first round of appointments, the Government has decided that as the apple and pear industry is the only industry for which levies will be collected for the HRDC from its outset, and as the citrus industry is, so far, the only industry which has given a firm commitment to participate and contribute by way of levies, their respective national organisations will be invited to furnish one nominee each. The Australian Horticultural Growers Council will be invited to provide the other nominee. It is intended that the Council will be required to consult industry organisations before furnishing its nominee and to have particular regard to the views of those industries wishing to participate at an early stage. As other industries decide to participate in the arrangements they will become eligible industries and will have a say in the nomination process. Finance Part II, division 7 of the Bill deals with financial, accounting and auditing aspects of the Corporation's activities. A number of these matters warrant brief mention. The Corporation is to receive funds from industries through levy and export charge collections. As occurs with other rural industries research councils, the levies and charges collected for the Corporation will attract a matching dollar for dollar contribution from the Commonwealth of up to 0.5 per cent of the particular industry's gross value of production. However, as the dispersed nature or other factors in some industries within the horticultural sector can result in their not being able to develop adequate levy arrangements, the Government is prepared to vary these matching arrangements. Mr Lloyd —They just did with the wool industry. Mr BARRY JONES —No, you are being political. This variation provides for the matching, by government, of eligible voluntary contributions made in respect of products not subject to levy but, as before, within the ceiling of the 0.5 per cent of the gross value of production of the particular industry. Such matching will be subject to appropriate guidelines to be issued by way of ministerial orders in due course. It is also important to note that, in order to assist the Corporation to get programs under way quickly, the Government has allocated $1.25m for use by the Corporation over the first five years of its operation. This funding is not dependent on corresponding industry contributions being made during that period but, as such contributions are made, normal Commonwealth matching will be drawn from this allocation. Provision has also been made for contribution by different industries to be held in separate accounts. This will result in the identification of each industry's expenditure on research and development activities. However, such an accounting practice will not preclude cross-industry funding of projects, where this is considered appropriate by the Corporation and the industries involved. Planning and Accountability Provisions in part III, division 3 ensure that the Corporation maintains a high level of control and direction in the discharge of its functions. It will be required to develop a corporate research and development plan with a five-year horizon and an annual research and development program. Both the plan and the program are to be reviewed and revised annually, following consultation with relevant Australian horticultural industries. While the corporate plan will set out the longer term strategies and policies that the Corporation intends to adopt in order to achieve its objectives, the annual programs will provide yearly operational schedules for the Corporation by specifying and describing the projects to be carried out, or that may be considered for funding, in the coming year. The annual programs will also provide cost estimates of each project as well as the total anticipated expenditure of the Corporation for the year. Apart from its corporate and operational planning provisions, the Bill contains a number of accountability requirements which are designed to further ensure that the Corporation will carry out its operations in a business-like manner. These requirements are covered in part III, division 4 of the Bill. The Bill's annual report and accountability to industry provisions are the same as those outlined in my second reading speech for the Australian Horticultural Corporation Bill. The horticultural industries, which have considerable scope to develop their full potential, will be assisted in realising this by a well-organised infrastructure for horticultural research and development. The activities of this Corporation will make significant complementary contributions to those of the other two bodies being established. I commend the Bill to honourable members. I now present the explanatory memorandum to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Miles) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, for Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Small Business)(11.05) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to provide for the establishment of a Horticultural Policy Council as part of the package of measures outlined in my second reading speech for the Australian Horticultural Corporation Bill 1987. The Government perceives that there is a need to bring together representatives of the widely dispersed, fragmented and diverse horticultural sector into a single body with capacity to present to Government a total sectoral perspective on policy issues. That body, the Council, will be able thoroughly to research and examine issues and areas of concern to the sector. I turn now to the specific provisions of the Bill. Objects, Functions and Powers The objects, functions and powers are set out in part II of the Bill. The object of the Council is to facilitate development of policy through co-ordinated participation of the horticultural sector in the policy formulation process. The Bill provides the Council with powers necessary to perform its function, which in the main are: to examine, on its own initiative, issues affecting the horticultural sector and report to the Minister; to examine matters relevant to horticulture referred to it by the Minister; and to develop recommendations, guidelines and plans for measures designed to safeguard or further the interests of horticulture. Organisational Structure Part III of the Bill provides the composition of the Council. Its membership of 15 will consist of an independent chairperson, five members representing horticultural growers and producers, two members representing processors, one member representing persons engaged in horticultural marketing, two members representing employees, two members representing the Australian Agricultural Council and the chairperson of the Australian Horticultural Corporation and the Horticultural Research and development Corporation respectively. It should take some time to read the minutes. All members will be appointed by the Minister, but members, other than the Council's chairperson and the chairpersons of the two corporations, will be nominated for appointment by relevant bodies, which will be prescribed by regulation. Also, by regulation, the Bill enables the number and composition of the Council's membership to be varied. This provision has been included so that changing circumstances in the organisational structure of the horticultural sector may be reflected in the representation on the Council as and when the need arises. I should also mention that it will be the Government's policy for variation to be made only after consultation with the Council. The Minister believes-I have heard it from his own lips many times-that it will be essential to keep the Council to a manageable size, and this will be borne in mind in any consideration to vary the Council's membership. Part IV of the Bill provides the Council with the power and scope to establish and abolish executive or other committees and working groups. With regard to committees, it is intended that they be established to consider specific issues or areas of concern. The composition of such committees may be made up entirely of Council members or partly of members and other persons. A working group established by the Council may consist entirely of persons other than Council members, or may be composed of Council members and other persons but they must be human beings. Membership of a working group would, in general, be based on expertise rather than representation and it would be expected that the issues being examined by a working group would have a high degree of technical content. The consultancy provisions of part V of the Bill complement the provisions for committees and working groups of the Council. They enable the Council to engage experts who may work on their own or be part of a committee or working group. It will be up to the Council to determine the terms and conditions under which consultants may be engaged. Administrative Arrangements Part V of the Bill also makes provision for the Council to be staffed by a permanent secretariat. Staff of the Department of Primary Industries and Energy will fulfil this function. The Government is providing $1.9m to cover the Council's costs over five years. Continuation and subsequent funding of the Council will be reviewed in the fifth year of its operation. The Bill makes annual report provisions consistent with those applied to other such Commonwealth statutory bodies. To this end, the Bill specifies that the Council is to prepare and submit an annual report each year to the Minister for tabling in the Parliament. The Government considers that the Horticultural Policy Council will provide an important link between industry and the Government in the development of national policies relevant to the horticultural sector. I commend the Bill to honourable members and I now present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Miles) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, for Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Small Business)(11.10) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purposes of this Bill and three related Bills-namely, the Horticultural Levy Collection Bill 1987, the Horticultural Export Charge Bill 1987 and the Horticultural Export Charge Collection Bill 1987-are to provide for the imposition and collection of levies on horticultural products produced and sold in Australia and for charges on exports of horticultural products. They provide the means of financing, in the longer term, the activities of the Australian Horticultural Corporation and, apart from Commonwealth matching moneys, the Horticultural Research and Development Corporation. As the Australian Horticultural Corporation's role will include the servicing of the apple and pear growing industry, the current levies on its products will be imposed and collected under the new levy Bills; and the existing apple and pear levy legislation will be repealed. The operative rates of levy for apples and pears will be set by regulation, while the rates for other horticultural products will be included in regulations as respective horticultural industries decide to participate in the activities of either or both corporations and agree on levy arrangements to help finance marketing and research activities. Levy will be payable by the producer of a horticultural product which is covered by the appropriate regulations while the export charge is to be payable by the owner of the product at the time of export. Provision has been made in the levy and export charge Bills for determination of maximum rates of levy and charge. The maximum rates do, of course, vary from product to product. In order to limit administrative costs or for policy reasons, certain exemptions from levy will be permitted under regulations; for example, these may be in situations where sales by individual growers are relatively small or where small volumes of horticultural products are retailed direct by growers at the orchard gate or, in relation to products used directly by the grower for juicing or processing purposes, if the relevant annual quantities do not exceed a maximum level as set down in regulations, possibly in marginal seats. There are already levies on apples and pears and the continuing application of these levies is expected to provide annual funds to the Australian Horticultural Corporation and the Horticultural Research and Development Corporation combined of around $1.3m. Total receipts of horticultural levies to fund the two corporations will rise as the number of industry sectors participating in the marketing and research activities increases. The Commonwealth will match expenditure of the industry moneys-based on levies, export charges and eligible voluntary contributions, identified for the Research and Development Corporation-dollar for dollar, up to a limit of 0.5 per cent of the average annual gross value of production of groups of products, the groupings to be specified by regulation. The extent of the Commonwealth contribution to research will thus depend on the number of industries which agree to participate and the rates at which the individual industries are prepared to fund Corporation research activities. I commend the Bill to honourable members and I now present the explanatory memorandum to this and the associated Levy Collection Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Miles) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, for Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Small Business)(11.15) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Although this is only the fifth of 11 Bills, I assure honourable members that it is downhill all the way from here. The Bill is complementary to the Horticultural Levy Bill, which I have just introduced. Its purpose is to make provision for both the efficient and the effective collection of the levies imposed by that Bill. Essentially, liability for the levies will rest with the growers or other producers of the relevant horticultural products. However, in order to reduce greatly the number of collection points and thus the costs of administering the collection of the levies, the responsibility for their payment to the Commonwealth will, for the most part, be placed with wholesalers, selling agents and processors. The Collection Bill provides for these persons to be given the authority in law to recover the levy payment from their supplying growers. The Bill also provides for dates on which levies become due for payment to be set by regulation. Collection of existing levies on apples and pears will continue, with the rates set by regulation under the Horticultural Levy Act. Total amounts of levies to be collected will rise over the next few years as the number of partici-pating industries increases. I commend the Bill to honourable members. As I indicated earlier, the explanatory memorandum which I presented in relation to the Horticultural Levy Bill also covers this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Miles) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, for Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Small Business)(11.17) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is a companion to the Horticultural Levy Bill 1987, dealt with earlier. Whereas the purpose of that Bill is to impose levies on the production of prescribed horticultural products, this one authorises charges to be imposed on the exports of prescribed horticultural products. The funds raised by both Bills are to provide the means of financing, in the longer term, the activities of the Australian Horticultural Corporation and, apart from Commonwealth matching money, the Horticultural Research and Development Corporation. The general principles of the charge Bill mirror those of the Horticultural Levy Bill. The main difference is that the export charge is imposed on the owner at the time of export rather than on the producer. There are already export charges on apples and pears and these will be continued under the new legislation with the rates set by regulation; the existing apple and pear charge legislation will be repealed. The rates of charge for other horticultural products will be included in regulations as respective horticultural industries decide to participate in the activities of either or both corporations and agree on the charge arrangements to help finance marketing and research activities. Provision has been made for determination of maximum rates of charge. The maximum rates do, of course, vary from product to product. Continuation of the current charges on apples and pears is expected to yield an annual income of around $300,000. Total receipts from charges to fund the Australian Horticultural Corporation and the Horticultural Research and Development Corporation will rise as the number of industries participating in this way in the marketing and research activities increases. The Commonwealth will match expenditure of the industry moneys-based on levies, export charges and eligible voluntary contributions, identified for the Research and Development Corporation-dollar for dollar, up to a limit of 0.5 per cent of the average annual gross value of production of groups of products, the groupings to be specified by regulation. The extent of the Commonwealth contribution to research will thus depend on the number of industries which agree to participate and the rates at which the individual industries are prepared to fund Corporation research activities. I commend the Bill to honourable members and I now present the explanatory memorandum to this and the associated Export Charge Collection Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Miles) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, for Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Small Business)(11.20) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is complementary to the Horticultural Export Charge Bill, which I have just introduced. Its purpose is to make provision for the efficient and effective collection of the charges imposed by that Bill. Essentially, liability for the charges will rest with the owner of the relevant horticultural products when exported. However, in order to facilitate collection when an exporting agent exports on behalf of another person who may reside, or even live overseas, the responsibility for payment of the charge to the Commonwealth will be placed with the agent. This Collection Bill provides for the agent to be given the authority in law to recover the charge payment from moneys received on behalf of the owner. The Bill also provides for dates on which charges become due for payment to be set by regulation. Collection of existing charges on apples and pears will continue, with the rates set by regulation under the Horticultural Export Charge Act. Total amounts of charges to be collected will rise over the next few years as the number of participating industries increases. I commend the Bill to honourable members. As I indicated earlier, the explanatory memorandum which I presented in relation to the Horticultural Export Charge Bill also covers the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Miles) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, for Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Small Business)(11.23) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to make provisions for arrangements to bring the apple and pear industry within the ambit of the new Australian Horticultural Corporation as outlined in my second reading speech in relation to that body. While the Australian Horticultural Corporation Bill provides for the repeal of the principal and amending Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Acts, this Bill deals with provisions for such things as transfer of assets and liabilities from the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation, when abolished, to the new Corporation. The Bill also deals with consequential amendments to those apple and pear Acts which will continue in existence under the new arrangements. I turn now to the specific provisions of the Bill. The provisions for the administrative and organisational arrangements, which are necessary on abolition of the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation, are set out in part II of the Bill. These cover the transfer of staff, assets and liabilities from the abolished Corporation to the new Corporation. In particular, they provide for the staff of the abolished Corporation to be transferred to the new Corporation on terms and conditions which applied immediately prior to the changeover. Another provision of this part requires the new Corporation to prepare the report and financial statements covering the period of operation of the abolished Corporation from the time of its last report to the time of its abolition. Part III of the Bill provides amendments to the Apple and Pear Export Underwriting Act 1981 by substituting the name of the abolished Corporation with that of the new Corporation in the relevant provisions. Parts IV and V of the Bill provide amendments to the current Apple and Pear Export Charge and Levy Acts so as to limit their application to the day immediately prior to the new Horticultural Levy and Export Charge Acts coming into effect. This prevents product from being subject to double levies or charges. Finally, part VI of the Bill provides for the repeal of the Apple and Pear Stabilization Acts and associated amendment Acts, the operation of which has been completed. I commend the Bill to honourable members and I now present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Miles) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, for Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Small Business)(11.25) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to establish a new ceiling on the export charge leviable on exports of dried vine fruit; namely currants, sultanas and raisins. At present the operative rate of charge set by regulations and the maximum rate allowed under the Dried Fruits Export Charges Act 1924 are the same. This Bill seeks to raise the maximum permissible charge under the Act from $15 to $30 per tonne to enable the operative charge rate set by regulations to be increased beyond $15. Moneys collected under the Act are used to finance the operations of the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation which promotes and controls the export of Australian dried vine fruit. Australian dried vine fruits meet very severe competition on the international market and in the face of this it is imperative that the Corporation be able to continue an effective promotional program in order to maintain market share. The cost of promoting Australian dried vine fruit on overseas markets has increased significantly as a consequence of the devaluation of the Australian dollar. In addition, the Corporation is now carrying out a wider range of promotional activity. These factors have placed additional funding demands on the Corporation. The Corporation has therefore sought an increase in the maximum rate of charge to enable an increase in the operative rate to be effected by regulations. The proposed increase in the maximum rate of charge has the full support of the Australian Dried Fruits Association which is the principal industry organisation. The amendment proposed in the Bill will have no impact on revenue and expenditure. Any increase in revenue as a result of a subsequent change in the operative charge rate by regulations will be offset by a matching increase in appropriation to fund the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation. The Act provides that consultation with the industry must occur before the operative rate can be increased by regulations. I commend the Bill to honourable members and present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Peter Fisher) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, for Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Small Business)(11.29) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Egg Industry Research (Hen Quota) Levy Act 1987 so as to clarify the incidence of the Levy imposed by that Act and collected under an associated Levy Collection Act. The amendments sought stem from advice received by the Government before the levy legislation in question had completed its passage during the last sittings. Plans for incorporating the amendments at that stage were, however, frustrated by the dissolution of the Parliament. The levy imposed by the levy Act is paid by egg producers to support research programs financed jointly by industry and government. It is levied on hen quotas held by egg producers under State or Territory licences, that is, on the number of laying hens a producer is entitled to keep. As a matter of convenience and economy, collection of the levy in the States is undertaken on behalf of the Commonwealth by State egg boards. When the levy legislation was awaiting debate in the Senate, after being passed by the House of Representatives, advice was received from industry that the provisions defining the application of the levy did not appear to cater for some variations in State hen quota practices. Examination of these practices against the relevant provisions confirmed that there was room for doubt as to the adequacy of the provisions concerned. Amendments to remedy this shortcoming were drafted for introduction during the debate in the Senate, but in the event, this course could not be followed. Senate debate on the levy legislation was brought on when the autumn sittings were all but ended and the House had already concluded its legislative business. This meant that if the amendment process were initiated at that time, it could not be completed before the dissolution of the Parliament and the legislation imposing the levy would lapse. As the arrangements embodied in the levy legislation depended on the levy commencing on 1 July 1987, significant problems would have resulted if no levy mechanism was in place by that date. Accordingly, it was decided to seek passage of the legislation as it stood and to pursue amendment of the Levy Act in the Budget sittings. All State authorities concerned with collection of the levy on the Commonwealth's behalf were informed of the intention to amend the Levy Act and of the nature of the proposed amendments. This has enabled levy collection to proceed on the basis to be confirmed by the amendments. Against this background, I will now explain the genesis and intent of the amendments contained in the Bill. When the levy Act was being framed, the definition of the term `hen quota licence', which largely governs the incidence of the levy, was formulated on the premise that State licences issued to egg producers in all cases specify a hen quota which is the maximum number of laying hens that may be kept. This formulation was adopted after examination of relevant State legislation. It has come to notice, however, that because of the varying ways in which individual States express and notify hen keeping entitlements in actual practice, the definition in question is-at least on a narrow interpretation-at variance with administrative procedures followed in some States. In order to remove any doubts as to how the levy should apply, the proposed amendments will alter the definition of the term `hen quota licence', add a definition of `hen quota' and make appropriate changes to all provisions of the levy Act where these expressions occur. The effect of these alterations will be to establish clearly that the levy applies to operative hen quotas-that is, actual hen keeping entitlements-irrespective of how or where these are specified by the States under their administrative procedures. The levy was applied from 1 July 1987 with first payments due on 1 September 1987. As I mentioned earlier, by virtue of prior arrangements with State authorities collecting the levy, the application of the levy has proceeded from the outset on the basis to be confirmed by the amendments. Accordingly, it has been necessary to include a provision making the amendments retrospective to 1 July 1987. It should be stressed, however, that the proposed changes will not impose additional liability on levy payers. Indeed, the position with regard to financial impact is that the amendments will not increase the financing commitments of the Commonwealth or the industry. I commend the Bill to honourable members and present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Miles) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Small Business)(11.36) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Bill makes a number of rather minor amendments to the Patents Act 1952. Most of them are to set up procedures for handling patent applications which relate to nuclear technology. The procedures are needed to ensure compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987-the Safeguards Act-which was passed earlier this year. The new procedures introduced by the Bill relate to patent applications which contain information of a kind referred to in the definition of associated technology in the Safeguards Act. The Safeguards Act provides that associated technology is not to be possessed or communicated without the relevant permit or authority from the Australian Safeguards Office. Under the Safeguards Act, associated technology means a document containing information that is primarily applicable to enrichment of nuclear material, reprocessing of irradiated nuclear material, production of heavy water or nuclear weapons, or nuclear information that is covered by an international agreement and is declared by the Minister to be information for the purposes of this definition. A document is defined to include a photograph, model or other thing from which the information may be obtained. Information publicly available is excluded from the definition. Clause 4 of the Bill provides for the Commissioner of Patents to refer a specification which appears to contain this kind of information to the Director of Safeguards. If the Director is satisfied that the specification does indeed contain information of the defined type, the Director can send a certificate to that effect to the Commissioner. The Safeguards Office will also check whether the necessary permit and authority to possess and communicate the information had been given. In a case where it emerges that they had not been given, the Director's certificate can include a direction that the patent application is to lapse. The Bill also enables the Commissioner, on the basis of the Director's advice, to take appropriate steps to prohibit or restrict publication of the information contained in a specification. There is provision in clause 4 for restoration of a lapsed application where the applicant's default is subsequently rectified by obtaining the necessary permit and authority. Clause 9 makes various provisions for aggrieved applicants to apply for review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of a decision of the Director or Commissioner. Clause 2 imposes an obligation on Safeguards Office staff to observe the usual confidentiality requirements of the Patents Act. The system set up by the Bill is not particularly complex. The reason its wording runs for a few pages is that the new procedures have to mesh into the provisions of the Patents Act, ensuring particularly that decisions affecting people's rights are taken in a fair and open manner. The number of patent applications which will be affected by the Bill is expected to be small, and the procedures will be handled within existing resources of the Patent Office. Clause 3 makes an amendment consequential on clause 4. Clauses 5, 6 and 7 of the Bill make minor amendments to the Patents Act which are explained in the explanatory memorandum. Clause 7 corrects a drafting error which recently came to light. The Bill is not momentous, but it sets in place necessary procedures to ensure that the Safeguards Act and the Patents Act operate in a complementary and harmonious fashion. I commend this Bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Miles) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Resources)(11.40) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill makes amendments of an essentially administrative and procedural nature to the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Act 1984, the Fisheries Act 1952 and the Torres Strait Fisheries Act 1984. I can inform the House that there will be further amendments to the Fisheries Act to give effect in Australian law to the multilateral treaty between the United States and the Pacific Island countries that are members of the Forum Fisheries Agency with respect to the operation of United States tuna boats in the exclusive fishing zones of those countries. The treaty, which was signed on 2 April 1987, will come into force when ratified by 10 Pacific Island countries and the United States. The Australian fishing industry is undergoing a period of profound change and it pleases me to say that this Government has in considerable measure been keeping in step with those changes. The Government approaches management of our fisheries on a co-operative basis with the fishing industry. We have established the Fishing Industry Policy Council of Australia to provide a forum for government and industry to discuss issues of mutual interest. In the long-established framework of the Australian Fisheries Council, we have strengthened the institutional framework for consulting with the relevant industry sectors about the management of our major fisheries such as northern prawns, tuna, south-east trawl, southern shark and north-west shelf crustaceans. Statutory management plans are already in place with the full co-operation of industry in the two first-mentioned of those fisheries. We are working toward having management plans in place for the others in the near future. The Government has implemented the fisheries element of the off-shore constitutional settlement with all but two States, with which negotiations are continuing. The off-shore constitutional settlement creates the statutory basis on which the Commonwealth and the States can enter into formal legal arrangements whereby a fishery is managed under a single law, be it Commonwealth or State, from the coast to the outer limit of our fisheries jurisdiction. Arrangements with Queensland in the Torres Strait Protected Zone have been in place now for more than two years. Four arrangements with Tasmania and Victoria have been in place since June 1986. In June 1987, a further 18 arrangements with Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania came into force. This Bill forms part of a package that includes a Bill to restructure the Commonwealth's involvement in fisheries research and development. This will follow lines essentially similar to those in the Rural Industries Research Act, taking account of the unique institutional factors that make a separate Fisheries Research and Development Act necessary. In 1986-87, the volume of fisheries production was estimated at 152,500 tonnes, with an estimated gross value of $639m. The fishing industry ranks sixth among all Australia's rural industries on a value of production basis. Exports of fishery products have increased from $230m in 1980-81 to an estimated $591m in 1986-87 and have significantly exceeded the value of imports each year during that period. There are more than 9,000 boats in the Australian commercial fishing fleet with an annual consumption of about 240 million litres of diesel fuel. Estimated annual per capita consumption has risen from 6.2 kilograms in 1979-80 to 7.5 kilograms in 1984-85, measured as edible weight. These figures give a general picture of a vigorous fishing industry which is making a very important contribution to the domestic economy and food supplies as well as to foreign exchange earnings. Against this fairly active domestic background, the provisions of the Bill reflect a wide range of recent administrative experience accumulated by the Australian Fisheries Service and the State fisheries authorities which undertake the day to day administration of the Acts that the Bill amends. The Bill brings the three principal Acts that it amends into line insofar as their administrative provisions are concerned. The Bill shifts the emphasis of the provisions authorising the Minister to make notices for the regulation of the fisheries away from the notices to the prohibitions in them. This will facilitate the preparation of notices containing several prohibitions each requiring separate endorsements of licences. The Bill strengthens the powers of officers so that they may be better equipped to enforce the three Acts. It does so in accordance with those principles of Commonwealth legal policy that have regard to civil liberties and individuals' rights, taking account of the special circumstances in which the principal Acts are enforced. The difficulties of detecting fisheries offences at sea, far from the nearest land and a magistrate who can issue warrants with reasonable facility, make it necessary to provide fisheries enforcement officers with powers that in other circumstances might seem excessive. The Bill provides powers in this regard that the Government considers to be an acceptable balance between the need for effective enforcement and the protection of civil liberties. The Attorney-General's Department has advised that the Bill conforms with Commonwealth criminal law legal policy. The Bill provides a basis for ascertaining the state of mind of a director or other agent of a body corporate where it is necessary to do so in legal proceedings for offences for which the Acts provide a penalty for a body corporate. The Bill is of an essentially machinery nature for the better administration of the laws affecting Australia's fisheries and has no financial implications. The explanatory memorandum summarises its clauses, thus making it unnecessary for me to take the time of the House in a detailed explanation of them. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill and commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Miles) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Resources)(11.46) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill gives effect to the Government's rural industries research policy insofar as the research and development requirements of the fishing industry are concerned. The Bill replaces, but does not repeal, the Fishing Industry Research Act 1969 which has since its commencement provided a total of $28,540,000 to support research for the benefit of the Australian fishing industry. The Fishing Industry Research Trust Account established by that Act has supported scientific and biological research in many Australian fisheries. It has provided funds for exploratory fishing projects, fishing gear technology studies, education for fishermen and research into the handling and marketing of fish products. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, universities, government agencies, fishing companies and individual fishermen have received funding from the Account to undertake research. The Account has funded a wide range of industry-related projects; for example, experimental longlining for tuna as the basis of Australia's entry into the lucrative Japanese sashimi market, squid jigging off Tasmania and development of a marketing database on the Viatel system which is attracting interest from exporters, Japanese importers and fishermen's co-operatives. Full details of the operations of the Fishing Industry Research Act are set out in the annual reports of the Fishing Industry Research Committee. The Australian fishing industry has, in my view, received important benefits from the operation of the Fishing Industry Research Act that have contributed over time to the welfare of the industry and its place in the national economy. The Bill provides a basis for this to continue under more modern and representative administrative arrangements consistent with the modern legislative framework for rural industries research generally. The Bill makes two fundamental changes to the basis of determining the amount that the Commonwealth will match by way of appropriation to the Fisheries Research and Development Trust Fund that the Bill establishes. The Commonwealth will match expenditure from approved State funds rather than revenue collected from industry and credited to those funds. And there will be a ceiling to the Commonwealth appropriation to the Trust Fund, equal in any financial year to 1 per cent of the average annual gross value of production by the catching and culturing sectors of the Australian fishing industry during the three preceding financial years, as determined by the Minister. The mechanism for determining the amount of the appropriation will remain much the same as under the existing legislation; that is, the Minister will determine one fund under each State's fisheries law to be an approved fund and specified money in that fund to be approved money. The Bill requires all those determinations to be tabled in Parliament and provides for their disallowance as if they were regulations. Before making any determination under part III of the Bill in relation to the Trust Fund, the Minister will have regard to the legislative and administrative basis of State Funds and the moneys credited to those funds. The Bill establishes administrative machinery closely resembling that provided by the Rural Industries Research Act. There is to be a Fishing Industry Research and Development Council, which will prepare five-year plans of fisheries research and development and annual programs for giving effect to that plan, for approval by the Minister. The Council will undertake the decision-making and administrative functions associated with the Trust Fund, employing staff in classifications approved by the Minister for that purpose. The members of the Council appointed by the Minister will comprise an independent chairperson, a government member experienced in formulation of government policy and public administration, and not fewer than three or more than seven members with experience and knowledge of the fishing industry and fisheries research and a high order of general administrative and managerial ability. The Bill provides for the Minister to appoint members of a Fishing Industry Research and Development Council Selection Committee, comprising an independent chairperson, a member with experience in fisheries administration or management, a member experienced in fisheries research and development, a member nominated by the Australia Fisheries Council and three members nominated by the National Fishing Industry Council. The Selection Committee will, whenever the Minister requests, put forward so many nominations as there are vacancies on the Council, having regard to the mix of skills and abilities that the Bill requires the Council to possess. The Minister may reject any nomination and request the Selection Committee to submit another one. Previous rejection or non-selection is not a barrier to subsequent nomination. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill and commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Miles) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Resources)(11.52) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill provides transitional arrangements between the effective termination of the Fishing Industry Research Act 1969 and the proposed operation of the Fishing Industry Research and Development Bill 1987 already before the House. The Bill amends the Fishing Industry Research Act in a major sense. It repeals the appropriation and abolishes the Fishing Industry Research Committee, the functions of which will be replaced by the Fishing Industry Research and Development Bill. The remaining shell will preserve the Fishing Industry Research Trust Account until the money in that Account has been spent or otherwise disposed of. The Government has decided to apply the money in the Research Account, after settling all outstanding accounts and recovering all moneys due to the Account, to acquiring a fisheries research vessel for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Division of Fisheries Research. Should that outcome not occur, the Ministers for Finance and Resources are to confer about the disposal of the residue. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill and commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Miles) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Holding, and read a first time. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(11.54) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Treasurer (Mr Keating), in his Press releases of 11 June, 30 July and 22 December 1986, announced various operating standards which superannuation funds and approved deposit funds (ADFs) will be required to meet in order to be eligible for relevant taxation concessions. These standards were established following consultations with various interested groups and against the background of the Government's concern to ensure that superannuation arrangements are directed at meeting genuine retirement needs and that members' entitlements are protected. The Treasurer also referred in his June 1986 statement to the Government's decision to establish a new body called the Insurance and Superannuation Commission to be headed by a new statutory officer. The Commission would bring together the existing Offices of Insurance Commissioner, Life Insurance Commissioner and Australian Government Actuary as well as the proposed office relating to occupational superannuation. The three Bills now before the House, namely, the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill 1987, the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner Bill 1987, and the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1987, give effect to these announcements. The Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill 1987 establishes the conditions and the supervisory requirements which superannuation funds and ADFs must meet in order to be eligible for concessional taxation treatment under the Income Tax Assessment Act. The Bill provides that these supervisory functions are to be performed by a newly created office-the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner. The purpose of the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner Bill 1987 is to create the position of Insurance and Superannuation Commission and thereby establish an Insurance and Superannuation Commission. The basic objective of the Government's decision to establish such a Commission is to achieve improved efficiency and co-ordination through the integration of the Commonwealth's various insurance, superannuation and actuarial functions. It is also seen as better reflecting the growing importance of the insurance and superannuation industries in the national economy. This objective is reflected in the Bills before us which, rather than adding, as originally envisaged, two additional statutory positions to those already existing, establish the new senior statutory position of Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner and remove the statutory positions of Life Insurance Commissioner and Insurance Commissioner. The earlier proposed statutory office of Occupational Superannuation Commissioner is also not being established. The purpose of the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1987 is therefore to amend the Life Insurance Act 1945, the Insurance Act 1973 and other insurance legislation to remove the statutory positions of Life Insurance Commissioner and Insurance Commissioner and place their statutory responsibilities in the hands of the new Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner. The new arrangements will not remove the legislative and institutional distinctions embodied in the Insurance Act 1973 and the Life Insurance Act 1945. These Acts will remain in force, and the specialist nature of the two industries will also be reflected in the management structure of the new Commission. Thus, the former positions of Insurance Commissioner and Life Insurance Commissioner will be replaced by positions of Deputy Commissioner (General Insurance) and Deputy Commissioner (Life Insurance) in the new Insurance and Superannuation Commission, with equivalent status under the Public Service Act. The proposed legislation allows the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner to delegate to these officers all the powers necessary for them efficiently to administer the specialist legislation. Similar arrangements will apply in the occupational superannuation area with the creation of the position of Deputy Commissioner (Occupational Superannuation). The Insurance Commissioner and recently retired Life Insurance Commissioner have fully supported and encouraged the Government to adopt the change in approach. They have done so in recognition of the benefits to be derived from the greater integration of the various functions and the difficulties in achieving that objective which could arise from maintaining a number of specific statutory offices. The Government will, of course, ensure that the conditions on which the Insurance Commissioner were appointed will be fully protected. The status and efficiency of the insurance and superannuation regulatory bodies will be significantly enhanced by the greater administrative and management autonomy, as well as the policy responsibilities which it is intended will reside with the Insurance and Superannuation Commission. The integration of policy responsibilities with the regulatory and industry liaison functions of the Commission will also provide the insurance and superannuation industries with a focal point for discussing matters of concern and should ensure that industry issues are given specialist and co-ordinated attention. The office of the Australian Government Actuary will form part of the Insurance and Superannuation Commission, but the professional independence of the actuarial provided by that Office will, of course, be fully maintained. I would like now to outline the particular provisions of the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill 1987. This Bill incorporates provisions to give effect to the handover to the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner of the supervision of those non-revenue superannuation requirements currently supervised by the Commissioner of Taxation. In essence, the Bill provides that, where the trustees of a superannuation fund or approved deposit fund provide to the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner certain information on the operation of the fund, together with certificates as prescribed, the Commissioner will notify the trustees of the fund as to whether the Commissioner is satisfied that the Fund has met the relevant standards and requirements for the purpose of establishing eligibility for concessional taxation treatment. Particulars of the Commissioner's notification are to be forwarded to the Commissioner of Taxation. In brief, these standards, which are to be prescribed in regulations under the Bill, provide for improved vesting of benefits arising from both employee and employer contributions, improved preservation requirements and measures to ensure greater member involvement in the control of superannuation funds and improved security of members' benefits. Funds will also need to comply with the existing requirements of the Income Tax Assessment Act. Pending the passage of legislation expected to be introduced later this year to amend that Act and to relocate those provisions as requirements imposed under the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill. Implementation of the new standards, most of which commenced to operate from 1 July 1986, represents an important step in ensuring that taxation concessions made available to superannuation funds are directed towards the provision of genuine retirement benefits. To this end, the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill is an important element in the Government's overall retirement incomes policy. In developing the legislation, the Government has been anxious to establish a regulatory system incorporating the principle of self-assessment. The arrangements which I have outlined place the onus on trustees to ensure that funds satisfy the operating standards and minimise the degree of interference in the operations of those funds. This minimal supervisory approach is supported by the measures already outlined to provide greater member representation on the boards of trustees and for a greater degree of audit and disclosure of information to members on the operation of the funds. At the same time, it is necessary, in the public interest, to provide the Commissioner with powers to enable more detailed checking of the operations of a fund to test its compliance with the standards. Accordingly, the Bill provides that the Commissioner may, from time to time, require a fund to produce documents for purposes of undertaking routine checks and for initiating appropriate inquiries where there is reason to suspect that there may be non-compliance with the operating standards. The Commissioner is also to be given the power to revise any notification as to compliance or non-compliance that may have been provided if, on the examination of further material, the Commissioner is satisfied that the notification should be revised. As well, discretionary powers are provided to the Commissioner to treat funds as complying with the requirements in special circumstances where the standards have not been satisfied. The Bill also requires that a statement of reasons be included in any notice of non-compliance the Commissioner might provide and that decisions to notify non-compliance be reviewable. In this regard the appeals provisions in the Bill follow essentially the same pattern as the established appeals machinery in the legislation relating to supervision of the general and life insurance industries. Under the Bill, where a trustee of a superannuation fund requests that a reviewable decision be reconsidered, the Commissioner will have a maximum period of 21 days within which to confirm, revoke or vary a decision. The provisions will also ensure that upon expiration of that 21-day period, or earlier if the decision is confirmed or varied before then. The trustee will have a period of 28 days within which to apply to have the matter placed before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal if the trustee remains dissatisfied with the Commissioner's decision. Thus the provisions will ensure that an administrator cannot impede the commencement of appeal proceedings through delay in reconsidering a decision. The standards reflect principles that are well understood in the industry generally and the requirements represent little more than those which should in any case be observed by well-managed superannuation funds. In formulating the standards, the Government took into account the views expressed by a number of bodies on the recommendations in the final report of the task force on occupational superannuation, tabled in May 1983, and on the draft standards released in December 1985 for public comment. The groups which provided advice include the Life Insurance Federation of Australia, the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia and the Institute of Actuaries of Australia. Consultations with the key industry bodies are continuing as part of the process of drafting detailed regulations to reflect the standards. The Government believes that there are clear advantages for both industry and government in seeking to have the detailed standards reflected in regulations rather than in the Bill itself. This approach is consistent with that taken in relation to other supervisory legislation, including in respect of the life insurance and general insurance industries, where highly technical administration is involved. More particularly, it recognises that there is considerable complexity in drafting provisions that will take full account of the diverse range of industry practices in circumstances where that industry is subject to rapid change. In the Government's view, the formulation of the detailed standards in regulations will provide a reasonable and desirable measure of flexibility to allow the standards to be administered in a way that will facilitate maximum co-operation between industry and government in placing the supervisory arrangements in this area on a sound footing. At the same time, the approach will limit the extent to which discretions are placed in the hands of those administering the standards and will, of course, allow parliamentary scrutiny of the standards when the regulations are tabled. I note that this approach has widespread industry support and in this context the Government wishes to acknowledge and endorse the supportive views expressed to the Treasurer by the President of the Institute of Actuaries in his letter of 24 July 1987. While the Government recognises the considerable size of the administrative task involved in implementing the standards, particularly given that well over 200,000 funds are involved, it is determined that this will not lead to any major growth in staff numbers. The Government estimates that a total staff of 77 will be needed to perform this work and that most of the required staffing resources, equivalent to 66 positions, will be provided by offsets in respect of existing positions concerned with superannuation functions in the Australian Taxation Office. Thus the significant increase in administrative work load will not involve more than the creation of 11 new positions. As previously foreshadowed, the Bill provides for the levying on superannuation funds and approved deposit funds of a prescribed annual fee which will be aimed at recovering the normal costs of supervisory operations. It is intended to set such fee at $30 for returns lodged in the current financial year. The Bill is generally to come into operation on a date to be fixed by proclamation, but earlier dates have been provided for in relation to two matters. First, regulations made for the purpose of relocating to this Act some of the existing provisions in the tax Act applicable to ADFs are to come into operation on 1 July 1986. Second, the Bill provides that regulations to give effect to the standards announced in the Treasurer's Press statements of 11 June, 30 July and 22 December 1986 may be made with dates of effect foreshadowed in those announcements. The Government does not see any sound case for deferring implementation of any of the standards as has been suggested by some people. Clearly, such deferral would not be in the interests of superannuation beneficiaries and would set aside the important advances that have already been made towards ensuring that employees, as well as employers and other relevant interests, have an adequate input into the management and operational policies of superannuation funds. It would also run counter to the Government's concerns that superannuation arrangements justify the relatively high levels of taxation concessions directed to that area. The Government remains firm, therefore, in its resolve to implement all of the announced standards without delay so that the role of superannuation funds will be more closely targeted towards meeting the community's retirement needs. Finally, it should be noted that this legislation is not intended to set aside the recourse that members of a fund have by way of normal trustee law. The legislation will also not apply to public sector schemes. However, it remains the Government's intention that public sector schemes comply with similar standards to those applying to funds in the private sector. To that end the Government will be undertaking an examination of funds covering its own employees and where necessary appropriate adjustments will be made. Discussions will also be sought with the governments of the States and the Northern Territory to seek their co-operation in adopting similar standards in respect of funds covering their own employees. I commend the Bill to the House and present the related explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Cadman) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Holding, and read a first time. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(12.12) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to create the office of Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner. As I have already outlined, this Bill together with the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill 1987 and the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1987 are designed to establish an Insurance and Superannuation Commission which would bring together in one organisation the Commonwealth's regulatory and other functions in the insurance, superannuation and actuarial areas. The statutory responsibilities of the Commission would be centred in the new single statutory office of Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner. The Bill provides for the appointment by the Governor-General of a person as Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner for a period not exceeding seven years. The person appointed is not to hold office beyond the age of 65 and is to be paid remuneration as determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. The Bill contains provisions to guard against conflict of interest. It proscribes the appointment of a person who is a trustee of a superannuation fund or approved deposit fund, and of a person who is a director or employee of a body that carries on insurance or life insurance business or is itself a trustee of a superannuation fund or approved deposit fund. The Bill also requires the Commissioner to disclose in writing to the Minister any pecuniary interest he may have in insurance business or life insurance business, a superannuation fund or approved deposit fund, as well as any other business. The Bill also provides for termination of the appointment of the Commissioner by the Governor-General under certain conditions and for the appointment of a person as Acting Commissioner for up to 12 months during a vacancy in the office or when the Commissioner is absent or cannot perform his duties. Finally, the Bill provides for the appointment of staff under the Public Service Act to assist the Commissioner to perform the functions of the position and confers on the Commissioner the powers of the secretary of a department as provided under the Public Service Act 1922. I commend the Bill to the House and present the related explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Cadman) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Holding, and read a first time. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(12.15) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is one of the three Bills which are designed to integrate the Commonwealth's various regulatory and other functions in the insurance, superannuation and actuarial areas and bring them under the responsibility of a new single statutory officer-the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner. The Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner Bill 1987 establishes that position. The purpose of this Bill is to remove the statutory offices of Insurance Commissioner and Life Insurance Commissioner and to effect amendments to relevant provisions in the Insurance Act 1973, the Life Insurance Act 1945, the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Act 1984, the Companies Act 1981, and the Public Service Act 1922, consequent upon the assumption by the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner of the existing statutory responsibilities of those offices. I commend the Bill to the House and present the related explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Cadman) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Holding, and read a first time. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(12.16) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. In the May economic statement, the Government foreshadowed its preparedness to sell its interest in the Primary Industry Bank of Australia (PIBA). The Commonwealth, along with all the shareholders in PIBA, subsequently accepted an offer from the Rural and Industries Bank of Western Australia (R and I) to acquire all of the shares in PIBA. The sale of PIBA was completed on 30 June 1987 and resulted in revenue to the Commonwealth of $2.5m. PIBA was established in 1978 under the provisions of the Primary Industry Bank Act 1977 specifically to provide long term funding to the rural sector through a refinance facility. Prior to the acquisition of PIBA by the R and I Bank, the Commonwealth had a 12.5 per cent shareholding and the four major trading banks, and a consortium of the four State banks, each had 17.5 per cent of the shares. The deregulation of the financial system resulted in there no longer being a need for direct Commonwealth involvement in PIBA. Also, the multiple ownership of PIBA by a consortium of banks and the Commonwealth was proving unwieldy at that stage of PIBA's development. In selling its interest in PIBA, however, the Commonwealth has sought to ensure that the rural sector would not be disadvantaged in its access to banking services previously provided by PIBA and that the rural sector would continue to have a voice on the PIBA board. Following its sale to the R and I Bank, PIBA is now in a position to build upon the valuable service it has provided to the rural sector in the past. In particular, opportunities for accelerated growth and the development of new financial services by PIBA are expected to arise. This will be of particular benefit to farmers given that PIBA's prime commitment will continue to be towards meeting the funding requirements of the rural sector. PIBA was granted a banking authority under section 9 of the Banking Act on 30 June 1987 and as a result the Primary Industry Bank Act 1977 is now redundant. The purpose of this Bill is to seek its repeal and to make certain consequential amendments to the Banking Act 1959. Accordingly, clause 3 of the Bill provides for the repeal of the Primary Industry Bank Act 1977. Clause 4 of the Bill contains certain consequential amendments to the Banking Act 1959. The effect of these amendments will be to ensure that the provisions of the Banking Act 1959 apply to PIBA in the same way as they apply to all other trading banks. That treatment is now appropriate following the granting to PIBA of a banking authority under section 9 of the Banking Act. I commend the Bill to the House. In doing so, I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Cadman) adjourned. Debate resumed from 17 September, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Before the debate is resumed on the Privacy Bill 1986, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this Bill and the Privacy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1986. Mr LAMB(Streeton)(12.21) —Before the debate was interrupted yesterday, I was illustrating the very clear distinction between those who were political opportunists on this matter in this debate and those who had very genuine and professional concerns within the community and expressed those concerns quite adequately and competently. I chastised the Opposition rather heavily yesterday but because we do not have any of the Australian Democrats in this chamber they escaped any criticism. I want to take up the debate again at that point. I refer to a full page advertisement which appeared on the back of the Australian Society in July this year as part of the election campaign. The article sets out the Australian Democrats' performance, their concerns and why they claim that the democratic future of the people depends on them. Not once in that advertisement is there any reference to the Australia Card, the need for privacy Bills or a data protection agency. This is another example of hypocrisy from a party represented in another place. The Australian Democrats believe that this is an issue of importance, yet it was not debated; they did not take up the cudgels themselves. They did not have the honesty to admit that the Government did go to the people and was prepared to debate this matter and that they did not take it up. So all members of the Opposition in both Houses of Parliament stand guilty of not raising what they now raise in a most cheap, base and opportunistic way. Let me return to the aims and objectives of the Privacy Bill before us. The Privacy Bill provides our citizens with a level of privacy protection that is consistent with efficient government administration. It contains a comprehensive set of rules meshing with other legislation dealing with information about individuals held by government. It is a companion of other measures designed to protect any abuse of the Australia Card system, such as the Data Protection Agency (DPA). It follows the example of similar countries such as the United States of America and Canada which have introduced privacy protection legislation. We have, in fact, drawn heavily on guidelines established through the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the Australian Law Reform Commissioner, Mr Justice Michael Kirby, who developed the final form of the guidelines before us. Those principles need to be restated. They are simply these: the Agency must have a lawful purpose to collect any information; that information must relate to the Agency's work; the Agency must advise and inform the citizen concerned of the collection and purpose of the information; the information must be stored securely; and there must be restricted access. The honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), in his tirade yesterday, attacked this privacy legislation for being weak and yet those principles were set out on pages 74 and 75 of the report of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card. I suggest that the honourable member for Flinders must, indeed, be casting a slur on members of his own Party who supported those principles because he is decrying the legislation as weak. It was nothing more than an opportunistic outburst. Any breach will be deemed as interference with privacy and will be handled by the Data Protection Agency. As I said, those agencies will operate under the guidance of the DPA. I think people need to know the consequences of the defeat of this Bill. We need this sort of legislation, not only because of the Australia Card, but also because separate data banks and agencies are already holding information about citizens and the citizen's privacy should be protected against abuse. This Bill will do just that. Whether or not an Australia Card is in place, this Bill is necessary and should be supported. I strongly believe that this sort of legislation in an appropriate form should be extended to the private sector. There are far more abuses of data banks held by private concerns, and this goes uncriticised by the Opposition. There is no suggestion from honourable members opposite that privacy Bills should be extended to that sector. Through the corporations power I would like to see the Government introduce appropriate legislation to ensure privacy in private data banks. I will be a little cynical at this point and say that if the Australia Card were privatised tomorrow, honourable members opposite would have no criticism of it. They would support it. That is the sort of cynical, opportunistic attitude they have. This legislation is a national first to protect the privacy of records. It provides a model which could be extended to the private sector. I commend the legislation to the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) — Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(12.26) —The honourable member for Streeton (Mr Lamb), who has just spoken in the debate, prides himself on the purity of his ideology and the fineness of his ideals. Quite frankly, he wears his heart on his sleeve. I admire that and have a great deal of respect for the honourable member for Streeton. But he cannot have it both ways. He can attack the Australian Democrats for their cheap, opportunistic advertisements which never mention anything about the Australia Card or privacy provisions. I thoroughly agree, but anybody who believes that the Democrats are anything other than political opportunists really needs a base lesson in politics. But the honourable member for Streeton does not come to this debate with clean hands. How many times during the campaign did he-or for that matter any of his colleagues-raise the issue of the Australia Card? He is on record as opposing the Australia Card. He cannot wear his heart on his sleeve and sell out his principles time and again as is required of people as soon as they sign the Caucus pledge which prevents them ever disagreeing with the Government in public or in this chamber, or from crossing the floor. The honourable member has sold his soul. There is no other way of putting it. Of course there is pressure on the conservative side of politics not to break ranks and vote with the other side. But in the final analysis we retain the right to do that. Those opposite do not. They sell themselves down the drain. They did not raise the Australia Card during the campaign; we did. The only reason we are on the brink of a third rejection of the Australia Card legislation in the Senate and a joint sitting for the Government to ram the legislation through is that we have voted against it. We have voted against it since it was introduced late last year. We have been publicising the Australia Card to the very best of our ability. We are not apologetic in any sense of the word in answering the criticism that the issue was not raised in the election. Heaven knows, we tried as best we could to do so. The honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) and the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), who is in the chamber, took prominent leads in that effort. The Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) sent out at least eight formal Press releases on the identity card alone during that 3 1/2-week campaign. Indeed, the Land rural newspaper in New South Wales in a recent editorial gave him credit for having been consistently opposed to the ID card. So we, more than anybody else in the community, can claim sincerity in our opposition to the Australia Card. But I should not be distracted by the contributions of the discredited-sadly-honourable member for Streeton. I will address the substance of the Privacy Bill 1986 and the Privacy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1986 which are before the House. The Opposition opposes the privacy Bills on two grounds. Firstly, they are linked to the Australia Card. We cannot have one without the other. Secondly, even if these Bills were presented as standing apart and aside from the Australia Card, we would oppose them because they do not go far enough. They do not have strong enough provisions to protect an individual's rights. Moreover, there are no enforcement provisions. As we examine the privacy Bills the extraordinary thing we find is that the Government says on the one hand that privacy is important enough to set out a number of principles on it, but on the other hand it is not important enough to enforce those principles. This is the most extraordinary, watered-down piece of privacy legislation that could ever have been dreamed up. But that is to be expected, because this legislation has entered this chamber several years after a mammoth investigation into privacy by the Australian Law Reform Commission. That Commission was given in 1976 under a Liberal- National Party coalition a charter to investigate privacy. It reported in 1983. Now in 1987 we get some weak and watered-down legislation far removed from the recommendations of that Commission. I hasten to add that there has been substantial criticism that the Commission's recommendations were weak enough as it is. These provisions contained in the privacy legislation follow not the substance of the Commission's recommendations, which arguably are weak enough, but merely the form in a generalised fashion. So how the honourable member for Streeton, who prides himself on his civil libertarian expertise, can defend legislation like this, particularly when it is so intertwined with the Australia Card, escapes me. Mr Lamb —Why do you not move an amendment? You are silent. Mr McGAURAN —How can we possibly amend legislation which in the first place cannot stand alone? It is so weak and watered down that it cannot be amended. Also, it is linked to the Australia Card, and in no way are we weakening in our resolve to oppose each and every aspect of the Australia Card. I have read the second reading speech that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) made when he introduced the legislation for debate by the House. It is one of the worst-if not the worst-second reading speeches that I have had to read in my 4 1/2 years in this place. It is unclear and lacking in specifics. No one is any the wiser after reading it. I suggest that those people who have an interest in the very important issue of privacy obtain a second reading speech to find just how inadequately the Government has prepared this legislation and how little seriousness the Government demonstrates in its commitment to privacy. The Government should not underestimate the community's concern about this whole issue of privacy. This issue has come to the fore in a great many Western democratic countries in recent years. As government acquire the ability to obtain more and more information about individuals or groups on massive and sophisticated computers, the more we start to worry. A great many people are becoming concerned by the ever-expanding process of collection of information. At present, as many honourable members would know, privacy is protected to some extent by common law as well as by statutory provisions. I take as examples the law of defamation, the law of passing off and the law of copyright. But that is not enough to truly protect an individual's rights of privacy. The capacity of modern technology, principally through computers, to accumulate information is disturbing to say the least. What protection does an individual have from dissemination of that information? What remedies does that same individual have for breaches of privacy? The legislation before the House fails to address either of those two fundamental matters. All the legislation does is set out a number of so-called information privacy principles. Unfortunately, the definition of what amounts to privacy is far too weak. For instance, the legislation deals only with the specific issue of collecting and using personal information. It fails to include in a generalised form any definition of privacy. Moreover, the legislation omits any sanctions for breaches of these principles. There are no civil or criminal penalties. I hasten to add that in respect of the Commonwealth public sector, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission will have the power to investigate and report with recommendations. That will give that interesting little body something more to do if this information is to be passed. I will refrain from giving my view of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Suffice it to say that it will be abolished by the coalition on returning to Government. Mr Hicks —That says it all. Mr McGAURAN —As the honourable member for Riverina-Darling said, that says it all. The Government maintains that it is important enough to list the privacy principles, but it is not important enough to enforce them. So why do we have damages for civil actions such as defamation or breach of confidence, but not for breaches of this legislation? The Government cannot possibly argue that the matter is too complex or too difficult to solve and that it is unable to formulate appropriate damages or penalties when already precedents exist in common law and for that matter within statute law. The Bill before the House will have no civil or criminal penalties and therefore will have no real effect. There may be some minimal administrative effects, which may deter some bodies or people from breaches of this legislation, but in the final analysis, it is far too ineffective to be of any substance. In my view, it would have been better not to have introduced a privacy Bill at all. It is only a token effort, and if it is passed, it will stultify reform in this area. The Government will proceed no further. It will argue that it does not have to and that it has addressed the major worry of so many people about privacy and the keeping of records and dissemination of that information. In other words, it will trumpet far and wide its commitment to an individual's right to privacy and therefore delude people into thinking that nothing more needs to be done because something has occurred. Nothing of any substance has occurred and it is a cynical exercise by the Government, which has once again pushed aside a troubling political problem which might cause it unpopularity. That is the trade mark of this Government. Whenever a problem arises, either in Parliament, in the media or through some special interest group, it pushes it to one side and either kills it by way of committees or investigations that never amount to anything, or by introducing weak, watered down legislation. That is no way to conduct government. Mr Price —Tell it to the Senate. Mr McGAURAN —There are interjections from members on Government benches. If this legislation is so important to the Government, why has it delayed so long in introducing it? If the matters of principle are so important, why will it not enforce them? Moreover, why has it not consulted more widely, because a number of groups, not least the Law Council of Australia, argue that these principles are so weak as to be worthless. The Government argues that the issue of privacy has been largely settled by this legislation. That is manifestly false. As long as the Government is allowed to get away with wrapping itself in a blanket of complacency, it will proceed unchecked. The legislation is a sham and it demonstrates the Government's total lack of commitment to the individual's right to privacy. What protection is afforded to Australians from the Big Brother under this legislation? Very little if any. We need legislation to safeguard the liberties and reputations of the honest in the community. By establishing the Data Protection Agency to oversee the identification card scheme-that is, the ID card-the Government cements Big Brother in our community. It is not enough that the Government has introduced ineffective privacy legislation. It is now setting up an ID system and, with it, the looming spectre of Big Brother. As if the problem of governments accumulating information is not bad enough-it is an enormous problem and I do not for a moment suggest that there is an easy solution-we shall now have an ID card system and all that that entails. The ID card system makes a nonsense of any notion of privacy. It would have been hard enough to formulate workable privacy legislation without an ID system, but it will now be impossible. The ID card legislation is called the Australia Card legislation, but who can term it that when it is such an un-Australian concept? Mr Cadman —It is unpatriotic. Mr McGAURAN —It is indeed unpatriotic as the honourable member for Mitchell suggests. The Data Protection Agency established under the Australia Card legislation will be charged with administering the privacy safeguards. An ID card register is to be set up under that legislation to contain all the central information, and the Health Insurance Commission has to establish an administering authority for the ID card. What Government departments will have access to the authority to be set up by the Health Insurance Commission to oversee the operations of this central Data Protection Agency? It is rather astonishing because there is a huge list of just who may and who may not have access, but suffice it to say that there will be links between Government departments and the authority, and the authority can access information from the Tax Office, Medicare, the Department of Defence, Norfolk Island and the departments that cover the following Acts: Social Security Act 1947, Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, Veterans' Entitlements (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 1986, Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Act 1940, Student Assistance Act 1973 and Migration Act 1958. The list goes on and on but rather than take what little time I have left to me with an exhaustive list, I make the point that this central card register will be accessed by a whole number of Government authorities. Where are the safeguards? Moreover, where are the safeguards from access by individuals, by some of these famous hackers or other inquiring persons? It is something of a coincidence, but very helpful nonetheless, that yesterday came the news that six young West German computer hackers had broken into the computer network of no less a body than the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). They have broken into 135 computer centres of NASA, the principal space agency in the world, which has very close and continuing links with the defence establishment of the United States. One can imagine that NASA would have the best protective measures against unlawful access by people. Moreover, there has been debate in this chamber all week about whether or not the computer landlines supplied by Telecom Australia will be safeguarded. The honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) and the shadow Minister for Health, the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), have been leading that fight this week, and we have received unsatisfactory answers to detailed questions about the safety and security of the computer line. The honourable member for O'Connor has now received a written reply from the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan), who represents the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) in this place. My quote from the Minister's reply will send shivers up your spine. He said: Many people may not be aware that modern communication dedicated data networks are not in fact a physical `your use only' network of data lines. In other words, they are not single but shared lines. The reply continued: The various data streams of a number of dedicated users will be multiplexed, or combined, and demultiplexed . . . You see the jargon that is used, Mr Deputy Speaker. We are moving into the era of Big Brother, and all the gobbledegook that goes with it. It goes on: . . . demultiplexed as they are moved around the country. Individual dedicated users cannot tap into the data of other dedicated users. Dedicated data systems can still be compromised by someone physically tapping into an exchange or transmission line. I stress that last sentence. There is a remarkably honest admission by the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications that one cannot secure transmission lines against interception. It will not be easy, but someone with sufficient purpose, experience and skill will be able to do so. I also worry about the use of the central card system. Mr Jan Freese, who was formerly director-general of the Swedish Data Inspection Agency for 12 years-bearing in mind that our system is almost directly modelled on that-resigned six months ago for two reasons. The first was that bureaucrats were plugging into the system for all sorts of information and surveys and, secondly, that other people were using it, and moreover the Government was coming to rely on it. So we have modelled ourselves on the Swedish system. Mr Jan Freese, who is now Deputy Director of the Confederation of Swedish Industry, has rejected it. He has said that it has become very corrupt and that Big Brother now totally controls their lives. The Swedish ID system which has been in place for 20 years has exploded beyond the original purpose and that is exactly what will happen with our system. Firstly, the purposes for which we need our card will be expanded. Secondly, the information will not be protected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. It being past 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 101a. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. Sitting suspended from 12.46 to 2 p.m. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —by leave-The Ministers of State Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 received the royal assent this morning. As honourable members are aware, this legislation increased the possible number of Ministers of State from 27 to 30. Following the granting of the royal assent, His Excellency the Administrator at noon today at Government House appointed as Ministers of State the following honourable senators and members: Senator the Hon. Michael Carter Tate, to be Minister of State for Justice and to administer the Attorney-General's Department; the Hon. Roslyn Joan Kelly, MP, to be Minister of State for Defence Science and Personnel and to administer the Department of Defence; and Senator the Hon. Margaret Reynolds to be Minister of State for Local Government and to administer the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —As a courtesy, I inform the House that the Treasurer, Mr Keating, will be absent from Question Time today on government business. In his absence, the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, Mr Dawkins, will answer questions normally directed to the Treasurer. The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, Mr John Brown, will also be absent from Question Time today on government business and questions for Mr Brown should be addressed to the Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Willis. Mr PEACOCK —In the absence of the Treasurer, I direct my question to the Minister for Employment, Education and Training. In reference to the conduct of monetary policy during the latter part of the last financial year, it is stated in Budget Statement No. 2: Substantial net foreign exchange purchases consequently played an important role during this period. Can the Minister advise of the implications for interest rates in the event that net foreign exchange purchases were no longer to play an important role in monetary policy? Mr DAWKINS —I will relay the honourable member's question to the Treasurer. Mr TICKNER —I address my question to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister expect that the current negotiations between Secretary of State Shultz and Foreign Minister Shevardnadze will lead to an agreement of a reduction of intermediate forces? I further ask whether the Government would welcome such a development. Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for his question. The Australian Government is greatly encouraged by the recent improvements in the momentum of talks between the United States of America and the Soviet Union on a possible intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF) agreement. Quite clearly, there is now a definite prospect that the current meeting between Secretary Shultz and Foreign Minister Shevardnadze will reach agreement on the matters which remain outstanding. Certainly, the Australian Government looks forward to the early conclusion of a formal agreement between the two sides for an effectively verifiable dismantling of all INF systems. I point out to the honourable gentleman and, indeed, to the House as a whole that two aspects in particular are worthy of note. Firstly, as the honourable gentleman who asked the question would recognise, this agreement, when signed, will be the first agreement signed between the super-powers leading to an actual reduction in numbers and types of nuclear weapons; hence the comment by a Soviet spokesman recently-an accurate statement I believe-that we are seeing history in the making. The second feature, of course, is that the acceptance of the global double zero solution is of special significance to countries in the Asia and Pacific region in that it overcomes the earlier concern that those countries and Australia had that Asia-based missiles would not be part of an agreement. In addition to progress towards an INF agreement, the Australian Government welcomes the announcement of steps to be taken towards ratification of two existing treaties on nuclear testing-the US-USSR Threshold Test Ban Treaty of 1974 and the Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty of 1976-as steps which include joint verification experiments at test sites in both countries. This is certainly and, I think, properly seen by the two sides as part of a process leading to the ultimate cessation of nuclear testing, an objective which, as the honourable member certainly knows, has been central to Australia's arms control and disarmament policies over the years. Similarly, we welcome the 15 September agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union to establish nuclear risk reduction centres which President Reagan has described as a practical step to reduce risks of conflict that could otherwise result from accidents, miscalculations or misunderstanding. The Australian Government is encouraged to hope that current progress towards an INF agreement will lead to further balanced and verifiable agreements to reduce other categories of nuclear weapons. Certainly, we will continue to urge the nuclear weapons States to build upon the positive developments arising from the Shultz-Shevardnadze meeting. I had the opportunity of discussing these matters with Secretary Shultz when he was in Australia in June and with Foreign Minister Shevardnadze when he was in Australia in March. I look forward to the opportunity of continuing these discussions with Secretary Shultz in the United States in the early part of next month and I also hope that, in the not too distant future, I will have the opportunity of discussions on these matters with the Soviet Government. I think it is appropriate, and I am sure that I speak on behalf of both sides of the House, to record the appreciation of the Australian Government for the major effort which has been made by the United States Administration, including Secretary Shultz in particular, and by the Soviet Government in achieving the progress that we have seen to this point. Mr HOWARD —With your indulgence, Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister can indeed speak for both sides of the House in expressing the hope that this quite historic agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union can be concluded. It will mark a very significant step towards a state of affairs relating to nuclear weapons that we have all long desired. Mr TUCKEY —I refer the Prime Minister to his answer to the Leader of the Opposition in regard to identity card security recorded on page 51 of the Daily Hansard, in which he assured the Parliament that there would be: . . . no leakage, release of information of the sort that is referred to in the question . . . He also said that the information would be protected by: . . . measures which include non-transmission of information via public telephone lines which could be intercepted by unauthorised users . . . The written answer of the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support, Mr Duncan, to the honourable member for O'Connor states in part: . . . that modern communication dedicated data networks aren't in fact a physical `your use only', network of data lines. It states further: . . . dedicated data systems can still be compromised by someone physically tapping into an exchange or transmission line. In the light of that answer, does the Prime Minister still maintain his previous categoric guarantee? If not, why did he choose to mislead the Parliament and the Australian people on this fundamental principle of the ID card debate? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for his question. There is no contradiction between what I said to the House and the answer that has been given by the Minister. My assurance to the House was in respect of hackers-that is, persons who use the telephone system to gain unauthorised access to a computer. I repeat that access by hackers will be prevented by a range of security and protective measures, including non-transmission of information via public telephone lines which can be intercepted by unauthorised users; the encryption of all data transmissions, thereby making the information meaningless in the unlikely event that it is intercepted, and the use of sophisticated security software to control, to record access to and to authorise inquiries of and updates to the Australia Card Register. Of course, it is physically possible to tap into an exchange or transmission line-as my colleague the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support said. As I said to the House the other day, even in the unlikely event of such access being obtained to a line the tapper would still need to be able to decipher the communications. Physical tapping would indeed require a major sophisticated effort and risk exposure and the consequences that flow from it. Mr Porter —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask that the Prime Minister table the document from which he was reading. Madam SPEAKER —Was the Prime Minister reading from a confidential document? Mr Hawke —Yes, Madam Speaker. Mr CHYNOWETH —My question is addressed to the Minister for Science and Small Business. In the last few days there have been numerous media reports about the Commission for the Future, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and the greenhouse effect. I ask: Why is the Commission for the Future involved in these activities and, specifically, what have these activities been? Mr BARRY JONES —The CSIRO approached the Commission for the Future as the appropriate body to draw together major sectors in the community so that they could be briefed on scientific evidence about the greenhouse effect. I urge all honourable members who happen to have electoral seats with a coastal border, especially those honourable members from Tasmania, to listen very carefully. The CSIRO recognised the Commission's expertise in this area and, as a result of the collaboration, the Greenhouse Project: Planning for Climate Change emerged. What they are attempting to do is to develop a better understanding of climate change at a local and regional level to assess the likely impacts of the changes, to plan for the minimisation of adverse effects and maximisation of any likely benefits and to identify policy changes to avert the adverse long term effects of the greenhouse effect. There will be a series of workshops organised, both in 1987 and in 1988, with the involvement and support of a number of groups such as primary industry, manufacturing and construction, service industries, public works and services, water industry, resources and energy, government policy and law, conservation and environment and education and the media. At the first meeting this week the major issue that emerged was a call for more research on climatic change at a local and regional level, so that the various sectors could plan in detail for those climatic changes. For example, the manufacturing group commented on the likely change of population distribution following climate changes and the impact this would have on domestic and overseas markets and the established distribution systems for products. There was discussion also on the need for the insurance industry to focus, for example, on preventive actions to reduce the risks to buildings resulting from climate changes. Concern about the coasts, in particular coastal erosion, and associated drainage and sewerage plants was common to a number of groups. It is very important that we get the concept of the greenhouse effect in context. It is a classic illustration of how if we are only prepared to plan five years, 10 years, 15 years or 20 years down the track all the dangers that are feared can be avoided. Of course, we have to take both a national responsibility and an individual responsibility because it is the pattern of energy usage of all of us as individuals, members of families and groups and so on, that will determine the outcome, not just in this country alone, of course. I think this is a matter on which we need to have a much higher degree of international interaction. The fundamental question is whether this is another factor that we can just leave to the market to work out or whether we need to take some preventive measures to ensure that there is a much higher level of public understanding of what can, potentially, be the greatest environment disaster of all time. Mr BEALE —When did the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support first ask for and receive a detailed briefing from his Department on the coastal surveillance contract? Did the Minister consider the briefing adequate and, if not, what was the nature of the further matters he raised with the Department? Mr DUNCAN —I was briefed on this matter and a number of other matters in the first week after I was appointed Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support. The departmental briefing was to all of the technical aspects of the matter; it did not go to security. At a later time I had a discussion with Senator Evans. Mr Beale —When was that? Mr DUNCAN —At a later time, probably two weeks or three weeks ago. Anyhow, some time in the last six weeks I had a brief verbal briefing from Senator Evans who indicated to me that matters involving the Australian Federal Police had arisen. That was the extent of the briefing. Mr COURTICE —I refer the Minister for Industrial Relations to the national wage decision earlier this year which established new wage fixation principles and ask: Can the Minister advise the House what developments have occurred regarding implementation of the second tier increases provided for in those principles? Mr WILLIS —I thank the honourable member for Hinkler for his maiden question and wish him a long stay in this House. The matter raised by the honourable member is indeed quite important. As he said, the wage principles established by the Commission in March this year provided for two avenues of wage increase. The first tier wage increase is a general wage increase and the second tier wage increase is one that can be obtained through various principles but on an award by award or enterprise by enterprise basis. In the proceeds of establishing that two-tier system the Commission established a new restructuring and efficiency principle which provided for second tier increases to be obtained by measures to improve efficiency such changes as to restrictive work and management practices, changing patterns of work and, also, increasing the flexibility of the work force through a reduction of demarcation barriers and advanced multi-skilling providing for training and retraining. The Government very much welcomed the implementation of this principle by the Commission because it was one which we strongly supported and which we believed gave impetus to our drive for the removal of restrictive work and management practices and an increase in productivity in the nation. For the first time in our history we now have a wage system substantially based on productivity improvement. Although it is six months since that national wage decision, only a small proportion of wage and salary earners have obtained a second tier increase-about 460,000 or 8 per cent of wage and salary earners have obtained that second tier increase. That proportion is low because the system requires substantial negotiations to be undertaken before the offsets required under the restructuring and efficiency principle can be obtained. The major industries where the second tier increases have so far been obtained are: metals, chemicals, food processing, vehicles, building, timber and also some areas of Australian Government employment-Telecom Australia, Australia Post and the Commonwealth Bank. In those three areas of Australian Government employment there has been a 100 per cent trade-off. In other words, there is no cost to the Government as a result of those increases because they have been more than offset by the trade-offs obtained. The procedures used in the trade-offs obtained are variable, but in general they have been very pleasing. For instance, in the metals industry over 460 enterprise agreements have been ratified so far by the Commission. Hundreds more are being considered. Also there have been a number of significant changes to the metal industry award. Across all industries in which second tier increases so far have been given, the major changes are: the elimination of some allowances or practices; increases in the spread of hours in which people can be employed; reductions in the Christmas close down; increases in flexibility in rostered days off; actions to reduce job demarcation; provision for multi-skilling; the removal of training restrictions, for example, the provision of adult apprenticeships; reduction in manning; removal of one in, all in overtime arrangements; payment of wages by electronic funds transfer, instead of in cash; restructuring awards to provide for the more flexible use of the work force; the establishment of dispute settling procedures and removal of restrictions on part time employment. Those are the more important of the changes that have been made. It is by no means an exhaustive list. I think honourable members can see from that list that very dramatic changes are taking place in our work places today, and that because of the action initiated by the Government last year in respect of restrictive work and management practices and because of the enormous impetus that that has received from the wage fixing system, we now have in place an enormous amount of activity to make our work places more productive and efficient. We are now able to remove productivity-inhibiting practices which have applied for a long time. That will mean a significant boost to national productivity. The Opposition has been implying this week that the system is failing because there is not a big productivity increase scheduled for 1987-88, but what it must realise is that this system will be phased in through the course of 1987-88. The real impact will be felt in 1988-89; we will see the full impact of this system when a full year of productivity improvements then applies. There will be a large boost to national productivity in that financial year. Mr BEALE —My question is addressed to the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support. In the Minister's answer to a question from the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, the Minister referred to a minute received by the Minister for Transport and Communications, or his Department, indicating some concerns about the successful coastal surveillance tenderer, Amann Aviation. Will the Minister tell the House whether that minute was one of those referred to in the document he tabled in the House this morning; if not, what other document was he referring to? Mr DUNCAN —I have not seen the minute and therefore I am not able to say specifically which one it was. I was briefed verbally, as I said, by Senator Evans. Mr SCOTT —Is the Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs aware of the pre-Budget allegations by Senator Powell that the community youth support scheme (CYSS) would be abolished? Has the Minister written to all CYSS groups, and if so is there any foundation to the suggestion that the purpose of the letter was to put them on notice of a Government strategy to abolish CYSS? Mr HOLDING —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. Yes, I am aware of Senator Powell's allegations. I am unable to tell the House whether, in fact, she originated that rumour or whether she merely repeated it, but the Budget presented by the Treasurer this week shows that, whether she originated or simply repeated it, her statement was false. I have written to all CYSS groups in Australia, and the purposes of that letter was to draw their attention to the very wide range of training programs being instituted by this Government as part of its total strategy of providing training programs for real jobs for many of our young unemployed people. Honourable members will be aware that individual CYSS groups take a great variety of approaches, and the range of services they provide to quite a range of clients varies quite considerably. The purpose of the letter was to indicate to those CYSS groups that where they believe they can incorporate additional training procedures that are available to them through the Government's package, they should do so. I draw the attention of all honourable members to the document tabled by my colleague the Minister for Employment, Education and Training as part of the Budget Papers which sets out in detail the Government's very lengthy and well thought through programs for the training of our young people, and if any honourable member believes that any of those programs are relevant either to CYSS groups or to any of the young unemployed in his electorate I would certainly be interested to have him make any approach or suggestion. This Government is not merely concerned to restructure Australian manufacturing industry; it is deeply concerned to get in place programs which will equip our young people to take their place in that restructuring. We see CYSS as having an important role to play in that. For the information of honourable members, I table a copy of a letter that went to all CYSS groups. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support and is supplementary to that asked by the honourable member for Deakin. In the answer just given by the Minister to the honourable member for Deakin he referred to an oral briefing which he received from his colleague Senator Evans. Yesterday, in reply to the same honourable member, the Minister said: My understanding of the situation from what I have seen of the documents is that they were part of the tender process . . . Is the Minister now saying that the sole basis of his answer yesterday was not in fact documents but an oral briefing from Senator Evans? If in fact he was relying on documents in the answer that he gave yesterday, can he now tell the House whether that document, or those documents, was one of those referred to in the documents that he tabled in the House this morning? If not, and if it is another document, to what other document was he referring or relying on when giving his answer? Mr DUNCAN —The reference yesterday to documents referred to documents which were part of the tender process, not the later documents which were tabled in the House this morning. Mr CAMPBELL —I address my question to the Minister for Science and Small Business, pursuant to an answer he has just given in respect of the glasshouse effect. Would it not be true that if the world were massively to turn to nuclear energy, there would be a diminution of the glasshouse effect? If that were the case, much of the uranium required would be supplied by Australia, so would not Australia have a moral obligation to provide services to the world for the storage of waste because we have the best technology, geography and geology to do so? Mr BARRY JONES —I thank the honourable member for Kalgoorlie for his question, which is absolutely without notice. I am not sure whether the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy might not be more comfortable with it. This, in fact, is one of the fundamental issues that the world has to look at. There are very serious problems, in Europe, particularly, with the effect of acid rain and other phenomena as well which are clearly associated with the conventional use of coal technology and so on. On the other hand, I suppose we would have to say that in Australia we are not terribly keen at this stage on looking towards even more rapid reductions in the world consumption of coal. Mr Young —Chernobyl was not too good either, was it? Mr BARRY JONES —Chernobyl was not exactly a great success. There is a fundamental question which has to be resolved in the long term about the comparative merits of the nuclear alternative as against the conventional use of coal and as against the development of other alternative strategies such as the more efficient use of energy; in other words, getting a higher degree of deliverable energy out of new technologies that are being developed. For example, I will mention something that the honourable member for Kalgoorlie I know has a very keen interest in, something that is quite new. In the course of the week, I had a visit from Professor Herman Branover of the Beersheba University-an area with which people who see the film The Lighthorsemen will become familiar. He is doing remarkable work on following up a procedure that really has been understood for about 120 years but not yet developed, and that is the generation of electricity in high volume by getting molten lead and turning it through a very elaborate series of pipes. Mr Cadman —How do you melt the lead, Barry? Mr BARRY JONES —With coal. The molten lead is aerated with molten globules then proceeds through a pipe at high speed. On either side are the poles of a magnet. That movement then generates electricity in an extraordinarily efficient way. Professor Branover says that he is getting a fuel efficiency in excess of 40 per cent. Mr McGauran —Oh, of 40 per cent! Mr BARRY JONES —We are having some enlightenment from the honourable member for Gippsland on the subject. We are not getting a very high level of intellectual efficiency from that corner of the chamber ending with the honourable member for Gilmore. That process can cause a dramatic reduction in coal use, but may cause a very dramatic increase in the international market for lead. So in every area, as I have been saying quite a lot lately, the implications of the development of super-conducting materials can be tremendous for the rare earths industry-the development of rare earths both here and in China-but on the other hand it is very likely to have negative effects on the coal industry. So in a way all these issues are part of one continuum and all have to be looked at. Mr Hawke —There is a universal Occam's razor. Mr BARRY JONES —The Prime Minister is absolutely correct, as usual. I cannot top that. Mr COBB —Is the Prime Minister aware of a statement made yesterday by a South African Congress of Trade Union head, Aaron Pemba, who is attending an Australian Council of Trade Unions conference in Brisbane in which he issued a blunt death threat to Australian sports people who venture into South Africa? Is the Prime Minister aware that, regarding Australian sports people, Mr Pemba said, `If they want to go and play sport there, some of them may not come back' and, `They will be targets of the black people' and, `Anything can happen'? In the light of these threats to the lives of Australian sports men and women, will the Prime Minister take this matter up with the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs to have Mr Pemba's visa withdrawn and for him to be expelled from the country? Mr HAWKE —In answer to the first part of the question, no, I was not aware of the statements. Secondly, let me say I express regret at those statements. In regard to the latter part of the question, no, I will not ask the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs to take such steps. Madam Speaker, if you will excuse me I would like to take the opportunity to make a couple of comments on the implications of the question. I deplore the concept of violence, whether it is by white or black, and therefore any suggestion of violence and threats of death, whether made by a representative of black Africa here or practitioners of violence by white Africans, I deplore. The resolution of the tragedy of South Africa will not be advanced by that sort of talk or those sorts of threats. I hope that the good sense of Australian sports men and women will lead them to the conclusion that it would be entirely improper for them to go to South Africa. I hope that they will not make their decision in terms of some assessment about threat to their life and limb but rather on the moral ground that it would be improper to be giving sustenance and support to a regime which is increasingly around the world attracting condemnation. That condemnation is being reflected not merely in the passing of resolutions but, significantly, by increasing withdrawal of capital by multinational enterprises which have hitherto operated in South Africa but which recognise the increasing lack of viability into the future of continuing in that country. I hope that Australian sports men and women will not go against the increasing tide of world opinion and I hope their decisions will be made on those moral grounds and not on the grounds of an assessment of a threat to life and limb. I repeat, as I began my answer, that I repudiate and find repugnant the concept of violence and terrorism whether it be practised by white or black. Mr SNOWDON —Is the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy aware of reports in the Northern Territory media that suggest that this Government would support the location of a high level nuclear waste disposal dump in the Northern Territory? Can the Minister explain whether this is the Government's intention? Mr KERIN —I thank the honourable member for the Northern Territory for the question; no doubt the honourable member for Kalgoorlie will have interest in it as well. I guess I have always thought that the Northern Territory is about 162,000 people run by an Apex Club but some of my naivety about the Press was dispelled last week when I was in the Territory. I am not sure about the honourable member's ideological fantasies, I do not know him well enough, but I got a good appraisal of Mr Coulter's-he is the Minister for Mines and Energy-and I got an even better appraisal of Mr Alcorta's, whom I am sure the honourable member does not always go along with. To take this whole issue and the publicity it got in the Northern Territory Press back to its source, at the meeting of the Australian Minerals and Energy Council in Perth the week before when we were discussing a policy paper `Energy 2000' Mr Coulter from the Northern Territory raised the whole question of further down the nuclear cycle in Australia. He had just been to La Hague in France. Subsequently he gave me a pretty little pamphlet. People there have been heavily into uranium reprocessing gas graphite fuel since 1966. They are moving into light water reactor fuels and breeder fuels. They are constructing now a multipurpose plant. Mr Coulter seems to think this is a pretty good thing for the Northern Territory. In the terms of the debate in the Council I pointed out that as far as the Commonwealth Government was concerned these matters had been covered by our examination of an decisions on the Slatyer report on Nuclear Science and Technology in Australia. As honourable members will recall, the Government rejected two recommendations of the Slatyer report, recommendations 1 and 9. Recommendation 1 gave the Government its three uranium mine policy. I am sure the honourable member for Kalgoorlie understands the wisdom of that policy-not one mine, not five mines but three. The other part of the policy is no nuclear cycle. That is very much the Government's firm belief. In terms of the further reprocessing, Mr Coulter rejoined that the technology had improved a lot, that smaller reprocessing facilities could be built. I said that if that was so I could get back to him. The Council subsequently noted that fact that if there was any need to update any of the information in the Slatyer report the Commonwealth would communicate that to the States and the Territory. Lo and behold, it was reported in the Northern Territory Press that we were giving the go ahead to further processing down the nuclear fuel cycle. There is one area where there is some accuracy in the reports and that concerns the repository for Australia's low level waste. Honourable members will be aware that the Slatyer report recommended that Australia should find better ways and means of disposing of its own low level nuclear waste, which is stored in various areas around the country in 44-gallon drums. The Northern Territory Government has indicated that it has an interest in hosting such a facility. All I advised a Press conference-I actually read from the briefing-was that we acknowledge the Northern Territory Government, as indicated, has an interest in hosting such a facility and the Commonwealth Government is awaiting advice that the Northern Territory wishes to develop this important national service. Anything to do with this is the concern of the Northern Territory Government. It does not mean that the Commonwealth Government has taken any decision on it. As it was a matter of some debate at the public level in the Northern Territory with respect to the election for the seat of Barkly, which centres on Tennant Creek, and the subsequent by-election I would have thought that the Northern Territory media understood exactly what I was taking about. Mr IAN CAMERON —My question is directed to the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. Why has the Government broken yet another promise it made to local government authorities that no council would be disadvantaged under its new arrangement for the allocation of general purpose grants? I instance Queensland where 30 councils will be disadvantaged because of the implementation of this new program and Victoria, where 50 councils will be disadvantaged. Mr YOUNG —I thank the honourable member for his question. In doing so I acknowledge that I now take the place of the person who would have to be looked upon as the best Minister for Local Government that Australia has ever had-the honourable member for Reid. I will tell the honourable member for Maranoa why we have implemented this arrangement: we lay down certain principles under the general purpose grants for local government. The Grants Commissions in the various States lay down the guidelines within those States. The honourable member will have heard his Premier just a few days ago tell the Local Government Association of Queensland that he would abolish the Grants Commission in Queensland. I will tell the honourable member what that would mean for Queensland so that he can take the message back to that State. If Queensland did not have a Grants Commission there would be a cut of $106m in funds to Queensland. I will tell the honourable member something else that Joh was trying to do. He was up to some of his capers. He was going to allocate funds under a gerrymander arrangement. He intended to look after all of his mates in the little boroughs, but in the areas in which all the development takes place-in the areas represented by the honourable member for Rankin and others; the areas of Queensland in which hundreds of thousands of people live-he intended to starve the local government authorities of funds. We laid down the principles. I wrote to the Queensland Government on more than one occasion and said, `Your answers don't meet the guidelines that the Commonwealth has laid down. Unless you do, and unless we see the proper distribution of funds in Queensland, we will allocate the funds according to our principles'. Of course, across the country some local government authorities won and some lost. But it is amazing that every other State agreed with the Commonwealth; there was no dispute at all. There was only Joh who told the Queenslanders that he would not even attend the local government conference until he knew that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Local Government, Senator Reynolds, would attend. He then rang up and said, `I would like to go, too'. The only message he carried was that he would do away with the Grants Commission in Queensland. He has done away with the idea of a public accounts committee. He will not have one of those in Queensland, and we all know why. But if he does away with the Grants Commission, we can save $106m. Mr GAYLER —I ask the Minister for Administrative Services: What is being done to upgrade the equipment of the Bureau of Meteorology, and, particularly, to improve its tropical cyclone, bushfire and flood warning services? Mr WEST —At the outset, I recognise that the answer to this question is of extreme importance to the honourable member for Leichhardt and I recognise his abiding interest in these measures. I inform the House that we as a Government have undertaken to upgrade the Bureau, particularly the severe weather warning capability notification services in northern Australia. We will provide the staff and funds to proceed with this upgrading. The tropical cyclone warning service for northern Australia will be improved by the appointment of cyclone specialists in the tropical cyclone warning centres in Brisbane, Darwin and Perth. These cyclone experts will develop improved tracking and forecasting systems and will help to man the warning centres during periods of cyclone threat. We will also complete the system of remote weatherwatch radar displays. This will give forecasters located in the tropical cyclone warning centres instant access to the weather information portrayed by the radars located along the tropical coastline, particularly of north Queensland. The flood warning system will benefit from the appointment of additional specialists to the flood warning centres in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne. It will also benefit from the establishment of flood warning centres in Hobart and Adelaide. Those specialists will assist in the development or improved techniques for forecasting floods and the increased emphasis on the forecasting of flash flood problems. Finally, I inform the House that the bushfire warning service will also be improved by the provision of weather experts in the Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney and Hobart forecast centres. These experts will assist in the preparation of fire warning during the fire season. During the winter months they will conduct research aimed at improving their forecasting capability. Many sections of our society in this very large country are extremely dependent on advance warning of natural calamity. I give my assurance that the Hawke Labor Government is committed to the upgrading of these absolutely vital services, particularly to the people of northern Australia. Mr JULL —My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services and Health. Is it a fact that sporting, social and service clubs, such as junior football, Country Women's Association, Lions, Apex and Rotary, will be obliged to nominate an identity card representative to allow them to operate their bank accounts? Must such a person also produce his or her ID card to the data authority with a written statement of name, tax file number, if any, or an explanation as to why no tax file exists? Must such a person further duplicate this action within 14 days of any change of office bearers or face a fine? Since when has the Government regarded these organisations as potential tax or welfare cheats? Dr BLEWETT —It is true that clubs and organisations such as the ones mentioned, which, of course, usually already have a member of their executive as an agent in relation to their bank accounts, will be required to provide one agent for their accounts, and the accounts will carry the Australia Card number of that individual. As with most of the Australia Card provisions, it is simply a minor addition to what most clubs and organisations already do. As is required now under the rules of most of those organisations, when the executive changes, there is a change of the agent who operates their bank accounts. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth: 1. The proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians. 2. Therefore your petitioners request a national referendum on the Australia Card Bill before the proposal is re-submitted to Parliament. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Mr Beale,Mr Cadman,Mr Donald Cameron,Mr Ewen Cameron,Mr Goodluck,Mr Halverson,Mr Hawker,Mr Jull,Mr Kerr,Mr Rocher,Mr Ruddock and Mr Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we consider the 2% discounting of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Scheme pension adjustments on 10 October 1986 to be a serious breach of trust by the Government. The Commonwealth has reneged on an established commitment as incorporated in Commonwealth legislation and benefit promise pensions are not being paid in full. In particular we resent the long-term effect of the discounting. The pension loss is compounded throughout the life of a pensioner and surviving dependants-into the 21st century for many. We consider this Government induced penalty to be out of all proportion to the short-term ``extraordinary circumstances of the economy'' given as the reason for the discounting. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. limit the pension discounting effect of the Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation Amendment Act 1986 to the period 10 October 1986 to 1 July 1987 so that pensions are restored to the 9 October 1986 level as a base for the 1987 pension adjustment; and 2. consult with organisations representing pensioners before changing the terms and conditions of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Schemes. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cleeland,Mr Dobie,Mr Peter Fisher,Mr Halverson,Mr Lloyd and Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned expresses concern that some scientists in Australia are intent on undertaking destructive experimentation on human embryos. This subject was examined exhaustively by the 1985-1986 Senate Select Committee on Senator Harradine's Human Embryo Experimentation Bill which received 270 submissions and more than 2,000 pages of evidence. The report of the Senate Committee recommended in October 1986 that the Commonwealth Government make unlawful any destructive experiment which frustrated the development of the human embryo. Your petitioners therefore request the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to implement without delay the major recommendation of the Senate Select Committee to outlaw destructive experiments on human embryos. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt,Mr Cadman,Mr Dobie,Dr Harry Edwards and Mr Tim Fischer. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID Card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation yet introduced, and that on all the evidence available, it will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to reject Labor's ID Card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayers' money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cobb,Mr Dobie,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Millar and Mr Webster. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Lyne Electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation ever, and that on all the evidence available will not tackle in the most cost-effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to reject Labor's ID card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayer's money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray. by Mr Cowan. 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: (1) That we are totally opposed to the proposed introduction of the Labor Government's Identity Card. (2) That this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive and authoritarian, and alien to the Australian way of life. (3) That we are deeply concerned at the Labor Government's resorting to such a far-reaching and expensive measure to deal with the problems of tax evasion and social security fraud. We call upon the Government to improve management systems within the Australian Taxation Office and appropriate departments to tackle these issues. Your Petitioners urge those members present to reject the Identification Card proposal: And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever humbly pray. by Mr Goodluck. 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: (1) That we are totally opposed to the proposed introduction of the Labor Government's Identity Card. (2) That this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive and authoritarian, and alien to the Australian way of life. (3) That we are deeply concerned at the Labor Government's resorting to such a far-reaching and expensive measure to deal with the problems of tax evasion and social security fraud. We call upon the Government to improve management systems within the Australian Taxation Office and appropriate departments to tackle these issues. Your Petitioners urge those members present to reject the Identification Card proposal: And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever humbly pray. by Mr Kerr. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia shows: The Hawke Labor Government has no mandate to introduce its flawed and costly ID Card proposal and that the card won't stop tax and welfare fraud and will invade the private lives of Australians. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to reject Labor's ID Card proposal as the Australian public haven't given the Government a mandate to introduce it. by Mr Millar. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government has no mandate to introduce its flawed and costly ID card proposal and that the card won't stop tax and welfare fraud and will invade the private lives of Australians. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to reject Labor's ID card proposal as the Australian public haven't given the Government a mandate to introduce it. 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 Murray electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government has no mandate to introduce its flawed and costly ID card proposal and that the card won't stop tax and welfare fraud and will invade the private lives of Australians. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to reject Labor's ID card proposal as the Australian public haven't given the Government a mandate to introduce it. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Lloyd. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we strongly oppose the introduction of the `Australia Card' or any other form of National Identification Numbering System. We believe 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. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Andrew,Mr Downer,Mr Millar and Mr Porter. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Beale,Mr Peter Fisher and Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: The Government by persisting with the Australia Card Bill has wilfully rejected the advice and recommendations of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia's `Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card' which unequivocally rejected the Government's proposal in these words: `The majority believes the creation of a new bureaucracy of 2000 public servants within the HIC (Health Insurance Commission), with the sole task of identifying every man, woman and child in Australia, is a wasteful exercise which will not address the problems of tax evasion and social security fraud but will provide the mechanism by which the very fabric of our society will be irreversibly altered, opening the way for the greatest attack on the privacy of individuals as the `Identity Bureau' identifies, monitors, and updates information on every person in Australia.' (Report, 4.55, page 148) Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government now withdraw the Bill as being contrary to the Common Law and traditional freedoms we have hitherto enjoyed in Australia and should the Bill be nevertheless re-introduced, that the Members of the House without regard for party should unanimously reject the Australia Card Bill as being contrary to our personal liberties and the national interest. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Prosser,Mr Rocher and Mr Tuckey. 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 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 should 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 subsided 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 Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Any proposal to abolish the Department of Veterans' Affairs gravely concerns 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 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 respectfully showeth: That we oppose plans by Telecom Australia to close many of the Telecom Business Offices (TBOs) and replace them with a reduced service to be co-located with the District Customer Services Office. We believe the public should be able to make telephone bill payments, applications for new services, selection of telephones and complaints, in person at a convenient and easily accessible location. Telecom Business Offices provide this service, and therefore it is wrong that their contribution and performance will only be assessed on their sales revenue. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: instruct the management of Telecom Australia to immediately cease all action to close any Telecom Business Offices. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron and Mr O'Neil. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: That we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Labor Government's Identity Card; That this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combating the growing problems of tax evasion, illegal immigrants or social security; That we are deeply concerned at the Labor Government's inability to provide effective and efficient methods to combat tax and social security fraud without resorting to expensive, ineffective and authoritarian measures which are alien to the Australian way of life; That we call upon the Labor Government to improve management systems within the Australian Tax Office and other Departments to crack down on tax evasion and fraudulent practices. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Fife and Mr Tuckey. 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 opposition to the introduction of any form of national identification system especially a system know as Australia Card. Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should oppose any legislation designed to impose such a system on the people of Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Goodluck and Mr Kerr. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. As Australian citizens we hereby express our strong disapproval of the proposed legislation to introduce a national identity card, known as the Australia Card. The reasons given for the necessity of such a card are unconvincing inasmuch as existing provisions, if properly implemented, are adequate to prevent tax evasion and social security fraud. Any advantages the card will have will be more than offset by the severe restrictions it will impose on the civil liberties of the population, and by its penal provisions which are unduly harsh and repressive. It is therefore our wish that you, as one of our elected representatives, take immediate steps to oppose the forthcoming legislation, and to ensure that all similar legislation which infringes upon our democratic rights be summarily dismissed. by Mr Goodluck. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of Parliament assembled. The humble petition of these electors showeth that as: In Australia, tobacco kills about four times as many people as the total killed by drink, drugs, murder, suicide, road accidents, rail accidents, air accidents, poisoning, drowning, fires, snakes, lightening, and every other known cause of accidental death all put together. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will prove your worth with effectual action against the promotion of tobacco. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kerr and Mr Tickner. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows that the petitioners are concerned that the Minister for Health proposes to delete from the Medical Benefits Schedule those item numbers covering the treatment of sun-damaged skin and warts by specialists. They fear that those patients suffering chronically from these problems cannot always be treated successfully by a general practitioner. They protest that they will be financially disadvantaged. They also realise that their problems require early detection and expert treatment, if the petitioners are not to be exposed to increased risk of skin and other cancers. Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should recognise our concern and permit the abovementioned items in the Medical Schedule to be reinstated. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Blewett. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth that: Any proposal to establish memorials to peace, the sa-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. 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: That the proposed introduction of compulsory identification cards should be reconsidered and rejected because the proposal: Is not a cost-effective method of reducing tax evasion and social security fraud, and to the contrary, in the form proposed will facilitate such evasion and fraud. Will constitute an unwarranted infringement of individual privacy by the aggregation of a wide variety of personal information of a private matter, Will cause a further large and costly growth in the bureaucracy and burden on the tax payer, and Cannot be guaranteed against misuse for purposes other than for which their introduction is stated to be intended. And your petitioners humbly pray that the problems which identification cards are intended to reduce should be attacked by other, more effective methods. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cobb. To the Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sayeth: Your petitioners humbly pray that your honourable House direct that the existing 4 (c4) zoning on the Kurnell Peninsula, in New South Wales, be removed and that this be replaced by a zoning more appropriate to the unique ecology of the area and to the historical significance of the Kurnell Peninsula, being the birthplace of the nation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Dobie. The Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectively showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposed nomination of Wet Tropical Rainforests of North Queensland to the World Heritage List. The listing as a World Heritage of such a vast area, including areas of State Forest scheduled for Timber Harvesting on a sustained yield basis, will have a detrimental effect on the Timber and Allied industries and on the citizens and economy of North Queensland. The listing as a World Heritage of such a vast area will inhibit the future development of North Queensland on a broad economic base. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the listing of Wet Tropical Rainforests of North Queensland as a World Heritage. And your petitioners, as duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Katter. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth that: The Hawke Government's Australia Card will be an attack on the civil liberties and privacy of all Australians, will not achieve the claimed results, will provide a boost to organised crime and will be an enormous burden to the private sector, especially small business, already snowed under with government charges, taxes and red tape. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled urge the Parliament to abandon legislation for any type of national identity system and work toward building a society based on trust not suspicion. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We, the undersigned, being appalled that the Government has set no penalty for the possession of child pornography, and has set no penalty for importing unclassified child pornography, do ask that Parliament urgently legislate to: make the importation of child pornography, and the possession of child pornography, and all tapes and goods banned by Customs, to be a criminal offence, with deterrent penalties, and close the Customs barriers to pornography in the A.C.T., in respect of X rated videos, (and ER) and end the shameful Canberra trade, and the Mafia Connections. Because 98% of Australians in other States have banned X rated videos. Because the trade is still flourishing, and its availability escalates sexual crime. Because importers of child pornography face only a fine for lying. Because child pornography pedlars are safe if they cross a border, and cannot be extradited for a summary offence. Because anyone can have these tapes in their possession for private use, Because the Government does not intervene in that. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The fringe benefits tax will cause hardship to business throughout Australia, especially in the already severely-depressed rural sector and in the motor vehicle industry. The fringe benefits tax will be a disincentive to employment and worse, will result in additional unemployment. The economy of this country would best be served by policies that lightened the tax burden, not increased it, that encouraged enterprise, not stifled it and stimulated growth, development and jobs, not prevented it. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will repeal this Legislation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Speaker and Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That whereas the Federal Government has determined to proceed with the introduction of a national identification system to be known as the Australia Card, the following citizens of Australia express their concerns at the potential violation of civil rights and democratic freedom posed by such a national identification system and urge that the Government not proceed with its planned introduction of the Australia Card. And your petitioners, in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Smith. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's Industrial Relations Bill will increase industrial disputation, bankrupt companies, and give the union movement total and absolute power over the Australian community. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to reject Labor's Industrial Relations Bill to save Australia from the actions of militant unions and give our economy a chance of recovering. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: 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 Murray electorate respectfully showeth that: The August 1st changes to Medicare Benefit rebates are unfair to patients, such as those with chronic disabilities requiring consultant physician or after hours consultations. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to amend the Health Insurance Act and the National Health Act to restore the original rebates. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Lloyd. Petitions received. Mr BRUMBY —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a short personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr BRUMBY —I do, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr BRUMBY —The Hansard record of the debate of 17 September 1987 on the Privacy Bill records me as saying: The shadow Minister, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), can interject about my contribution to this debate, but he signed the Joint Select Committee report-he was a member of the Committee . . . I was referring in my remarks to the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), and I take this opportunity to correct the record. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Madam Speaker has received a message from the Senate concurring in the resolution of the House relating to the appointment of a Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House. Assent to the following Bills reported: Ministers of State Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 Administrative Arrangements Bill 1987 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The handling by the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support of the Amann Aviation coastal surveillance contract. 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 BEALE(Deakin)(2.54) —The Opposition brings before this House today, and before the Australian people, a matter of public importance on the handling of the Amann Aviation coastal surveillance contract by the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan). We start with an analysis of the extraordinary events of yesterday and today when both the Minister in this House and the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) in the other House contradicted each other not once but twice. In response to a question from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) in this House yesterday the Minister said: My understanding of the situation is that some time in August a minute was received by the Minister for Transport and Communications, Senator Gareth Evans, or his Department, from the Australian Federal Police indicating . . . that the police had some concerns about Amann. Minutes later, in the Senate, Senator Evans denied that such a document existed and said that it was complete scuttle-butt, a complete fabrication and a complete misunderstanding. Needless to say, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) could not wait to get the two Ministers together to sort out which one of them had misled Parliament. Mr Halverson —They probably both did. Mr BEALE —We will get to that. The Prime Minister certainly could not have allowed his new ministerial arrangements to deteriorate into an absolute shambles so quickly. It was this Minister who took the rap on the knuckles. He came back into the House at 25 minutes to 6 yesterday and said: I have heard what Senator Evans said at the end of Question time . . . and to the best of my knowledge it is an accurate account of the situation. The Minister said that there was a minute; Senator Evans said that there was no minute; and this Minister came back into the House and said that there was no minute. This morning both the Senator and the Minister revealed that there was a minute. There was a minute all right. The statement that the Minister tabled when this House met this morning was drooling with minutes and all of them cast into doubt the whole question of the capabilities of the successful coastal surveillance contractor. Now, in an answer to a question raised in the House today, the Minister has resurrected the minute; the minute has reappeared. He said: I have not seen the minute and therefore I am not able to say which one it was. The Minister said that there was a minute; Senator Evans said that there was not a minute; the Minister said there was not a minute; Senator Evans and the Minister said that there was a minute; and now the Minister has confirmed that there was a minute. The Opposition has been pressing for months for the Government to come clean on the Coastwatch affair. I pay tribute to my colleagues the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) and the honourable member Ryan (Mr Moore) for the work that they have done on this matter. We are asking questions in this House, and getting abused for doing so, just after the contract was awarded in April. Over the months since there has been a stream of Press releases from the Opposition. There has been story after story in the print media; and there have been reports in the electronic media. The Government and this Minister must have known that something was seriously wrong with the coastal surveillance contract. If they do nothing else, and they do do quite a deal else, the documents tabled today fully justify the Opposition's approach on this matter and the Government stands condemned, and this Minister sits condemned, for failing to come to terms with this whole affair much sooner and for placing Australia's coastal surveillance in jeopardy. In Question Time today the Minister was asked when he first sought and obtained advice from his Department on this matter. He said: I was briefed . . . in the first week after I was appointed Minister . . . The departmental briefing was to all of the technical aspects of the matter; it did not go to security. Why did the Minister not ask about security matters? Senator Evans was asked the same question in the Senate today. This is what Senator Evans said when he answered the same question: Naturally, I asked at an early stage of the proceedings what, if anything, was on the record of the police aspects of it . . . This Minister did not even bother to ask about the security aspects of the contract. The Minister in the other House had no difficulty in asking about that. This Minister was sworn in on 24 July. What did he do, go fishing? The very first thing the Minister should have done when he got his briefing from the Department was to ask his Department to identify which issues had potential political difficulties for him. If the Minister had read the newspapers, if he had listened to the radio, or seen the television over the previous months he could not have failed to ask for a detailed briefing on coastal surveillance. If he had read the Hansard of the Senate estimates hearing way back in April and read about Amann's difficulties with the Victoria Police, he could not have failed to have drawn to his attention the internal Australian Federal Police minute tabled this morning which stated: The matter in issue is the possible embarrassment to the Government. It is inconceivable that if the Minister had been doing his job he would not have been aware of the continuing difficulties that Amann Aviation was experiencing. Of course, the contract is a political embarrassment to the Government; in fact it has been shown to be an acute embarrassment to the Government. How can the Minister not have been aware that Amann had had problems with the Department of Aviation, as the minute notes? The minute states: Robert Amann has had problems with aviation, the variation of specifications/duplication of administration and decision making within that Department has caused him concern. The minute continues: This is not, apparently, an uncommon complaint from anybody involved in the bureaucratic machinery in the Department of Aviation. What has the Minister done about the complaints about the Department? The Department has disappeared, but the Minister must have been blind not to have been aware of the difficulties because the functions of the Department are still carried out in his Department. He should have made the appropriate inquiries so that something could have been done about all these difficulties and he should have made them in time for some efforts to be made to retrieve the disastrous position that had arisen in regard to the coastal surveillance contract. The Minister should have run a mile when he got a whiff of problems with the contract. It was always open to the Minister to go back to the original contractor and arrange some form of continuity with coastal surveillance until tenders could be called again. The excuse that the contract could not be terminated before the relevant contract date pales into insignificance when we are dealing with Australia's security, the control of drugs and animal diseases and illegal immigration. The Minister has treated his whole departmental responsibilities with complete disdain and in such a way as to put at risk the best interests of the people of Australia. How can he not have known that Amann's financier was still the subject of inquiries by the Department of Transport after the contract had been let? How could he have failed to have been informed that in the event of a relatively minor financial payment default the operations of Amann would have reverted to its financier? It is worth dwelling on that point. We are, after all, talking about the security of Australia. A minor financial payment default would have enabled the operations of Australia's northern coastal surveillance to fall into the hands of a financier with no flying experience. If nothing else, Robert Amann can fly aeroplanes. It is simply beyond belief that the Minister would not have acquainted himself with the fact that Amann's financiers did not even have that experience. It is simply beyond belief that the Minister could have permitted a situation to arise where the operations of Australia's coastal surveillance, at virtually no notice, fell into the hands of a group of financiers with absolutely no experience in flying, let alone coastal surveillance. Amann has been the subject of continuing investigation more or less by the Federal Police for most of this calendar year. In August the Federal Police recommended: That a full examination be made of Amann Aviation and the principals of that company. This contract was let on 12 March, at which time checks into Amann were supposed to have been carried out by the Australian Federal Police. The contract was due to be taken over by Amann on 12 September. On 31 August the Federal Police recommended, in the minute that was tabled today: That a full examination be made of Amann Aviation and the principals of that company. What on earth was the Minister doing to protect Australia's northern surveillance interests at that time? How could a situation possibly have arisen where, nearly 5 1/2 months after the contract had been let and only a fortnight before it was due for implementation, the Australian Federal Police were saying to the Department, `We should investigate these people who are going to take over the northern surveillance of Australia; we should investigate them fully and their principals.'? The Minister may well have relied on a technicality to terminate Amann's contract. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member for Deakin cannot impute that sort of language to a member. He must withdraw. Mr Sharp —He said `relied'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Deakin knows what he said. He will withdraw. Mr BEALE —I withdraw. Amann's contract was terminated at a time when its planes were in the air on coastal surveillance of the north of Australia. The contract was terminated at the time the planes were in the air. What would the Minister have done if no technicality had existed? Will this Minister now tell us whether the contract was terminated for other reasons? Will the Minister tell us whether he simply could not face up to the fact that Australia's northern coastal surveillance was being conducted by a company with a financier which, it has been alleged in the documents tabled by the Minister here today, had some kind of contacts with drug runners? We are not at the end of this sad, sorry and sordid affair. Unless the Minister can give, in his response to this matter of public importance, appropriate explanations for his actions, the Opposition will pursue this matter vigilantly. The public is entitled to know why the Government did not act sooner on all the investigations-many of which were revealed, for the first time today-that were held on the coastal surveillance contractor. The public is entitled to know why the Minister misled the House not once, but twice in 24 hours. The handling of the Amann coastal surveillance contract by this Minister has been a disaster. He has made us the laughing stock of the South Pacific. He has failed to take action to ensure that Australia's northern defences were not placed in jeopardy. He has received a serious rebuke from the Prime Minister. If he cannot satisfactorily explain his behaviour in this House today he has earned the right to return to the back bench. Mr Howard —He has got the Prime Minister in the box. Mr DUNCAN(Makin-Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support)(3.10) —It will take more than the huffing and puffing of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) to affect me. I want to say initially that the matter of public importance before the House- The handling by the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support of the Amann Aviation coastal surveillance contract- is misplaced in its direction, because, as I am quite sure honourable members opposite know, under the administrative arrangements applying, I have no direct administrative responsibility in this matter. As honourable members know, the responsibilities in the Department have been divided between the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) and me. Honourable members interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The Minister might resume his seat for a moment. The honourable members on my left will cease interjecting. The matter of public importance raises serious questions about the Minister's position and the Minister should be heard in silence if members of the Opposition wish to hear fairly both sides of the argument. We have heard the honourable member for Deakin. The House should now hear the Minister. Mr DUNCAN —It is pretty clear that the rabble-rousing approach from honourable members opposite is a reasonable indication of the fact that they are treating this matter with a fair degree of levity. I am not for a moment suggesting that it is a matter that should be treated in that way. I want to say that this matter was not directly within my area of responsibility, so the briefing that I was given at the time we were receiving briefings from the Department at large was more general in nature than that given to Senator Evans. The reason I was not briefed in relation to the detail of the security matters was that I was advised that no security matter was at issue-and that was the end of the matter. The issues of particular concern that I was briefed on were those relating to the tendering process. They were the issues which Senator Evans said quite correctly subsequently cause him and me some concern. Those issues were that there is no evidence of any material being cited relating to any impropriety in the processes; that it was not inevitable, even with the benefit of hindsight, that the contractor would not be able to meet his obligations; and it was not imprudent to engage a contractor from outside the aviation industry. What were important were management skills and access to appropriate expertise coupled with adequate financial backing. It is important to get those matters in some context. It is very interesting to compare the tendering process in this matter with what happened in the days of the Fraser Government. In 1983 this Government acted quite properly to ensure that the whole of the coastal surveillance process would be put on a proper footing. That is what we endeavoured to do. Mr Sinclair —Why didn't you? Mr DUNCAN —The Opposition is having a real field day on this tendering process, because one can imagine the sort of howl that would have arisen from the Opposition benches if the Minister at the time had interfered in any way in the tendering process. The Minister did not do that. As I said before and I repeat: no security matter was at issue. That was the advice given by the Department and the advice given to me by Senator Evans. In those circumstances it would have been entirely improper for the Ministers to interfere in the tendering process-and they did not. We can imagine the howls we would have heard from the Opposition benches if they had interfered. Let me get back to the surveillance situation that occurred before this Government came to power in 1983. We had a Dad's Army exercise and a hotchpotch of ineffective arrangements. These were not addressed until 1983. It is interesting to note, by way of comparison with the current situation, that in 1979 the Fraser Government let a contract for surveillance of our northern coastline to a company called Trans- west Air Charter, a subsidiary of Western Australian Aviation Services, a company owned by ZF Australia Pty Ltd, which is owned in turn by the Zung Fu Co. of Hong Kong. The Hawke Government's actions are entirely and totally sound. Mr Sinclair —Was there a security risk about them? Mr DUNCAN —I am advised that there was no security risk. I do not care whether I stand here for the next 10 minutes and repeat that to get the message through to the Opposition. This matter of public importance is entirely misguided. The idea that I have direct responsibility for this matter is incorrect. The honourable member knows that quite well and he knows that the involvement I have had in this matter has been quite limited in that my responsibilities did not require me to have any more involvement than a general briefing for such purposes as Question Time. I want to point out that in undertaking the administration of this matter, Senator Evans and I have been scrupulous to try to ensure that there was absolutely no impropriety. We are satisfied that in the tendering process that was the case. Mr Sinclair —We are not. Mr DUNCAN —I do not mind what the right honourable member's concerns in life are. My involvement was in consultation with Senator Evans. There was no impropriety in the issue of the contract initially. What was involved in this matter was not security directly. What was involved in civil coastal surveillance was quarantine, immigration, fisheries and low-level contingencies such as search and rescue and possible drug incidents. They are the matters covered in this area. Mr Sinclair —Drug interdiction didn't matter? Mr DUNCAN —Of course it matters. What I am saying and what I just said is that security was checked out. We were advised that no security matter was at issue. In those circumstances I accepted that advice and was not briefed further on that matter by Senator Evans. There was no impropriety in the sense of lack of probity, any criminality or lack of attention to proper ground rules in the issue of the tender. The sins were of omission rather than commission. They were, for example, the failure to follow up matters of detail, Amann's background, managerial competence and administrative experience, the chief pilot's capacity, the maintenance engineer's level of understanding of the task at hand, and the assessment of the current compliance of the nominated supplier and modifier of the Amann aircraft. These matters would or should have been crucial to the decision. They are the matters which Senator Evans and I have been critical of from what we have found in the Department. The difficulty, of course, is that quite clearly the tendering process must be at arm's length from the activities of the Minister, and nobody in the House would challenge that statement. Nobody would challenge the fact that the Minister should not become involved in the tendering process. If the previous Minister, now the Minister for Resources (Mr Peter Morris), had become involved in the tendering process, there is no doubt that the sort of squeal that would have occurred opposite would have raised the roof of the chamber. I have no doubt that if the Minister had become involved in the tendering process the screams from the Opposition would have been legion. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member for Deakin was heard in silence. The Minister shall be heard in silence. Mr DUNCAN —I want next to deal with the same issue of what did take place as a result of the tender. The tender board, I think understandably, was confronted with a situation in which it could save $3m a year-a 25 per cent saving over the existing price. In those circumstances, I believe that it was, to some extent, between the devil and the deep blue sea. Therefore, it was not surprising that it chose to go to the lowest tender. Nonetheless, I think that in the circumstances there were errors of judgment in relation to that matter. Mr Ian Cameron —It has not got any aeroplanes. Mr DUNCAN —It is easy to raise those sorts of things. If honourable members look at the issue of how readily available Skywest was to take up the tender originally, they will find that Skywest was not much more readily able to take on the tender than Amann was. The fact of the matter was that where Amann was weak was in relation to managerial capacity. That was the matter that should have been looked at more closely and carefully. Mr McGauran —Not having any planes did not help either. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Gippsland will not interject, even from out of his seat. Mr Beale —Did you fine anybody in the Department over this? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Deakin. Mr DUNCAN —I just want to conclude by saying that my understanding that was expressed to the Parliament yesterday was incorrect insofar as it went. Mr Sinclair —You misread the minute. Mr DUNCAN —I did not see the minute, as I said. Also as I said I was briefed by Senator Evans and my understanding of the situation was incorrect. I made that clear to the House. I came into the House yesterday afternoon and made a clean breast of it. I said that I had had the opportunity of seeing what Senator Evans had to say and my understanding of it then was that that was the correct position. I have made that clear, and as far as I am concerned there was no intention to mislead Parliament. I told Parliament forthrightly and honestly what I believed to be the situation, but my understanding was incorrect, as I have said. In those circumstances, I do not feel that any crime has been committed by me, nor that I have acted with anything but propriety in my relations with the House. I believe that is the way that a Minister should act. I believe that I have done nothing wrong. Mr Beale —Will the Minister please table the document from which he has been reading? Mr DUNCAN —It is a confidential document. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister does not have to table confidential documents. The debate is concluded. Debate resumed. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(3.25) —We are speaking now about the Privacy Bill 1986 and the Privacy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1986. The Opposition has attacked this legislation as if it were an assault on privacy. The Bill actually strengthens privacy and in no way reduces it. Privacy is a right that we all have and all value. A German proverb says, `A hedge between keeps friendships green'. We need to be able to have time on our own and to go about daily life without undue hindrance. That is what this Bill is about. Yet we have members in this House opposing this legislation, ostensibly because it is associated with the Australia Card legislation. We present a Bill to make sure that the activities of Commonwealth agencies do not adversely effect privacy. It partners a Bill which gives governments the same right as any business would demand. A business is able to bring together funds that it receives from people or firms and check them against the funds paid out to people or firms, yet the Opposition wants to hinder the Government from streamlining its own processes by bringing together the dealings of any one Australian in relation to taxation, social security and Medicare, as it did with the Australia Card Bill presented on Wednesday. Yesterday, the Opposition opposed Government legislation which makes sure that each of us pays to the Government his or her debt and receives from the Government his or her due. Surely it is a right of any properly run business to pay out no more than its due and to receive proper declared prices for services. Here we have an Opposition which keeps telling the Government that it ought to operate like a properly run business and doing everything that it can to stop that. John Valder, the National President of the Liberal Party, tried to tell the Opposition to operate like a business. He implied that it would not be done unless it tested for assets with pensions and taxed fringe benefits. I add that it will not be done without a capital gains tax. The Liberal Party rejected that, and did everything that it could-not very much, for it is a moribund party weighed down by doctrine and yesterday's strategies-to stop the Government from operating in a business-like way. On Wednesday, with the National Party, the Liberal Party voted against a business-like principle, the Australia Card, which would help Treasury and Finance receive their due and pay out no more than their due on behalf of all Australians. Now, the Liberal and National parties are opposing privacy rights but not, I suggest, because of any opposition to invasion of privacy. The coalition has said nothing about the large number of private enterprise data collection agencies which have gathered all sorts of information about Australians-their data records, financial positions, even possessions. That has been tolerated for many years. Is the Opposition opposing this legislation because it is associated with the Australia Card or because it opposes the protection of people's privacy? With the legislation passed yesterday and presented yesterday and today the Government commits itself to three things-to the establishment of a taxation system based on the principles of fairness and equity; to the creation and maintenance of a welfare system tailored to assist those genuinely in need; and, in working towards those objectives, to safeguarding civil liberties and privacy. These privacy Bills before the House give testament to these commitments. The Bills are designed to regulate the collection, handling and use by Federal departments and agencies of information about individuals to provide them with a level of privacy protection that we do not now have. The protection of individual freedom ensured by these Bills in unheard of in Australia, and greater than those guaranteed by some other developed nations. The spy or voyeur may now use modern technology to penetrate a person's house, place of employment or other areas of privacy which she or he occupies. This invasion is more offensive and more damaging than anything which can be achieved by the peeping Tom or trespasser, and yet under existing law agents are able to pry with virtual impunity, using sophisticated technological means. These privacy Bills are important today as recent developments in technology and administration threaten more and more the privacy of the individual. The scheme of the Privacy Bill is to set a series of rules called information privacy principles, which are based on the principles recommended by the Law Reform Commission in its draft legislation. They will apply to Federal departments and agencies. Under the principles, Commonwealth agencies must have a lawful purpose for collecting personal information, and the purpose must be related to the functions or activities of the collector. People must be made aware that information is being collected about them and they must ensure its accuracy. The principles require agencies to store information records securely against loss or misuse. There will be severe penalties for abuse of privacy and the Privacy (Consequential Amendments) Bill will make it impossible for a third party, not named in the Australia Card legislation, to gain access to database information without the express authority of the subject. These Bills, in conjunction with the Australia Card, will ensure less intrusive methods of data collection-not more intrusive-and they will ensure its safe keeping. These assurances do not exist at present. However, the Australia Card, with this legislation, will change that situation. People will have access to their own data; they will be able to change inaccurate information; and they will at least have some control over their privacy. Today there are no such controls and the Bills will provide greater freedoms in the public place to combat developments such as the extension of powers granted to administrative officials; new practices which seek out a person's personal place or personal space; rapid development of technological means for penetrating place and space making it simply impossible to keep things private by locking a door; and development of computers to handle personal information with no controls on the use of, access to and flow of that information. The Government's privacy legislation is the first serious attempt by an Australian government to legislate for the preservation of privacy of information stored on a computer database. It will accompany the Australia Card legislation, providing an assurance of privacy that was not guaranteed before the introduction of all these related Bills. The freedom of the individual and individual privacy will be greater under these related Bills than ever before. They were drafted for the Australia Card and, with the Australia Card Bill, they will mean greater privacy. It is about time the Opposition declared the truth of the matter. The invasion of personal privacy has been at danger level for some years but nothing was done by the Opposition, when in government, to curb it. The present Hawke Labor Government, concerned with the privacy of the individual, will enshrine privacy rights in legislation. I am pleased to support the legislation. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(3.33) —I am very pleased to be able to speak, if only briefly, on the Privacy Bill 1986 and the Privacy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1986, which are important Bills. To date we have heard the ramblings of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and many Government members about certain academic aspects of the Privacy Bill. I will draw the attention of this House to what it really means and what we are really talking about. This legislation fits hand in glove with the Government's proposal to photograph and number every man, woman and child in Australia. This legislation is meant to reassure some people in the Australian community that, when they are numbered and photographed and their photograph is digitised and stored away on the Big Brother computer, everything will be fine because only selected public servants will have access to it. That may be true. It may be true that we will have to have a certain security clearance or grading to go into the file, we may have to have an access number, such as No. 234567-that may in fact be the Prime Minister's number or even the number of the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly), who is at the table-and we may leave a tail indicating that we have accessed that information. But the Government has not said that once we have accessed that information and we have it on hard copy-it is not longer on electronic disc but on hard copy; that is, it is printed out on a piece of paper-there is absolutely no restriction on our taking it to the nearest photocopier, putting it on that photocopier, selecting six, 10 or 150 copies and distributing those copies anywhere we like. I would be interested to hear the Minister's comments at the conclusion of this debate as to how the Government intends to control access to photocopiers by people who have access to the data file because I think it is a very important consideration. It is all very well to talk about whether we can get into the information in the first place but how do we control what people do with it once they have it? A lot of nonsense has been talked about how we can build a super-secure system because we have seen how super-secure systems fall down. I remember reading in newspapers recently about how teenagers aged 14 in America-computer hackers, obviously, very intelligent young people-have bought equipment, much the same as is sold by Dick Smith, through mail order catalogues and have been able to crack various bank codes and transfer money into their own accounts. They have actually been able to crack the hotline between Washington and the Soviet Union. The latest thing that I have read about is that some West German computer experts have actually been able to crack the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) computer system. NASA deals with some very sensitive and high technology material and it has a very sophisticated security system. On a scale of 1 : 10 it probably has a security system that rates 9.5 yet it has been broken into. The Prime Minister and the members of this Government ask us to believe that they will make the telecommunications network more secure than the NASA system. I represent the far north coast of New South Wales and I frequently have to use the subscriber trunk dialling system. I would like $1 for every crossed line I have ever had. We are talking about the ability to get into the telecommunications network. The Government has been talking about dedicated lines. Let me tell honourable members exactly what a dedicated line is. It is a line which is part of the communications network. I guess in symbolic terms it is a line that runs parallel with a line that takes a telephone conversation but this line is used for data transmission. It does not carry voices, it carries electronic impulses. Those electronic impulses will refer to the data that will be on the computer, such as the identity and the other characteristics of every man, woman and child in Australia. This line is not in a separate trench and it is not a particular or unique network. The Australian Telecommunications Commission has not suddenly decided that it will spend billions of dollars digging holes around Australia in which to put this line. It is part of its communications network and in some cases it might even be part of the microwave link. It will have an encryption device on it which is just like a scrambler on a telephone that messes up the electronic signals, so that if someone goes into the line without having a de-encryption device the information will not make a lot of sense to that person. The Prime Minister, on a number of occasions in this place, has put great store on these encryption devices for his electronic data transmission. I inform the House and everybody listening to the debate that Ted Turner, a New Zealand electronics millionaire, who has just challenged the San Diego Yacht Club to a race in maxi-yachts, made his money selling de-encryption devices-quite cheaply too, for only a couple of hundred dollars. These devices are available literally in an electronics mail order catalogue. They can be bought and plugged into a system and some of them are sophisticated enough actually to search through the pattern and work out how to de-encrypt-that is, decode-the data into which they have been plugged. Of course, we are relying on the technical expertise and, dare I say it, the reliability of the Telecom Australia network to protect the identity of all Australians. Something occurred to me the other day when I learnt that the electronic data that will be stored will contain a digitised photograph. I have had some experience with computers. I have installed a couple of systems myself and I am well aware of what happens when one gets what is called in the trade, finger errors. They are punching errors and they occur when young ladies or young men who are actually including this information on the electronic disc, or however it is being stored, hit the wrong button. We are talking about a digitised photograph. We have in this record a name, a number and a few other bits of data plus the photograph. If the person involved is distracted, hits the wrong button and puts the wrong photograph next to that information, pity help the person concerned. The computer will say that No. 3456 has blond hair, but if the wrong photograph is put next to that number I do not really know how one would go about proving that one was that person. The computer will decide whether characteristics correspond to a digitised photograph. We will have the devil's own job proving who is who in that situation because the computer will have the benefit of the doubt. The computer will be the basis for testing information. I suppose what a person could do is get his mother or father or maybe the 50 or 60 other people who know him to come along to bear witness that in fact the photograph stored on the computer is wrong. I think the potential for that sort of error is quite significant. I wonder when people will start talking about the possibility of what amounts to clerical errors. We will have 16 million files. Those files will be interrelated. We will have to relate fathers and mothers to their children. This already is part of the Medicare system. I wonder how far this system will go. I remember the then Minister for Health, the present Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett), saying categorically at the time the Medicare card was introduced that it would not be the first step towards an identification system. I am pleased that it was not because there are 20,000 more Medicare cards than there are people. However, it was in fact a trial run for the ID card system. I wonder whether we can believe anything we are told by the Minister for Community Services and Health or, in fact, anything we are told by the Government in relation to the ID system. Obviously the system has tremendous potential for problems. We are talking about how the card will be used. The Government sets great store by the fact that there is nothing in the Bill that requires a person to carry the card. I say that what sets out to be a maximum standard for identification will very quickly become a minimum standard for identification. Everybody will be looking for our ID card. Everybody, including the bank and the Bankcard people and the store, if we went to open a store account, and the Totalisator Agency Board, if we want to open a betting account, will be looking for our ID card. The list will go on and on. While we may not be required to carry the card, we will not be able to do much without it. American Express has realised what that is about. It says, `Don't leave home without it'. I will be interested to see whether when the Government spends $2m of taxpayers' money telling us why we need to be numbered and photographed it will include that American Express line. I am quite sure that American Express would lend it to the Government. The line `Don't leave home without it' will apply to the card, because if you do leave home without it you could be in trouble. When the Minister sums up in this debate I would be interested to hear his comment on what the Government will do in regard to replacing cards. I have a tendency to put my shirts in the washing machine with things in the pockets. Those things come back rather mangled and unreadable. I wonder what will happen when quite a few Australians mangle the ID card and that card becomes illegible and unreadable by a computer terminal. How quickly will that card be replaced? I do not know how the cards will be issued. I guess we will get our letter in the letterbox asking us to come in to be photographed and to bring our birth certificate, marriage certificate and everything else. I guess we will go in dutifully to be photographed and numbered and will be given the card. If we are in the first wave of 16 million people to be given the card and we take it away and somehow lose, destroy or mangle it, thus needing a new one, how quickly will we get that new card? I wonder whether we will be charged for that new card and how much it will cost. If we habitually lose our card, that is, if we are absent-minded like some people and lose or mangle a card a couple of times a year, will there be some sort of penalty for replacing the card? Of course, the potential exists for some sort of civil disobedience campaign. People who are opposed to the card could quite easily burn it. We could have card burning demonstrations. We could probably organise 50,000 or 60,000 people to gather in the Sydney Domain, or even on the lawns outside Parliament House, to burn their cards. The next day we could go to the Medicare office, or wherever it is we have to go to be photographed and renumbered, and ask for a new card. I wonder how the system could cope with that. I wonder whether, as happened in New South Wales with Barrie Unsworth and some people who were proposing to pay their bridge toll in cents, there will be draconian penalties for deliberately destroying a card. I wonder whether the burning of a card in an act of civil disobedience will be penalised. I wonder whether if we do that habitually there will be a record on our file to say that we have destroyed more than one ID card in the past. I wonder what the consequences for doing that will be. I think it is a stack of nonsense to talk about protecting privacy. It was only late last year that we learnt that the entire records of the Department of Social Security in Victoria were for sale. Someone had managed to go in, perhaps one weekend, and to push the relevant button on the computer and get the records. It was only recently that we learnt that the Canadian tax files had been stolen. Someone put those files in a brief case and walked out of the office one Friday afternoon. Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! It being 3.45 p.m. I propose the question: That the House do not adjourn. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 3.45 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 18 September 1987: Defence Act-Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal-Determination-1987-No. 7. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Betting (Totalizator Agency) Ordinance-Determination of percentage for purposes of subsection 28 (1), dated 13 September 1987. Determinations-Listing fees and/or charges for purposes of the following ordinances- Dated 9 September 1987- Adoption of Children. Agents. Architects. Building. Building and Services. Cemeteries. City Area Leases. Co-operative Societies. Credit. Hawkers. Lakes. Machinery. Motor Omnibus Services. Motor Traffic. Nature Conservation. Plumbers, Drainers and Gasfitters Board. Pounds. Racecourses. Real Property. Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages. Sale of Motor Vehicles. Stock. Surveyors. Unit titles. Water Pollution. Water Rates. Weights and Measures. Housing Assistance, dated 8 September 1987. Scaffolding and Lifts, dated 16 September 1987. Sewerage Rates, dated 24 August 1987. Water Rates, dated 24 August 1987. Rates and Land Tax Ordinance-Declarations (2), dated 24 August 1987. Taxation (Administration Ordinance-Stamp duties (Conveyances) Determination (No. 2), dated 9 September 1987.