Thursday, 24 September 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(10.00) —I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent- (1) the Prime Minister moving forthwith a motion of censure on the Leader of the Opposition; (2) the Prime Minister in moving the motion speaking for a period not exceeding 30 minutes, and (3) the Leader of the Opposition or one member deputed by him speaking on the motion for a period not exceeding 30 minutes. The steps taken by the Opposition yesterday are reminiscent of those in 1975. They are indicative of a political party-the Liberal Party of Australia-not believing that it will ever again have the responsibility of governing this country, which is a view that we readily accept. Those opposite wish to continue to set constitutional precedents which will make government of this country extremely difficult, if not impossible. Yet they try to laugh it away as if this has no consequences for future government by any political party. This morning, by the suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders, those opposite have the opportunity to try to explain away their dereliction of duty as a political party and their extraordinary, irresponsible actions. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(10.02) —Madam Speaker, there is no need to have a motion to suspend Standing and Sessional Orders. The Opposition happily gives leave to do so to debate this ludicrous proposition. Question resolved in the affirmative, with an absolute majority. Motion of Censure Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister)(10.03) —I move: That this House censures the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition parties for: (1) their hypocrisy, in that members of the Opposition parties have, on past occasions, supported the concept of an identification card for Australia and now seek flagrantly to rupture the long standing conventions of the Parliament and the Constitution, in voting in another place to declare their intention to disallow Go-vernment Regulations implementing the Australia Card legislation proposed to be lawfully enacted under the provisions of s.57 of the Commonwealth Constitution; and (2) the offensive and gross misrepresentation that I, the Prime Minister of Australia, had fraudulently misled the Governor-General in invoking the Senate's failure, on two occasions, to pass the Australia Card legislation to obtain a double dissolution of the Parliament. This is a motion to censure an Opposition substantially bereft of talent, totally devoid of principle and irremediably tarnished by hypocrisy. Let me first establish the charge of hypocrisy. The key figure in this unprincipled tactic to frustrate the implementation of the Australia Card is Senator Stone, the intellectual soul mate of Premier Joh and Senator Flo. It was Senator Stone who discovered his convenient lawyer who has delivered him-and through Senator Stone, the Opposition-a most unremarkable legal opinion. I will return to that unremarkable legal opinion in a moment. Senator Stone is unequivocally on the record in support of the ID card. More than that, Senator Stone has strongly urged this Prime Minister to introduce the ID card for the very purpose that I have, in fact, introduced it. He has strongly urged me to introduce the ID card; more than that, he has personally offered me his services to help in the introduction of the ID card. Let me quote from the Australian newspaper of 29 June 1985. Under the heading `PM told how to save $2.5 bil' it states: On the eve of the tax summit three leading Australian economists have prepared a cost-cutting list which could save at least $2.5 billion in federal spending. Those three people are the former Secretary to the Treasury, Mr John Stone; Professor John Hewson, now the honourable member for Wentworth; and Dr Neville Norman. That is the heading. They are urging me how to save $2.5 billion. What is the list? I will not go to it all. I need not go to it all. It starts off with family allowances on a needs tested basis, then mentions tertiary education fees and then it states: ID cards to boost revenue by eliminating tax avoidance. Saving: $400m. Let me quote briefly from this article to establish the monumental hypocrisy of Senator Stone, and of Professor Hewson if he has changed his position. Let me establish what they had to say. The article states: They have proposed a business-funded group of non-government experts with a mandate to swiftly advise the PM on implementation of expenditure cuts . . . Professor Hewson said the private industry advisory group could be modelled on President Reagan's Grace Commission into Government waste. He said: But it would not drag on for years and cost millions. Its mandate would be to report within a month. It should have full access to Government accounts. I think the PM would go along with that. He then pointed out the qualifications that he had and that he and Senator Stone would bring to bear in advising the Prime Minister how to introduce an ID card. This is what is said: Professor Hewson suggested his seven years as economic advisor to former Treasurers, Sir Phillip Lynch and John Howard, would qualify him, as would Mr Stone's long service with Treasury. There was Professor Hewson's advocacy of his qualifications and Senator Stone's qualifications to advise on this matter. He further said: The ID-card savings was a nett amount and excluded the cost of an administrative bureaucracy. I ask the House to understand exactly what is contained in that 1985 statement. What they were doing was this: they were specifically urging the Prime Minister of this country to introduce the ID card to stop the tax cheats. That is what Senator Stone and Professor Hewson were advocating: introduce the ID card, Prime Minister. Secondly, they were saying, `We offer our services'. Professor Hewson and Senator Stone said, `Mr Prime Minister, we offer you our services to introduce the ID card in this country to stop the tax cheats'. Further, they were saying, `There is no great issue in this; no problems involved. We can handle this issue within a month. We will report back to you within a month'. There was no nonsense from Professor Hewson and Senator Stone about there being no net saving in the ID card and no suggestion of some countervailing bureaucratic expense-there would be net savings of $400m. Professor Hewson would certainly have been right in assuming the support of Mr Howard in what he said because, as Treasurer, that same Mr Howard had looked at the ID card on more than one occasion. Having been through the arguments as Treasurer, what was that same Mr Howard saying about the ID card at precisely the same time as Professor Hewson was offering his services to me to bring in the ID card? This is what, almost exactly two years ago, this Mr Howard was saying about the Australia Card. I quote him from 15 September 1985 and this is what he had to say: I think there is some merit in giving it favourable consideration. When he was asked how he could support the ID card when he supported deregulation he replied dismissively, almost contemptuously, in these words: I don't think there is any inconsistency. I mean the United States has had a social security card for generations and yet the United States economy is the most deregulated economy in the world. I do not think there is any conflict at all. That was the statement from the honest John period-the proposal merited favourable consideration; the United States had had the concept for generations. There was no suggestion from him when he endorsed the fact that the United States had had it for generations that it had involved unconscionable invasions of privacy or of civil liberties. That endorses the precise experience that I had just last Wednesday night at the Australian Financial Review dinner. At the end of it an American came up to me and he said, `Look at this, Mr Prime Minister'. He opened his wallet, took out his social security card and said, `I have no concerns about this, Prime Minister. You are right'. Let us come up to date with Professor Hewson's more recent comments. Let us just examine what Professor Hewson has had to say. I refer to his comments in the Business Review Weekly of 3 April of this year. Professor Hewson said: It is equally difficult to understand why John Howard and his mates have not yet released their tax policy. This is Professor Hewson in April of this year attacking John Howard. He said, `I cannot understand why John Howard and his mates have not released their tax policy'. He said: Against the background of the tax reform debacles of the Fraser years much more is expected of Howard this time. He went on then to go directly to the question of the Australia Card. He said: I believe the electorate is very concerned with Government and Opposition promises to cut welfare expenditure without having first made a reasonable effort to tighten the existing system and to minimise abuse. Surely this is one of the main reasons why most surveys showed that most Australians supported the introduction of the Australia card. They were Professor Hewson's words in April of this year. Professor Hewson rightly referred to the `tax reform debacles of the Fraser years'. They were not just Fraser years; they were the Fraser-Howard years of tax reform debacle. He then asked what more was required at this time of John Howard. He went on to give his answer that what was required in 1987 from John Howard was `a reasonable effort to tighten the existing system and minimise abuse'. What was Professor Hewson's answer in April 1987 of what was required of John Howard to tighten the system? His answer was the ID card. Professor Hewson knows-but much more importantly than Professor Hewson knowing it, John Howard knows-the truth of that statement that what is required is the ID card. This is the measure of hypocrisy of your Howards, your Hewsons and your Stones. All of those behind Howard, Hewson and Stone acquiesce in their hypocrisy, their opportunism and their double standards because they recognise, indeed they have argued the merit and the purpose-the legitimate economic and social purpose-of the Australia Card. Then, Madam Speaker, having argued the merit and the purpose of the card, blatantly, deliberately and without conscience they have set out to pervert that majority public opinion-a majority public opinion which Professor Hewson, in April of this year, was a correct public opinion. They have set about attempting to pervert that majority public opinion-a correct public opinion-by gross, hysterical, fear-mongering representation, by arguments that Hewson, Stone and Howard know in the privacy of their own minds they would repudiate with contempt. Madam Speaker, without any question this is a monumental hypocrisy-the manipulation of the needy by the greedy, by those greedy for power at any cost and certainly at the easily accepted cost of sacrificing their intellectual and social convictions on the altar of political expediency. The charge of hypocrisy is made, the charge of hypocrisy is established and the charge of hypocrisy is unanswerable. But worse-much worse than the fact that the hypocrisy is there-it is a hypocrisy which in their own minds the Howards, the Hewsons and the Stones know is practised by them at a grievous cost to the people of this country. For this hypocrisy in which they engage now protects the tax cheats and it protects the welfare frauds to the tune of $1 billion per annum. That is $1 billion which would be available to cancel the public debt, to reduce tax rates or to provide programs for the most needy in our community. Madam Speaker, I said at the outset that this was an Opposition substantially bereft of talent and totally devoid of principle. However, Opposition members do have enough talent to recognise the truth; indeed, they are on record as acknowledging the truth. So, they have enough talent to do that, but there is not a solitary principle in their make-up which will allow their knowledge of the truth to impede their pathetic political opportunism. That, Madam Speaker, leads me to the events of yesterday. We have Senator Stone now reduced in stature from concerned intellectual to a Queensland National Party political junkie. He is the rolling stone to Sir Joh's Sisyphus. He has desperately striven now, in 1987, to find a way to stop me introducing the ID card that just two years ago he offered his services to me to introduce to stop the tax cheats in this country. So, what has he done? He has found a lawyer-`my old mate, Smithy; my old cricketing mate, Smithy-who has given him what is, as I have said, surely the most unremarkable legal opinion of all time. Senator Stone, having got this unremarkable opinion from my old mate, Smithy, has gleefully trotted around to the office of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), and the Leader of the Opposition, because he is totally devoid of political principle, has found himself totally incapable of making an honest statement about the opinion which was handed to him. Let us be quite clear about what the Leader of the Opposition says. In the very first words of his Press release yesterday, he says: The Opposition believes that the ID card legislation is flawed . . . The Opposition's view is based on the attached document. It is perfectly clear that the document attached to the statement by the Leader of the Opposition does not say-for it cannot say-that the legislation is flawed. Let me read to the House the final sentence of Smithy's little opinion, which sums up the legal opinion. He says: The conclusion is that regulations fixing the first and second relevant days are open to disallowance and the disallowance would be effective to make the Australia Card Act wholly ineffective. That is the conclusion-there is no flaw in the legislation. The opinion does not say that there is a flaw in the legislation, because the language of the legislation is simply a replication of the practice that has been followed in this Parliament for 87 years. There is no flaw. The words in clause 32-using the traditional method of relying on regulations under the Act to assist in giving effect to the purposes and objectives of the Act-were in the Australia Card Bill on 22 October 1986, when the Bill was presented to the House of Representatives. They were in the Bill on 17 November 1986, when it was received and read a first time by the Senate; on 18 March 1987, when it was again considered in the House of Representatives; and on 26 March 1987 when it was again considered in the Senate. Not only was the legislation drafted in accordance with the parliamentary practice of 87 years but I suggest that it is particularly instructive to look at the experience of the last 4 1/2 years. Let me acknowledge the Opposition's consistency during this period. As is known, the Opposition has opposed all the fairness measures which we have introduced to broaden the tax base and make the system function more efficiently. Its opposition, Madam Speaker, as you will well recall, more often than not has bordered on the hysteria that it is now attempting to generate on the Australia Card. Yet, I remind the House, on not one occasion after violently opposing our measures in this place and in the Senate has the Opposition sought to disallow the relevant regulations. I remind the House of 1983 and the tax on superannuation lump sums. We had the spectacle of the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) and others ranting and raving about what an evil change we had proposed to the tax law and saying how they would fight it to the bitter end; yet at no stage did they threaten to block the extensive regulations which underpinned that tax reform. Honourable members will recall the prescribed payments system legislation in the same year. We were told then that it would send small business to the wall, and so on-it was the end of the world for small business. But there was not one word about the fact that the definition of a `prescribed payment' was contained not in the legislation but in the regulations. Let us look at Medicare. The entire system of deducting Medicare contributions falls to pieces without pages and pages of taxation regulations. Over $2 billion of levy receipts would disappear if the Opposition forced a disallowance motion through the Senate. I ask this simple and obvious question: was all this legislation flawed because it depended for its effective operation on the existence of regulations? Of course not. The flaw that has been exposed by the events of yesterday is not a flaw in the legislation but a flaw in the Leader of the Opposition and those behind him. It is the flaw of expediency; it is the flaw of cynical opportunism; and it is the flaw of contemptuous disregard for the welfare of the people of Australia. It is a revelation yet again of a preparedness to tear up the unbroken practices and conventions of the past 87 years in the blatant pursuit of political opportunism. That is the flaw which has been exposed by the events of yesterday. Let this fact be understood clearly by this House as it will be understood by the people of Australia: never before, in the 87 years existence of this nation, has an Act passed by this Parliament been effectively gutted by the subsequent disallowance of regulations which were essential to give effect to the policy and the intention of that Act. This is a deliberate and unprecedented threat to destroy the constitutional concept of a joint sitting to give effect to an electoral mandate delivered by the people. This brings me to the most ludicrous and most contemptible of the statements made yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition that I, as Prime Minister, and the Government, fraudulently obtained from the Governor-General a double dissolution and that I owe the Governor-General and the public a monumental explanation. Opposition members-Hear, hear! Mr HAWKE —Listen to honourable members opposite. I have already disposed of this transparent nonsense by the facts that I have outlined as to 87 years of legislative practice and as to the particular examples of the last 4 1/2 years. Madam Speaker, I remind you and the House that the recitation of the details of the presentation and the consideration of the Australia Card Bill to the two Houses of Parliament was contained in an attachment to my letter to the Governor-General of 27 May seeking a double dissolution on the grounds contained in section 57 of the Constitution. It was on that basis that the Governor-General replied to me on the same day, 27 May, in these terms: I am satisfied that circumstances such as are specified in section 57 of the Constitution exist in relation to the Australia Card Bill and that I should dissolve both Houses of the Parliament simultaneously in accordance with your advice. That the Leader of the Opposition should insult me is of absolutely no moment and, I can assure him, of no concern whatsoever. Much more importantly, the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition are an insult to the intelligence of the Governor-General, a former judge of the High Court of Australia. Madam Speaker, I remind you of what I had to say in a distributed document attached to my election opening policy speech: Labor has conducted the most systematic crackdown of tax avoidance and welfare cheating ever attempted. I also said: Those efforts will be maintained not least by the reintroduction of the Australia Card legislation. The facts are simple; they are indisputable. The Governor-General dissolved the Parliament on this issue. I sought a mandate on this issue and I received a mandate from the people of Australia on this issue. In the desperation of his comprehensive rejection by the Australian people, the Leader of the Opposition, this supremely unprincipled opportunist, seeks to divert the people of this country from what he, Hewson and Stone know are the best interests of the people of Australia and they seek to do that by the tactics of fear, smear and hysteria. I conclude by saying that last Saturday night this tactic of fear, smear and hysteria was shredded to pieces in my presence in a most devastating manner. I want to recall this incident to you, Madam Speaker. I hope that those opposite will have the decency to listen to this devastation of their tactics. I was in the presence of an elderly Jewish woman. She said to me, `Bob, I have an ID number'. She bared the number which was burnt into her arm while she was an inmate of the Auschwitz concentration camp. Her words to me were these: `I have nothing but contempt for those who seek by false imagery to frighten the people of this country from something which is for their great benefit'. This House should have nothing but contempt for the hypocrisy, the misrepresentation and the cynical disregard for the welfare of the people of Australia shown by the Opposition. The Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition are deserving of the censure of this House. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(10.33) —It is a measure of the moral bankruptcy of the arguments that have been advanced by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in this pathetic, irrelevant censure motion that he should seek to invoke in aid of his arguments something related to the most abominable crime ever committed in this century. It is a measure of his moral bankruptcy that he should seek to invoke that. There is a great principle of our Constitution at stake in this whole debate. There is an issue of constitutional propriety. There is a convention at stake in the heart of this whole debate. But that convention is not the one that was so pathetically raised by the Prime Minister. The true convention is that a Minister who has failed ought to resign. That is the true principle that is at stake. If ever we have seen a classic example of a Minister who, under the Westminster tradition, has done grievous damage to the reputation and the competence of the Government, has greatly embarrassed his Government, and is under an obligation to resign, we have seen it from the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett). He is the Minister who, for over 12 months, has presided over this legislation. He is the Minister who has misled the Australian public. He is the Minister who has embarrassed his Government. So if there is any convention at stake, it is not the pathetic argument of the Prime Minister; it is the simple convention of ministerial responsibility. All I can say on behalf of the Opposition on this is that, if that Minister does not resign, ministerial responsibility under the Hawke Government is as dead as the identity card Bill. It will not surprise me if he does not resign because he will join a long and dishonourable list of people who have failed in their ministerial responsibilities, but who have never resigned. He will join the Leader of the House (Mr Young), the man who leaked information in a Canberra carpark-- Mr Chynoweth —Ah! Mr HOWARD —The honourable member says, `Ah!'. I know that he does not like it. It was a royal commissioner of this nation, appointed by the Prime Minister, who said that the Leader of the House leaked information that was potentially damaging to the national security of this country. As I listened to the Prime Minister's speech and as I noted, as no doubt you did, Madam Speaker, the tremendously enthusiastic response from his back bench, particularly from the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent)-the honourable member for Hotham is a terrific supporter of the Prime Minister on this matter; he is as strong a supporter of the Prime Minister on this as is Senator Bolkus!-I thought, `Who on earth could have advised the Prime Minister to adopt this motion? Was it the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support, Peter Duncan, or was it Neal Blewett? Perhaps it was the Special Minister of State, Susan Ryan'. As I listened a bit harder, I looked and I suddenly discovered what the problem was. The Prime Minister was not reading from somebody else's text; he was reading from a handwritten text of his own. It is perfectly obvious that the Prime Minister's pathetic censure motion is all his own work. And well it may be, because the Prime Minister is alone on this issue. He is bereft not only of public support but also of support in his own Party. You fellas know darn well that you are rattling political death on this subject and you know perfectly well that the Prime Minister has become increasingly isolated on this particular issue. In this very fortuitous opportunity that the Prime Minister has given me to say a few words about the whole identity card debate, let me address the one and only argument of any conceivable substance or consequence that the Prime Minister advanced during his censure motion-that is, the argument related to constitutional convention. What the Prime Minister is really saying is that, if either House of this Parliament exercises a right conferred unambiguously under section 48 of the Acts Interpretation Act, an Act of the Parliament of the Commonwealth-he derides the lawyer to whom John Stone spoke and I ought to deride the lawyer to whom he spoke who gave him the absurd legal advice that something done under section 48 of the Acts Interpretation Act violates an 87-year-old constitutional convention-it is acting improperly. I have never heard such constitutional rot in all my life. Let me say quite clearly on behalf of the Opposition that we reject completely any suggestion, and we will go on rejecting it, that for either House of this Parliament to exercise a right conferred under the practices, the usages and the laws of the Parliament of this Commonwealth is acting in any improper way. We reject that completely and utterly and the Australian people will reject it completely and utterly. This censure motion is born out of one thing. It is born out of the mortal hurt that the Prime Minister feels to his ego. It is born out of the mortal embarrassment that has been done to this Government by the extraordinary revelation of a fundamental practical flaw in the legislation that has been put forward by the Government. No attempt at red herrings, no attempt at references to attitudes quoted out of context, to which I will turn in a moment, can alter the fact that this Prime Minister and this Government have been made to look stupid and foolish to the entire Australian public. In plain language, they have been caught out. They have been comprehensively disgraced and humiliated on this issue. No amount of hectoring or frothing at the mouth by the Prime Minister will alter the fact that he has blown it in a way that has never been seen by the Australian public before. For over 12 months the Prime Minister has ranted and raved around the Australian nation. He has used the figure of $1 billion. I say to the Prime Minister, `I will tell you where that $1 billion is wrong when you tell me how you compute it. Until you tell us how it is computed and until you address your mind to all of the arguments that have been advanced against this legislation, you cannot go on doing that'. The real level of misrepresentation and deceit in the Prime Minister's censure motion was his pathetic attempt to associate me with the ID card legislation. As, of course, is the Prime Minister's wont on so many occasions-he does this almost compulsively-he quoted not accurately or even fully but deliberately, maliciously and repeatedly out of context. I am glad that the Prime Minister referred to that interview on 15 September 1985. The measure of his deceit and of the extent to which he is prepared to go to mislead the Parliament and the Australian public is borne out when I read the full text of the comment that I made on the Sunday program of 15 September 1985. This is what I said: I personally see some merit in having an ID card . . . Did the Prime Minister stop there? Yes. He went on to quote something else. I ask whether he said this: providing the civil liberties concerns that people have voiced can be looked after . . . Mr Hawke —They are. Mr HOWARD —`They are', he says. Come in spinner. He is Robinson Crusoe on the subject of believing that the civil liberties arguments have been looked after. I said: providing the civil liberties concerns that people have voiced can be looked after and provided the Government can satisfy the community that there is some cost benefit in it. That is what I said on 15 September 1985 and that has been the basis of the Opposition's approach to this legislation from the very beginning of it. When the proposal was put up, we joined with the Australian Democrats in sending it off to a parliamentary committee. We said then that our support for it would be conditional on being satisfied on a number of criteria and two of those criteria were those of civil liberties and cost benefit. I remind the Prime Minister that when the report of that committee came back, it was not only the Liberal and National parties that turned the thumbs down. The honourable member for Aston (Mr Saunderson)-where is he now?-one of the Government's great supporters on this legislation, turned his thumbs down on the legislation. He was not prepared to buy the argument that civil liberties were looked after. He was not convinced that there was a cost benefit in the legislation. He also turned his thumbs down. So I say to the Prime Minister, `Don't you quote me out of context on this particular subject. I have had an utterly consistent position on the ID card legislation all along'. I also remind the Prime Minister that, from the very beginning, we laid it down that we could give support to this legislation only if it were satisfactory on those two particular counts. I dismiss, as indeed does the Australian public, the pathetic attempt of the Prime Minister to run the line about inconsistency so far as the Opposition is concerned. Even more importantly, this issue raises a fundamental question about the competence of all those people sitting on the front bench on the Government side. Yesterday morning, after those opposite had that very friendly little talk in Caucus, the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler), that good old member, the Prime Minister's north Queensland fishing mate, spoke on the AM program. He did not know how true his statement was when he said, `There are a whole lot of lightweights on the front bench'. He did not realise what he had said. This motion and this whole debacle bring home to the Australian public the great myth of the claim by the Prime Minister that he has the most talented front bench that Australia has seen since Federation. I wonder what the people will think of that. I suppose the only thing that can be said about the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support is that he has been checkmated by his South Australian colleague, the Minister for Community Services and Health. As I said at the outset of my remarks, the real focus of this House's attention ought to be not on the Opposition but on the poor, pathetic Minister for Community Services and Health. He is the person responsible. He has blown it in the most comprehensive way that any Minister has blown it in recent memory. This Minister has presided over a piece of legislation which has now been revealed as being fundamentally flawed and which has already cost the Australian taxpayer hundreds of thousands of dollars. It has cost countless hundreds of thousands of people great concern and worry because of the card's implications. The Minister has failed to establish to the Australian public a satisfactory argument about the security of the card. He has failed to satisfy the Australian public on the cost benefit. He has failed to satisfy the Australian public on the integrity of the figures that he uses in aid of the claim by the Prime Minister that the card will eliminate tax evasion and welfare fraud. Let me say just a few things on welfare fraud and tax evasion. I invite the Prime Minister to look at some remarks made by the Australian Federal Police which might know a little about the operations of people involved in white collar crime. I invite him to look at some of the words of Frank Costigan and of many other people who know a great deal about the operation of white collar crime in this country. The Prime Minister will find again and again that those people say that the identity card will not be effective in fighting organised crime. The Australian Federal Police has said repeatedly that if it were given more resources to enforce to the limit the existing laws of this country that would be more effective in fighting organised crime than the introduction of an identity card. I also remind the Prime Minister that the identity card legislation, if it were to come into operation, would not put a glove on the cash economy. The cash economy is the greatest area of tax evasion in our community. The national numbering system, the plastic tattoo that the mob opposite want, would not put a glove on the cash economy. We found in the late 1970s, when an investigation was carried out into the operation of identity card procedures in other countries, that that could fall into the hands of organised crime. So it would be the case in this country. From the very beginning both the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia have had a consistent attitude that if the Government can satisfy us that the ID card legislation meets the criteria on privacy and cost benefit, we will be prepared to consider it. On every count the Government has failed to discharge that obligation. That is why the Government is in trouble today. That is why, as each week has gone by in this debate, support for this proposal has ebbed away from the Prime Minister. That is why the document I tabled in the Parliament yesterday, and the impact of that document, not only on the ranks of Government members but also on the future of this legislation, have been greeted with universal relief and delight around the Australian community. If the Prime Minister imagines that he is on a winner in trying to support this identity card legislation, I invite him to listen to every talk-back radio program in Australia today. I invite him to find out the attitude of the Australian people in the cities. They are absolutely delighted that the ID card will be consigned to the wastepaper-basket. That is so because the great majority of the Australian people have not swallowed the nonsense, the fear and innuendo campaign that has been waged by the Prime Minister. As I said a few moments ago, the real issue to which this Parliament and this House should be directed today is not so much the detailed argument about the ID card legislation but the very simple proposition, which is a convention of our system of government-unlike the phoney convention that the Prime Minister has tried to establish about not using a power that is conferred on a House of Parliament by the laws of this Commonwealth-of whether ever again under this Government we will see any sign at all of the great Westminster principle of ministerial responsibility. I remind honourable members opposite of fading and slight memory of some of the things that have been said about ministerial responsibility. That great pillar of Westminster rectitude, the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs and Leader of the House, said a few years ago in very earnest and grave tones, `There is nothing more important than how these people who call themselves Ministers behave and carry on. There is nothing more important than the discharge of their responsibilities'. By any proper, decent test of the Westminster principle, the Minister for Community Services and Health ought to resign. He ought to resign because by any stretch of the imagination and any test at all, he has completely failed to discharge his ministerial responsibilities. That Minister has had no more important ministerial duty over the last 12 months than the conduct of the Government's identity card legislation. Despite the vast resources of his own Department and those of the Attorney-General's Department, despite access through taxpayers' funds to private legal advice and counsel-which is inevitably available to any government- despite everything that has happened and has been said and despite the fact that the Prime Minister sought and obtained a double dissolution on the basis of this legislation, at the end of the day we find that for practical purposes the great intrusive dream of the Minister for Community Services and Health cannot be brought to fruition. He has a great dream and a contempt that he has never disavowed for private property rights. Mr Hawke —Oh! Mr HOWARD —The Prime Minister says, `Oh!'. There is a rule in this Parliament. If it suits the Prime Minister's convenience he can reach back many years and quote anything. But if we dare remind him of an embarrassing remark that he or one of his colleagues made, we are engaging in the politics of fear and innuendo. Let us remind the House that the only person who is really in the dock today is the Minister for Community Services and Health. He had a contribution to make to political philosophy. On the question of privacy he said, `You know, we socialists ought not get too worked up about privacy because that after all is a bourgeois right related to the concept of private property'. It is no wonder that the Prime Minister put that Minister in charge of the ID card legislation. It is no wonder that he has failed miserably to meet the first criterion that I laid down more than two years ago in relation to this legislation. That criterion was: the Government should satisfy us on the privacy issue before we are prepared to look at the proposal. Our opposition to this legislation has been based on a very sound Liberal principle; that is, the most important thing about our democratic society is the importance and supremacy of each individual man and woman. Individual rights can be reduced or limited only if it can be demonstrated that there is a total public good in reducing or limiting individual rights in some way. On this particular issue, the individual right of privacy-the right of people who are not breaking the law to go about their business and do transactions without unnecessary interference-can be reduced, constrained and cut back in a nation that calls itself a liberal democracy only if those in the country who seek to cut it back demonstrate conclusively that there is a greater public good which can be served in cutting it back. The reason the Government has failed to win our support on this issue, the reason it has lost public support on this issue and the reason it is now mortally embarrassed and mortally humiliated on this issue relates to one fundamental thing; that is, that it has totally failed to convince the Australian public that it has a valid case to introduce this proposal. Throughout the whole of this debate that has been the most overwhelming basis of our opposition and because of the Minister's total failure and his total humiliation he, and he alone, is the person who is really in the dock. I regarded the events of yesterday as being a very welcome day for the Australian community. I can speak on behalf of every man and woman on this side of the Parliament; we regard what happened yesterday as a triumph of the interests of the Australian people over an insensitive government. We regard what happened yesterday as the Prime Minister being monumentally embarrassed and monumentally caught out. What happened yesterday occurred through the agency of a private citizen concerned, as he said, about the impact of this legislation-a man who has served governments of both political persuasions as a civil servant with immaculate professionalism. And he does not deserve the contemptuous description that the Prime Minister gave him. How dare the Prime Minister traduce the reputation of a man who honourably served both Labor and Liberal governments. How dare the Prime Minister use the cheap politics of ridicule. Use it against those who are in this chamber but do not use the sanctuary of this chamber to insult the reputation of an honest, decent man who served this country as a public servant. It is a measure of the moral, political and logical bankruptcy of the arguments advanced by the Prime Minister, it is a monument to the tactical stupidity of bringing on this censure motion and it is a monument to how out of touch the Prime Minister is with the wishes of the Australian people on this particular proposal that he should bring in this censure motion, that he should invoke in a most erratic and illogical fashion analogies that bear no relationship at all to this particular debate but, most importantly of all, that he should seek the sanctuary of this chamber, as Prime Minister of this country, to insult the reputation of a man who I would say is the toast of the great majority of the Australian community right here and now. The Prime Minister ought to be ashamed of himself to come into this Parliament and to attack, under the cover of parliamentary privilege, the reputation of this man. The Opposition welcomes this brilliant, devastating, earth shattering tactical move which has been brought forward by the Prime Minister! We are prostrate before the inexorable force of his rhetoric and his oratory on this occasion! He has left every last one of us absolutely devastated! I was shaking like a leaf through the whole of his speech as they all cheered him to the echo! We all sat and watched as they cheered. He talks a lot about decibel tests. I tell you what: he would have failed a decibel test absolutely pathetically. I welcome this censure motion with great relish because not only does it enable me to reject the fallacious arguments of the Prime Minister, to nail the lies and the canards about tax evasion, and to remind this Parliament that we have been consistent and stoic in our opposition to this legislation but, most importantly of all, it allows us and the Parliament of this country to say something about ministerial responsibility. I, therefore, propose an amendment to this motion. I move: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words- ``This House- (1) calls on the Minister for Community Services and Health to resign for the discredit he has brought to the Government and this Parliament in his handling of the Australia Card legislation; (2) failing his resignation, calls on the Prime Minister to dismiss the Minister for Community Services and Health for his failure to conduct the debate on the Australia Card legislation in a fit and proper manner; (3) censures the Government for misleading the Australian community about the purported savings to the Australian taxpayer from the use of the Australia Card (with respect to tax evasion and social welfare fraud); and (4) condemns the Government for wasting the taxpayers, money by persisting with legislation which would abuse personal privacy beyond limits acceptable to the principle of democracy and individual rights sacred to the Australian community''. I might well have added to that motion, `and that this House thanks the Prime Minister for his brilliant, tactical ploy this morning which has enabled the Opposition to bring before this Parliament the one and only convention that has been shattered over this issue; that is, the convention that Ministers ought to be responsible for their failures and when they fail they ought to have the decency to get out'. Madam SPEAKER —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Sinclair —I second the amendment and reserve my right to respond at a later stage. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(11.03) —This is a motion of censure of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) for what he announced to the Parliament. For the first time in the history of this nation the Leader of the Opposition got up and told us in advance that he would direct his cohorts and colleagues in the Senate to reject substantive legislation because it was going to be disallowed by way of regulation. That has never happened in the history of this country. We heard the argument this morning that what is being done is democratic and in accordance with principle and with precedent. Never before in this country has a Leader of the Opposition got up and admitted that he is going to direct his senators to do something contrary to what would be in accordance with democratic principles. The Leader of the Opposition is running scared in this matter, for this reason: he is prepared to adopt what I say is the subterfuge of disallowing the regulation on the pretext that he is entitled to do so. If in the future any hostile Senate can disallow a regulation we will destroy most of the effective legislation now in operation in this country. I will read to honourable members the sort of legislation that is dependent on the Senate's agreement to regulation in respect of bringing part or all of it into operation. Taxation Acts that are wholly dependent upon regulations for their existence include: all levy Acts, the Stevedoring Industry Charge Act and the livestock export charges Acts-there are many of them. These Acts have substantially depended on regulations for their effective operation. They also include Acts in the whole of the customs and excise area, the Northern Territory legislation, the Public Service Act, the Income Tax Assessment Act, the Patents Act, the National Health Act, the Banking Act and the Companies Act-and so that list goes on. Where is the precedent that the Leader of the Opposition suddenly found yesterday that the provision in the Bill that a relevant date-that is all-will be fixed by regulation is fraudulent, deceptive and should never have been introduced? All such Acts now in existence will fail tomorrow if the Senate disallows such regulations. The whole of government would collapse. The stupidity of the man was to come into the chamber yesterday and announce that he would guarantee such action would be taken on this Bill because he would direct senators to vote against their conscience and their better judgment because of his political animosity and stupidity in trying to gain an advantage in the public opinion polls. Acts requiring rules of court for their effective operations such as the Judiciary Act, the Bankruptcy Act and the Federal Court of Australia Act, all depend on regulations being accepted by the Senate. This mad action by the Leader of the Opposition apparently was agreed to by his Party at a party meeting. The Liberal Party picked up the poor old National Party of Australia-a party bereft of any ideas-saying, `You'd better come with us'. They got all the senators into the room and said, `Gee whizz, we have had a brilliant idea. Senator Stone found something'. Senator Stone, who has led the Treasury, would know that half the taxation Acts depend on regulations. He would know that all the Acts I have mentioned owe their life now to regulations. The whole of the foreign exchange regulations, the air navigation regulations, the customs regulations, the navigation regulations, all the rules of the High Court and the Family Court, could now go out the window. I shall table and seek leave to have incorporated at the end of my remarks a list of those Acts-and they are only some. Let the Leader of the Opposition make a personal explanation, if he likes, about when previously the Senate has threatened to disallow a regulation to deny substantive legislation. It has never, ever happened. Let the Leader of the Opposition give such an explanation to the Australian people. This is the issue. The Australia Card Bill was first introduced in 1986 and debated. It was opposed by the Opposition here and in the Senate. Those provisions in question were in it then. They did not offend anybody because they related to an appropriate date to be determined as and when the legislation passed. The date could not be put in in advance. There is nothing wrong or fraudulent about that. The same Bill was passed in 1987. There was no suggestion of fraud because such a suggestion could not stand up. Because we won an election with a substantial majority we are entitled under the Constitution to hold a joint sitting of both Houses to bring the Bill into place. When there is a dispute between the two Houses there has to be some mechanism to resolve that dispute. The Leader of the Opposition is so fearful of that that he does not want to allow the normal democratic processes to operate. He does not want a joint sitting of both Houses. He does not want this legislation to come into operation. He does not use any legitimate or appropriate exercise to marshal a majority anywhere except in the Senate, where he cannot really continue to oppose the legislation because he knows that it will be passed at a joint sitting. He has used his power to use the charade of having the Bill referred to a Senate committee to be examined. There might be a few new senators, who were not involved with the previous Bills, but obviously they are prisoners of the dictates of the Liberal and National parties. Yesterday when we proposed in the Senate that the Senate, irrespective of the examination by the committee of the legislation, would not exercise its power over the regulations to deny the substantive Bill that motion was voted down by 40 to 30. Clearly, in advance, the idea of referring the Bill to a Senate committee is a fraud on the parliamentary process. The Leader of the Opposition is pulling the wool over the eyes of all his supporters by suggesting that he has found a mistake. He should not be thanking John Stone, he should be asking him, `Why did you not think of these ideas when you were head of the Treasury? Why do you now encourage the whole of the nation to question how many other pieces of legislation are now in jeopardy because of this device?'. Are we to bring this nation to a standstill because of a rabble Opposition which will deny regulations in the Senate? It is legitimate to disapprove of the form of regulations but not to reject the very substance that would bring the Bill into operation. And the Opposition talks about principles! It talks about ministerial responsibility! The Leader of the Opposition has left the chamber but I remind him that when he was a very influential member of the Fraser Government on many occasions Ministers did not face issues too well. Let me remind somebody of the Woodward Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry. Its report was a complete indictment of a Minister. The royal commissioner said, `I am bound to record my view that the Minister did not deal with these allegations adequately and effectively'. What happened? The standard of propriety and principle in those days was not only to say that the Minister did nothing wrong but that the Royal Commissioner was no good. That is how strong the allegations were. The matter involved the whole of Australia's meat exports. It was appropriately referred to in the Washington Post as a rather extraordinary scandal. It appeared that Australia was being run by a bunch of hucksters out to con everybody they could. One of the problems of the Government that fell was the bunch of hucksters out to con everybody-the Bjelke-Petersen syndrome. They got Mr Sankey to charge Ministers of the Whitlam Government in a Queanbeyan court on false charges and at the same time had a special one-day sitting of the Queensland Parliament to disclose information. That same Premier is hiding from inquiry at present. His Ministers will be in the witness box. The Police Commissioner and others in Queensland are worried about what will come out of the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct because it will be devastating. It will relate to corruption, the rottenness, the deception that bedevils any legitimacy of government. Precedent is of no credit to the Opposition's present position. When in opposition we fought tenaciously and effectively about the rottenness in administration of the then Government of which the Leader of the Opposition was the Treasurer. Not one effort was made to deal with the tax cheats or the tax crooks. It took Mr Costigan with his Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union to bring out the fact that Mr O'Reilly, the Commissioner of Taxation, was giving reports to the Leader of the Opposition as then Treasurer saying, `We are losing revenue with these straw companies. What are you going to do about it?'. The Leader of the Opposition did nothing. Billions of dollars were being lost. Yet the Leader of the Opposition today says that we have to do something about this legislation; it is wrong. This legislation is aimed at crooks, tax cheats, those who defraud. People who are honest have nothing to fear; they have no problems at all. But little John opposite would be very mindful of the fact that when he was Treasurer he had all these matters in front of him and did nothing. The crooks had a marvellous time. Because we now attempt to bring in legislation so that people at least will have to prove their identity when dealing in cash transactions or real estate or to get some payment from the nation he says that that is a dreadful thing to do. He suggests that this is fraudulent legislation and that it will be disallowed in the Senate because that is appropriate. How fraudulent is that approach! The Leader of the Opposition laughs. If that precedent is set the Senate would be able to bring down all the legislation I have mentioned. It all depends on regulation. This naivety has been displayed because John Stone has found a friendly, well-mentioned and certainly appropriate person to say, `Any legislation which contains a provision that its effective date will be set by regulation can be disallowed by the Senate'. That is not news; what is news is that the Senate has been told in advance that for the first time in Australia's history it will disallow a substantive Bill by this device. If that precedent is set, the Opposition will bring down the whole of the taxation regime, the whole of the Customs regime and the whole of the navigation regime. The Opposition will do nothing to legitimise its position; all it has indicated quite clearly is that it does not want to have an Australia Card which will prevent corruption. That is not a surprise to us. When we look at the extent of corruption in this country at present and look at the range of laws the present Opposition could have introduced, we see that it did nothing. During its time in government, it could have introduced extradition treaties to bring back crooks and people who sometimes had seven or eight different passports. The passport situation had to be tightened up by way of identification, verification and supportive evidence. That has now been done, and so the reason for this motion is not only to censure the Leader of the Opposition for his stupidity but also to warn the Australian people that if this is the yardstick, if we adopt the principle that the Senate can disapprove of legislation-though not by legitimately using its numbers, because we can use section 57 of the Constitution to have a joint sitting and get it through-the Opposition can deny the validity of that Constitution, can deny the will of the people by saying that the elected representatives in a joint meeting cannot pass a law because the Senate, the Opposition having exercised its dictates over its senators, will disallow regulations. There has been no incompetence involved in the presentation of the legislation. It is extraordinary that for the first time in this country it is now being said that the Senate has supreme power over all the legislation I have referred to just by the Opposition parties exercising their majority, which they do not have on a legitimate basis but which they certainly do on a party political basis, to disallow a particular piece of legislation. I think, then, what we are saying today is that it is an extraordinary situation to have the whole principle of government brought to nought because in future the Senate will be able to disallow regulations on which all these pieces of legislation are now based and which can survive only if they have that entitlement. Accordingly, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a list of legislation that is now dependent on the very principle that this Government is entitled to uphold and for which it is entitled to censure the Leader of the Opposition. Leave granted. The document read as follows- ACTS THAT HAVE DEPENDED ON REGULATIONS OR RULES FOR EFFECTIVE OPERATION 1. Taxing Acts that have wholly depended upon regulations for their operation. Stevedoring Industry Charge Act 1947 Butter Fat Levy Act 1965 Dairying Industry Levy Act 1970 Pollution of the Sea by Oil (Shipping Levy) Act 1972 Dairy Industry Stabilisation Levy Act 1977 Dairy Industry Assistance Levy Act 1977 Live-stock Export Charge Act 1977 Canned Fruits Levy Act 1979 Foreign Fishing Boats Levy Act 1981 2. Acts that have substantially depended on regulations for their effective operation Customs Act 1901 Excise Act 1901 Conciliation and Arbitration Commission Act 1904 Quarantine Act 1908 Air Navigation Act 1920 Northern Territory Representation Act 1922 Public Service Act 1922 Sales Tax Assessment Acts (Nos 1-9) 1930 Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 Patents Act 1952 National Health Act 1953 Banking Act 1959 Papua New Guinea (Application of Laws) Act 1973 National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 Superannuation Act 1976 Navigation Amendment Act 1979 Companies Act 1981 Procurement of Goods, Works and Services Act 1981 Interstate Road Transport Act 1985, Part VI 3. Acts requiring rules of court for their effective operation Judiciary Act 1903 (High Court Rules) Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act 1933 Bankruptcy Act 1966 Family Law Act 1975 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(11.18) —What a pathetic government this is. How embarrassed proper, decent, ordinary Australians would be if they realised that this Government is not prepared to accept the consequences of legislation properly passed and enacted by the Parliament; that this Government is not prepared to accept, other than when it suits its own convenience, that the Parliament, or either House of it, should exercise the powers conferred in order to consider regulations brought before it. But how pathetic is this Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) who has come into this place and abused a totally innocent citizen; a man who served this Commonwealth well; a man who over the course of his professional career has advised governments from both sides of politics; and a man who has rendered honourably and well his duty as a public servant and who now, as a public citizen concerned with the rights of the individual and the intrusion that the identity card proposal represents, has seen fit to give advice, the accuracy of which no one disputes, which we all recognise is valid to the core of constitutional responsibility of each chamber but which in some way is now used by the Prime Minister as a vehicle to condemn and criticise that individual. I do not think there has been any more pitiful action by any individual in this place, but how much worse it is when the man is the Prime Minister, whose ego is so inflated that he cannot realise faults in himself but must find them in others. The whole of this morning's proceedings, tactically and in substance, are probably some of the more inept of any that I can recall in the few years that I have been around this place. Over the course of the next little while I would like to look at a number of areas with respect to the substance of the Government's allegations. Let us look first at its complaint this morning that for us as members of the Liberal and National parties to have the effrontery to say that we will exercise the proper parliamentary authority given to us by the Acts Interpretation Act is something that is in some way constitutionally wrong. We all need to understand that section 48 of the Acts Interpretation Act, under the heading `Regulations', specifically says that any regulations that are not laid before each House of the Parliament shall be void and of no effect. Sub-section (4) states: If either House of the Parliament, in pursuance of a motion of which notice has been given within fifteen sitting days after any regulations have been laid before that House, passes a resolution disallowing any of those regulations, any regulation so disallowed shall thereupon cease to have effect. Do not let anyone have any illusion as to the constitutional propriety of either the Senate or the House of Representatives properly exercising authority conferred on it under the Acts Interpretation Act, as I have just read out. So much for the constitutional propriety of this whole affair. The Government knows that what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) said yesterday on the advice that was tendered to us by that very distinguished citizen of Australia is totally correct. It is not only constitutionally proper but also were that right not to be exercised we would not be acting in accordance with the rights and prerogatives that election to this chamber and to the other place confers upon us. So as to constitutional propriety, let us throw that back where it properly lies. The second issue, and perhaps the one that is even more substantial, is that somehow or other as a result of action by the Liberal and National parties we are going in some way to prevent the taxpayers saving something like $1 billion simply because the processes and procedures that the identity card was going to put in place in some way apparently would have led to that degree of savings. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, the Government has not been able, let alone prepared, to present to us any argument as to where this $1 billion fictional figure comes from. For a few minutes I want to explain to the Parliament and the people that over the course of some considerable time a whole array of people have said that the ID card is not the way to go. So it is not a matter of having any definitive amount before us; it is a matter of having a number of proper alternatives. I want to say to the people of Australia that had we not stated to them that we were prepared to exercise those responsibilities, the Government, blundering along, lurching from crisis to crisis as it has over the fortnight since we resumed, would have continued in its ineptitude not to apply the proper alternatives which would have enabled the taxpayers of Australia to save that $1 billion in other and more effective ways. I commend to the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett)-there are three Ministers sitting here-a rereading of the report of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card. I do not think all the alternatives of saving taxpayers' money were investigated, and the Government is avoiding its responsibilities totally. On page 150, recommendation 4.58 (i) states: That the use of the tax file number be extended to cover all the financial transactions proposed in the Government submission for use of the Australian Card number by the Australian Taxation Office, as well as for social security purposes. So the report refers to the tax file number. It is not something new. Ken Davidson wrote quite an extensive and very commendable article on this subject on 13 November 1986. He said then: . . . the sole purpose of the Australia Card is to pick up tax cheats and illegal immigrants . . . it is possible to achieve both goals in a more cost-effective way without incipient dangers to privacy and civil liberties. So the first recommendation of the Joint Select Committee gives the Government a vehicle whereby it could properly use the tax file number more widely and more effectively, but the Government has not adopted that recommendation. The second recommendation states: That all other Departments (i.e. other than Australian Taxation Office and Department of Social Security) be barred from access to and use of the tax file number. Let us contrast that with the message from the Minister. Some honourable members might have had the opportunity to learn a little about this man whom we believe should now resign from the Ministry. There is an interesting photograph of the Minister on page 14 of the November/December 1986 edition of The Australian Private Doctor. He is dressed up in a T-shirt. It hardly says a great deal for the man. It has on it `Condom Power-Roll On Responsibility'. Underneath the photograph are the words: Let me say as a socialist that it is the interests of the community that should come before the individual right . . . we shouldn't get too hung up as socialists on privacy because privacy, in many ways, is a bourgeois right that is very much associated with the right to private property. Here is this man, who is not concerned about privacy-the second recommendation of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card was concerned with privacy-private property, the rights of the individual and about how he can best provide administration to cope with the problems of social welfare fraud, tax fraud and tax evasion. He is concerned about trying to ensure that his ideological commitment to intrude into the rights of the citizen-getting us all to have that tattooed number-should progress. The Joint Select Committee's third recommendation stated: That the Medicare system continue to operate as a separate identity, but that the method of issuing new Medicare numbers and cards, be they new or replacement, be altered in order to improve the integrity of the system and reduce the issuing of multiple cards. As we all heard this morning, the Medicare card is being thrown all around the place. Apparently, it is used by the Australian Federal Police and the State police. It is used within the Federal bureaucracy to check up on the whereabouts of individuals. There is no worry about privacy. If this is what is happening with the Medicare card, what will happen with the identity card? There is an alternative. The Joint Select Committee's fourth recommendation stated: That the integrity of the tax file number be upgraded to that of the proposed Australia Card number based on the following premises . . . I shall not read out those premises. The fifth recommendation stated: That a Parliamentary Committee be established within three years of the introduction of the upgraded tax file number system with the express task of reviewing the implementation of these recommendations. The Committee to report to Parliament on these matters and to recommend further action where necessary. That is one package of recommendations, so let us put to rest the idea of this $1 billion. There are more effective, more efficient and proper ways which protect the rights of the individual-they do not intrude on the privacy of the citizen-and which would ensure that there is no tax evasion and social welfare fraud. Those ways are more effective than any measures that the Government has introduced. Let us put to rest the suggestion that there is some fanciful $1 billion at stake. It is not at stake. There are better ways of ensuring that we can get rid of tax evasion and social welfare fraud, but this Government has done nothing about it. Let us put to rest the suggestion that, because of the actions which we are taking, we will lose $1 billion. That is poppycock. The Government knows it; the Prime Minister knows it; the Minister for Community Services and Health knows it. There are more effective ways of dealing with the problems but this Government has failed to implement them. It has tried to delude the Australian Electorate into believing that there is only one way to overcome tax evasion and social welfare fraud. We all know that is wrong-so does the Government, but it is not prepared to admit it. Lest one thinks that that is the end of it, there are many other things that the Government could do. There is any number of recommendations which we have put forward. I shall not go into all of them now, because I do not have the time. I have a suggestion for the Minister for Community Services and Health which he should accept when he is considering the form of his resignation, which we expect to be tendered to the Prime Minister before this day is out. If he believes that the Department of Community Services and Health is immune from the need for more effective administration, he should read the 1985-86 annual report of the Director of Public Prosecutions. In case the Minister does not know where to find that document, I point out that it was presented on 17 November last year and that it is Parliamentary Paper No. 363 of 1986. In that report the Director of Public Prosecutions properly identified several areas where more needs to be done. He said that the Government's health insurance legislation was too weak successfully to attack Medicare fraud. He stated: While there are a number of reasons for this, one significant factor is that many serious cases are not being referred to the DPP simply because they have not been investigated. I refer the Minister to page 18 of that report. It is important that we understand that the problem lies in a failure of administration-in the incompetence and inability of those responsible for administering, under the Minister's guidance, the Medicare scheme. The report stated that there were `a number of areas of concern in investigation and prosecution of welfare fraud' and that they were not being referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions simply because they were not being investigated by the Department. Let us put to rest the idea that this incompetent Government and incompetent Minister have put an adequate procedure in place. It is important to understand what we believe is the purpose of the censure motion. Recently, we heard the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) tell us that we are on the road to Argentina. Twelve months ago, we heard the Treasurer (Mr Keating) tell us that we are becoming a banana republic. Today, we heard a pathetic response from a little man-a discredited Prime Minister, flawed in his understanding of the law and the constitution of the Parliament. The proposition which has been put to us is pathetic, painful and perilous in terms of the privacy of the citizen. We believe that the natural processes and procedures of the Australia Card Bill are such that, if the Minister believed that it was inappropriate for regulations containing this power to be made under the legislation, he should have amended it. Six months ago, the Minister told us that the first Bill had been found to be flawed. He told Parliament and all of us that there would be changes. Knowing that the legislation was flawed with respect to the degree to which it protected privacy-as we were told during the past few weeks by the Minister for Community Services and Health, the Special Minister of State (Senator Ryan) and even the Prime Minister-the Government told us that the legislation had to be in the same form, or there could not be a joint sitting. This Government has abused its responsibilities to the Australian people by producing and forcing through this House legislation which it knows to be wrong. The Government knows also that it was wrong with respect to the date of implementation. Clause 32 (1) refers to those `relevant' days. That is a perfectly proper way for that provision to be in the legislation. The Acts Interpretation Act 1901 gives us the power to reject the regulations made under this legislation. Similar action has been taken on many occasions by the Senate and by honourable members on both sides of the House. There is no choice. The Minister must resign. If he will not resign, the Prime Minister should call for his resignation. The Government must forthwith cease all expenditure on its computer programs and on the implementation of the ID card. The Government must ensure that this legislation is finally put to one side. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Community Services and Health)(11.33) —I rise to support the censure motion moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and to look specifically at the Opposition's attack yesterday on the Australia Card. There are three parts of that attack which fully deserve the condemnation of the House. Firstly, there is an obvious and blatant distortion of the facts. Secondly, there is an abuse of the customs and traditions which have prevailed in this Parliament for 87 years. Thirdly, there is a defiance of the spirit of the Constitution in relation to the constitutional provisions for settling disputes between the Houses. Let me deal with each in turn and first with the facts. Yesterday and today the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) came into this House making much use of the terms `sloppy' and `fraud' in relation to clauses 40 to 54 of the Australia Card Bill 1986. One can only say in response to the Leader of the Opposition that he was extraordinary sloppy in the use of the word `sloppy'. If one looks at the clauses of this rather complex Bill to which the Leader of the Opposition referred as `flawed' in some way, the first thing one can say about them is that they are fairly straightforward, impeccably drafted and lucid. They are certainly not ambiguous, they are certainly not vague, they are certainly not sloppy and they are certainly not flawed. It is true that there is a provision that certain critical dates will be introduced by regulation. I point out that this is the traditional method for provisions in Bills when the actual dates are uncertain. It has been a standard procedure in hundreds and hundreds of Bills-both controversial and non-controversial-and it is a tradition which has always been respected and not misused. Indeed, it has been part of the courtesies between the Executive and the Parliament, courtesies that have never before have been abused. Again, it is a feature of our parliamentary system. The right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), who should know much better, got up and simply quoted a particular clause from a regulation. I have to point out that we all know that we cannot make this Parliament or this system work simply by observance of the letter of the law. The whole thing-- Mr Howard —That is why you should resign. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The Leader of the Opposition should not interject. Mr Cadman —Resign. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Mitchell should not interject either. I warn the honourable member for Mitchell. Dr BLEWETT —The whole system is dependent upon customs, understanding, tolerance and give and take on either side. For instance, if the Government had abandoned the years of established practice, that is, if we had opted to set dates by proclamation, the Opposition parties in the Senate would have been the first to protest at the withdrawal of this courtesy. I will give some evidence on that point in a moment. Instead, they have now chosen to abuse what the Government has done, and I must say that courtesies that are abused are seldom extended lightly again. If anything has been sloppy and flawed in this process, it has been the shameless tactics and posturing of the Opposition. Let me point out that one of the very few clauses commented upon unfavourably by the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills in the Senate was a clause in which we had not allowed for a power of review and the power of disallowance by the Senate. The Committee pointed out that it would like to see that. Now we have the defenders of the Senate saying, `You should not have done that; your legislation is flawed'-after we did the very things that the authorities in the Senate have demanded and that for so long have been the practices and customs of this Parliament. As I have pointed out, the Bill has been to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. It found no flaws in the drafting of those sections of the Bill to which the Leader of the Opposition referred. The Bill was, therefore, drafted in a responsible way and followed in these respects innumerable Bills, both controversial and non-controversial, introduced into this Parliament in the past 87 years. There is no flaw in the legislation; the flaw is in the opportunism of the Opposition. (Quorum formed) On this occasion the Opposition was prepared to breach and to deny the customs and the traditions of the Parliament that have existed for 87 years in its obsession to deny the Government the single most effective weapon against tax and welfare cheats. Honourable members opposite are quite prepared to be parliamentary vandals on these matters. Sadly, of course, the Australian Democrats are prepared to tag along with the Opposition quite heedless of the parliamentary and constitutional proprieties. What must be remembered and what must be repeated day after day is this: never in the 87 years of this Parliament has an entire Bill been made inoperable by disallowing a regulation associated with a Bill. Never in 87 years has the principal Act not come into effect by use of the regulatory power. The Opposition is now threatening simply to wipe away the parliamentary practices and customs of the past 87 years. The only flaw, if such there be, was the Government's failure to recognise that it was dealing with a collection of parliamentary vandals perfectly willing to jettison the practices and customs of 87 years. Opportunism once more comes before any respect for the customs and traditions of the Parliament which have served us well for the past eight decades. This-and I say it with respect-is part of the tragedy of the Leader of the Opposition. He is a person whom in many ways I once admired and whose talents I respect. But he came to the leadership with a reputation as a man of principle and has rapidly become simply an opportunist. He had a credible economic reputation and he has shed it with a massive and inappropriate tax bribe, and he now abandons the customs of the Parliament in order to deny the Government its single most effective weapon against tax and welfare cheats. Moreover, the Opposition goes wider than simply parliamentary custom because the framers of our Constitution provided a most elaborate mechanism for resolving deadlocks. They insisted that legislation must be twice rejected by the Senate. Then they required a double dissolution on the issue and an intervening election. Then they demanded that the Bill again go to the Senate, if rejected, and that, if rejected again, it would go to a joint sitting of the Parliament which would make the decision. That is one of the most complex and difficult deadlock mechanisms in the world and there is no doubt that the founding fathers believed that any government that got through that series of hurdles deserved to have its legislation enacted into law. But that is not good enough for this Opposition. Despite the fact that the Government has taken this Bill twice through the Parliament, had it rejected by the Senate, sought a dissolution on the grounds of this Bill, had an intervening election, came back into this Parliament and is now proceeding to a joint session, this Opposition says, `No, that is not sufficient. We will not accept the mechanisms laid down by the founding fathers'-pretty tough mechanisms, as we all recognise-`but we will ignore the spirit of the Constitution and impose this extra requirement on the Government by using this tactic'. It is not just a matter of ignoring the practices of this Parliament over 87 years; it is a denial of the very spirit of the Constitution which provides a complex means of settling deadlocks. The Opposition refuses to accept those procedures. The wittiest line, I suppose, that was produced by the Leader of the Opposition was: `We have been stoic in our opposition to the Australia Card'. What utter balderdash! In mid-1985 many frontbenchers of those parties were more enthusiastic about the card than the Labor Government. Their statements are on the record. Of course, the matter was referred to the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card. I suggest that the right honourable member for New England should listen to this point, because he obviously does not understand the process that has gone on in regard to this measure. The matter was referred to the Select Committee. The Opposition forces, in order to frustrate the Government, came up with the idea of a tax file number. But within six weeks they had abandoned the tax file number. They had done their job; they had frustrated the Government on the Select Committee. These stoic individuals, with their single-minded performance, supported in the Select Committee, frustrated the Government and then abandoned their tax file number idea. This morning was the first time that we have had a real burst from any leading figure from the Opposition in favour of tax file numbers. So there is an education process going on which might achieve some success. What about the performance of this stoic Opposition during the election campaign? We went to the Governor-General and requested a double dissolution on the basis of the rejection of the Australia Card legislation. That request was granted and we made it quite clear to the electorate that if we were returned to government we would re-introduce the Bill and have a joint sitting. What did this stoic Opposition do? There was scarcely a squeak from any of its leading figures throughout the campaign. As I have said many times, it takes two to tango. It was a bit difficult for the Government to debate the matter during the election campaign when we did not get a squeak out of the Opposition. The newspapers tell us that we did not get a squeak out of these stoic, heroic opponents because they took a deliberate decision to play down the issue because they were afraid of the electoral backlash from those who rightly recognised the Opposition as being weak on tax evasion and welfare fraud. The performance yesterday and today by this Opposition is the crowning piece of opportunism that has characterised its total behaviour in relation to the Australia Card. It deserves the condemnation of the House. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(11.48) —The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) should give the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) the mafia kiss on the cheek. That is what he deserves. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! Mr TUCKEY —Let me first speak to the Minister's remarks about the powers of double dissolutions. He mentioned the founding fathers' considerations. He forgot to tell the Parliament of the reason for the requirement for a three-month gap between the first and second introduction of a Bill, when a government goes down the double dissolution road. If he were to read the constitutional debates he would find that the founding fathers included that requirement so that there could be a public debate. He can check the newspapers of this country at that time until he is blue in the face; he will find no evidence of a public debate on the issues and on the facts that have now been exposed to the Australian people, which caused 20,000 or 30,000 of them to march in Perth yesterday. He quoted the founding fathers. He said, `I think it is reasonable to assume that at the time the founding fathers would have presumed that the government that won an election after a double dissolution would have had the support of a majority of Australians'. It is now a matter of record that only 45.8 per cent of the community voted for the Australian Labor Party, while 52 per cent voted against it by voting for the Liberal Party of Australia, the National Party of Australia and the Australian Democrats. The reality is that that argument falls to the ground. Today the Prime Minister has served notice on the Australian people that he will proceed to bludgeon them with his personal proposal of an individual numbering system. That system will even deny them the right to sell their own labour. He intends that that measure will be passed. Government members know that that is so. He has made a decision to force it through a joint sitting. Having forced it through a joint sitting, he will wait for an opportunity to ambush the Senate by virtue of a couple of lines that are hidden away in some regulation. The people of Australia will have this sword of Damocles over their heads. For that reason we give notice to the Government that we will continue to fight it until such time as it totally withdraws this legislation, admits that it is irrelevant, and gets on with the job of governing Australia and catching up with tax avoiders and social security cheats, which it can do by using the mechanisms and laws that are presently available to it. The Prime Minister had to write his own speech. He sees himself as a modern day Napoleon, sailing across Sydney Harbour in his barge. He believes it is good for Australia. He is not concerned with what might happen to Australians. He has forgotten the basic principles of government in this democracy-that is, the Government is here to serve the people, not to be served by the people. That is the point that must be made. Let us take a quick look at the fundamental points of the Prime Minister's juvenile argument. I never cease to be amazed by the standard of argument presented by this Government. It is very much like saying, `My dad can beat your dad'. The Government does not get down to the issues. In fact, what did the Prime Minister give us? He gave us excuses, not reasons. One heard them very plainly in his speech. He quoted a few Opposition statements that were made previously, as though that matters to the public debate. The people have now made their judgment on this legislation, because they have been buying copies of it. Mr Ewart Smith felt constrained to buy a copy the other day. There has been a record run on the print. Mr Ewart Smith did so as a concerned Australian. He did not do so to trip this Government up. He did it to stop something for which he had a total abhorrence. Many Government members also have a total abhorrence for it, but they are ground down by the Prime Minister, this modern day Napoleon. What were the other matters of substance in his speech? He gave us a fallacious argument on cost. He mentioned the mythical $1 billion, which he never attempts to justify. As a nice rounding-off measure, he reverted to the common tactic of the Government of personal abuse and a determination not to be confused by the facts. He had to get nasty with Ewart Smith. When we discovered that a person was being employed to trail behind Clarrie Briese in Sydney, the Government chose to attack that person's personal integrity. It could not even get that right. I believe it has cost the Government money. Let us get straight why this issue has arisen. The Government set out to ambush the Australian people on this issue. It is no secret why the Government wanted to go down the regulation road, and I quote what the Minister said this week, at page 574 of Hansard: . . . to put down a specific date without allowing some flexibility, and of course that flexibility relates to the regulations passed by this Parliament. It did not have to use the regulation road. It could have included something in this legislation whereby the date was declared by proclamation, by Executive decision. It wanted to use the regulation road to maximise its flexibility, so that when that regulation was brought in and it wanted to add a few little lines that further intruded on the privacy of Australians, it could sneak them in at that time. It expected that a passive Senate would accept it. Of course, that is the next point: it got hoist with its own petard. It got caught out, and now it is claiming some special precedent. There is no such precedent in the Senate disallowing various regulations that are brought before it. We know that regulations are not something that the Government has to use. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) predicted disaster because future Senates might disallow a few regulations. Regulations do not stop us making laws; they just happen to meet the convenience of the bureaucracy in bringing in the detailed proposals after the Parliament has passed the legislation. There are ever-growing doubts about that process and where it is leading us. Honourable members who have read what I have written on this subject would know that I believe that the regulations on a threshold measure such as this should be introduced with the Bill and properly debated in the Parliament so that we remove from Ministers this ambush technique which the Government so deviously chose to use and which has caught it out. The Government cannot claim that it needs a regulation to carry a piece of legislation. That is an absolute myth. A regulation is a convenience. There is evidence of that in the Parliament. I draw the attention of honourable members to page 2039 of the Senate Hansard of 16 May 1985. Quite surprisingly, in debating a motion for the disallowance of a regulation, the now Special Minister of State (Senator Ryan), the Government's specially selected Minister to conduct the Government's ID card argument, said on this other issue: I find myself in agreement with the view that if this Ordinance were to be disallowed we would have an opportunity to look at the whole matter afresh. Senator Ryan, the lady who is now carrying the Government's ID card argument, said, in response to another motion for disallowance in the Senate: I find myself in agreement with the view that if this Ordinance were to be disallowed we would have an opportunity to look at the whole matter afresh. That is certainly what the Opposition is giving the Government in this case-an opportunity to look at how the community has woken up to the proposals that it has tried to sneak through this place. The Government has never addressed the issues in this matter. I can give other examples. A disgraceful example can be seen on page 2143 of the Senate Hansard when the Senate carried a motion relating to the Government's attempts to get itself off the hook on Mudginberri. Another appears on page 2261 of Hansard when the Senate disallowed certain regulations regarding the Northern Prawn Fishery (Special Provisions) Management Plan. That is a regular occurrence in the Senate. There is no drama about it. It is highly unusual for a government to use a regulation purely to announce a future date of commencement. If it had not done so, it would not have been caught. The Government has been caught through its incompetence. It is no good. Day after day this week we have had evidence of the incapacity of this Ministry-this mini-Ministry and maxi-Ministry-to answer questions in the Parliament which, of course, are asked on behalf of the Australian people. The Government has got it into its head that it is born to rule and can ignore the Australian people. Day after day we see the Prime Minister on television saying, `My response to decibel democracy'-decibel democracy, by the way, means the voice of the people-`is to tell you to get lost. I'm Napoleon. I can do this. I've conned you into a situation of re-electing me and you'll get what I want to give you because I think it's good for you. Don't worry. Don't be confused by the facts'. Our Prime Minister does not get confused by the facts; he just ignores, for instance, the basic objections of the Opposition. He used to hide behind threats and accusations that Opposition members were friends of tax avoiders. He never gets to the issues or explains to people what they mean to them. The Government made a big thing in its advertisements of the idea that honest and decent Australians would have nothing to fear from the legislation. I will tell them what they have to fear: they have to fear a $20,000 fine-up to a maximum of $100,000-if, as an employer, they commit the horrible sin of failing to ask an employee for his ID card. No fine will be imposed on an employee who seeks to get employment while he is receiving a welfare benefit. No! Honest and decent employers who have never committed a fault in their lives-- Government members-Ha, ha, ha! Mr TUCKEY —I take it, from the laughter of Government members, that they say that all employers have done so. I will see that that is duly understood in the business community. I am saying that almost all of the 16 million people in our society are very honest and do not cheat on their tax or on welfare. The Government proposes to number all those people and to demand that they do not operate a bank account unless they use their number. The Government did not tell the Australian people that in its advertisements at the beginning of the election campaign. It did not tell real estate agents that they could face a $100,000 fine for failing to enforce its legislation. It did not tell people of the inconvenience that would be caused. The Government has attempted to excuse the intrusion into their privacy. Why did the Prime Minister not spend some time today reassuring Australians instead of spending part of his speech attacking the integrity of Mr Ewart Smith? Why did he not tell people that he can guarantee the security of the computer system? I tell honourable members that when he can do so we will not need the additional taxes; we will have some technology for which the rest of the world will pay anything. The rest of the world has not managed to come up with such technology yet. When the Government gets this new beaut unforgeable laminated ID card that no criminal can forge and so assume a plastic identity, when the Government produces the card which Senator Ryan has told the people about, it will not have to bother about the taxes it will collect by that mechanism. The banking industry of the world will give the Government billions for it. The Prime Minister's mythical $1 billion will come true. The Government will not need the tax. If it can produce such an ID card, Australia has it made; there will have been a technological breakthrough. The Government has promised the Australian people, absolutely and untruthfully, that it can give them data transmission and credit card security that nobody else in the world has yet managed to achieve-even technological giants such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I thought that one of the Government's speakers today would have tried to explain to the Australian people some of their concerns on that issue instead of jumping up and down on a fallacious argument about the rights and wrongs of government and parliament. The Government has not learnt that there are 16 million people out there. It sees an enemy on this side of the House and if we try to represent the people it sees the people as the enemy also. The Government's position will not change because it is too carried away with the numbers. It has so perfected the factional and numbering system that it believes that if it has the numbers it has everything. We condemn the Government for what it has done. We condemn the Prime Minister, again, for not sacking a failed Minister. This Government has the biggest list in history. The Whip has some idea what a Minister can get into trouble with the Prime Minister for: if he does something that might hurt the prospects of the Australian Labor Party he is in trouble, but if he does something that hurts the prospects of the Australian people he is defended by the Prime Minister. That is where it has ended up. The Government has failed to tell the people what it is about. It has been caught by its own deviousness on this regulation issue. The Senate is absolutely right. The precedents are a mile long. Loss of regulation does not mean loss of legislation in the normal sense; it can always be inserted in the legislation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs)(12.03) —This is the twenty-first year in which we have seen further disintegration of the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party, since the resignation of Sir Robert Menzies, has continued to disintegrate because of poor leadership, the poor regard it has had for the Parliament and the poor regard it has in judging the issues which come before the Australian people. I congratulate those members who have spoken from the other side of the House this morning-the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) and the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey)-because they have discovered the Australia Card since the election. Prior to the debate last week, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party had never spoken on the Australia Card. That is how important they thought it was. They did not speak about it during the election or during the previous two debates that took place in this House. No! All of a sudden they have discovered the Australia Card. They want to base their arguments on the case of civil liberties. The Leader of the National Party was a Minister in the Government which put the birthdays of 18-year-olds into a barrel. He wants to talk about civil liberties; yet his Government picked birthdays out of a barrel to send 18-year-olds to Vietnam. One of the things that the Liberal and National parties are frantic about, and one of the reasons why they feel that they may be on to a winner in terms of the blocking of this legislation by blocking the regulations, is that they are terrified that we will be able to introduce the Australia Card-the ID card-and have it in operation for a couple of years so people will see that all the frantic arguments and fearmongering that have been going on in the community for the last month or so are not a reality. They are frightened that, given the opportunity to test the legislation and the operation of the card, the people of Australia will find that most of the arguments that have been put up against the card cannot be sustained. That is what they are afraid of. If the Opposition thought for one instant that the card is as bad as it is saying that it is, it would let it go through and make an issue of it at the next election. It would say, `We'll repeal it after the 1990 election' and would fight the next election on it. But it does not want to fight the next election on the ID card. It wants to stop it as soon as it can if it has got the power. It does not matter if it has to dismantle all the constitutional rights of the operations of Parliament. It does not want the people of Australia to see how successful the ID card will be. All this argument is only part of what this Government has done-what previous Liberal governments would not do-in the whole field of fraud and tax evasion. We inherited a top taxation rate of 66c in the dollar in 1972 and a top rate of 60c in the dollar in 1983, and the average wage and salary earners of this country, all the decent people of this country, were paying far more taxes than they should have been because the Liberal and National parties would do nothing at all about tax evasion and fraud. We should ask ourselves this question. In the last 4 1/2 years what proposal that the Government has brought forward in this Parliament, that has done something to try to relieve the great burden that is being carried by the average wage and salary earner, has been supported by the Liberal and National parties? None. The Opposition did not want the $1m superannuation in the payouts going to the extremely wealthy taxed above 5 per cent. It said, `Leave it like it is'. The Government was paying out $350m so that people could have free lunches around the country and at the next election, even three years later, the Liberal and National parties were saying, `Give them back the $350m on all the fringe benefits that were taken away, taxed or had to be justified'. What did the Liberal and National parties say? It was, `This is the end of Australia. We shall see the closing down of businesses wholesale. This is the end of Australia as we know it'. Is it the end? Last 1 July, we saw the distribution of $4.5 billion from the Government back to the average wage and salary earner in tax cuts. In the Budget we saw $500m go into the family package. The Opposition could not do that and keep all the rorts going. If we want to get some decency and equity into this country, we have to rewrite the rule book as it has been left to us by the Liberal and National parties in their term of government, particularly between 1975 and 1983. Today, the Leader of the Opposition is still telling us that if he ever becomes Prime Minister he will give them back the $2 billion. Who are the mugs who are going to have to pay? They are the average wage and salary earners, who will have to pay more tax so that all the friends of the Opposition can have their free lunches, cars, golf club fees, education fees and trips overseas. They can have all this back to satisfy the whims of the Liberal and National parties. The Leader of the Opposition does not recognise the role of the Liberal Party-that is why he will always be a failure. In grasping at the opinion that was given to him yesterday saying that the Opposition should block the regulations, which effectively may block the legislation-not part of it, not a clause, but totally-he is forgetting that he has joined forces with the Democrats and perhaps some other forces over there who will never have the responsibility of governing in this country. The Liberal Party, as part of the Australian democracy, has set another precedent. It is like Malcolm parking his car round the back of Government House. It is just the same. The Leader of the Opposition is such a pathetic political figure. He grabs at anything at all anyone serves him up. He is like a canary in a cage. He just wants to be fed through the cage-anything at all so that someone will take notice of him. Here he is, beating his chest. The Leader of the Opposition said that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) did not make a good speech. The Prime Minister put up several arguments, none of which the Leader of the Opposition found time to answer in his half-hour speech. Is this going to be the rule of law in this Parliament? Is the Liberal Party now committed to finding the blocking of regulations to block legislation in total? Even the honourable member for O'Connor, as dimwitted as he is, is giving explanations about how members have said that on some occasions a specific regulation ought to be looked at again as it might affect one section of the Bill. What the Liberal Party is talking about is the total blocking of legislation, and the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has listed-it can be read in Hansard tomorrow-all the legislation that is dependent on regulations that go alongside or run parallel to it. These are the sorts of things that this crowd are up to now. In bringing equity and decency into the tax system, we are the first government to do a number of things of which we can be extremely proud. A fortnight ago, a couple of people were gaoled in Sydney after living the high life in Switzerland, living off the funds of drug running and all the rest of their capers that they were up to in Australia. They had a great time under the Fraser Government. Who caught them and put them in gaol? It was the Labor Government by the establishing of the National Crime Authority. Who is going to confiscate the millions of dollars that these people have in their bank accounts spread all over the world? What did the Liberal and National parties do? Sat there and did nothing at all, and they say that the ID card will not overcome anything. Last year, the Australian Federal Police, in dealing only with serious social security crime, had 38,000 reports of social security fraud. The Liberal Party says, `Don't do anything about that. Don't take measures. Don't take decisions that might interfere with that. We are all about civil liberties now'. It has just discovered civil liberties. The Liberal Party standing for civil liberties. One could almost put it on a comic show and sell it to David Hill. When the Prime Minister spoke about the elderly Jewish woman on Saturday he got derided by the Leader of the Opposition. Let me remind honourable members opposite about this. I see the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) come in. He spoke at an Adelaide meeting-that is his right-to protest against the ID card. They produced a person who, unfortunately, had been sentenced to Auschwitz during the Second World War and they reduced the argument. How dare they have the audacity to compare Australia, a democracy, this country, with nazi Germany in the argument over the ID card. They are prepared to do or say anything. If one does not have a proper argument and is not able to sustain a case that one wants to sustain against the Government, one does such things. Of course there are some people in the Labor movement who oppose the ID card, and there are people in the Liberal Party who support it. We have never reached the level of the gutter where people are prepared to compare this great country, this democracy, where, just a few weeks ago, 10 million adults went to vote, with nazi Germany in order to sustain the case against the ID card. That is what the Opposition is prepared to do and that is why it is legitimate that the Prime Minister should introduce it. If one has a look at all the things that we have done since we have been in government, the ID card does not come out of the blue. It is not something new. It is not something that is not associated with all the other things that we have done. The direct crediting of social security did away with a lot of fraud, as did the establishment of the National Crime Authority, the appointment of the Director of Public Prosecutions and all the things that we have done. We were the first government to initiate a total and comprehensive investigation of fraud in Australia. We did not introduce it because we thought it would be the end of the world. We all wish we had a society where we did not even need to have a police force. Two hundred years ago people argued against the establishment of police forces, saying they would interfere with civil liberties-and, of course, in some ways they have. But who is arguing today against the establishment of a police force? One hundred years ago people argued against blood transfusions because they did not understand them or because other people mounted a fear-mongering campaign against them. The Liberal Party is again reduced to this rabble. Its members are prepared to do or say anything so that the average Australian wage and salary earners keep carrying this mammoth burden of taxation which has been placed on their backs by a continuation of Liberal-National Party governments. Those opposite ought to be able, if they have enough courage, to present their case here. But what do they do? They tell us that they will block the regulations when the time comes. But yesterday they set up a committee. What will the committee do or say? The committee is a complete charade. Why do those opposite want to waste money on the committee? Why do they not do what they say they will do? Do it today and it will all be over and done with. But no, those opposite want to have some committee because they do not have sufficient numbers of people in the Liberal Party who understand what the Party's role ought to be. They are being run by people who have an inadequate understanding of the political system here in Australia. The leader of the Opposition will grasp at anything available so that people will take notice of him. All the things the Australian Labor Party has done to eradicate social security fraud and tax evasion are making life better for the average citizen. That is what the Labor Government is about. That is why the Labor Government will be re-elected in 1990. We understand the frustrations of those opposite a few weeks after the election. We understand that they want to be frisky and show their opposition to some of the things we are doing. But come the day when the people again have to make a judgment on their woolly ideas, their lack of understanding and their preparedness to do anything in the use and abuse of parliamentary conventions, the Australian people, again by majority, will put this Government back in power. What those opposite did yesterday in suggesting their actions to come is totally reminiscent of what they did in 1975. The Liberal Party wants to make parliament inoperable because it suits it. Those opposite should just remember that they form the only other party that can govern and that the Liberal Party is playing handies, in order to carry out its threat, with people who will never have the responsibility of government. That is what those opposite are doing. They are getting into bed with people who have no responsibility for government. Whilst they continue in that vein and with that behaviour, they will never have the responsibility of government either. Mr JULL(Fadden)(12.18) —There has never been an issue with as great a capacity as the Australia Card to divide the Australian population. This capacity was probably amply demonstrated in Perth yesterday when a crowd estimated at between 25,000 and 40,000 people marched on the Parliament House of that State. Nobody has ever before seen such an instant reaction through the streets of Perth. But this was just a culmination of dozens of demonstrations around Australia of decent, honest Australians who do not want any part of this identification card. It was a manifestation of the anger and concern being felt out there by ordinary, decent Australians. When today we hear Government speakers one by one throwing derogatory remarks not only at people in this House but at people outside because of those people's genuine concerns, we really wonder what democracy is all about and why the people really have not had the capacity to have a decent debate on this card. For so long that capacity really has been denied. It is only in the last few weeks that we have seen this tremendous ground swell of opposition to the ID card welling up within the community. That demonstration yesterday in Perth was typical of what is happening in our community today. There is a real concern and worry that an identification system for all Australians will be introduced with provisions that are the toughest of any identification systems in any Western democracy today. That is really what this is all about. Why should the Australian people be forced into this situation? Why should they have to bare their souls? It is all very well for the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) to tell us time after time and day after day that all this is about is a bit of plastic with a photograph, date of birth and expiry date. It is much more than that. This identification system is the key to governments and Big Brother knowing all that needs to be known about Australian citizens. It is all very well for the Minister in this place and for Senator Ryan in the other place to say that there will be only this basic information on the card. We just have to look at what happened overseas, the way such cards have developed and the concern being expressed now about them around the world. The case I always cite is Sweden because we are told by this Minister time and again that our system is based on the Swedish model. Sweden has had an identity card system for 20 years. It is only now, two decades later, that we have found out what unbelievable abuse its system has been subjected to-abuse not only by the bureaucracy and government but, indeed, by private industry. There should be legitimate concern by all Australians that the same thing can happen here. That is what our objection is all about. It absolutely amazes me that in this place over the last two weeks we have been told about the tremendous achievements of the Government. The Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young), who has just spoken in the debate, told us about some of the things the Government has achieved. But it has achieved all this without an identification system. That whole process is in play now. The provision is there now for the Government to go ahead and get those tax cheats and the social security defrauders, bring them to justice and recover that money. We really should ask ourselves the question: why do we need the card? Australians are now asking the question: why do we need an identity system, the like of which has not been seen in another Western democracy? That is what this is all about. The concern has gone beyond Sweden. It has spread throughout the world. Let us look at the situation that has developed in Germany in the last 12 months with its identification system. The police force there is now saying that it is worried about a police state. There are other examples. What happened in Canada when it tried to introduce an identification system? There are reports of what has happened there. What has happened in the United States? Its social security system, which frankly is not half as bad as the one being proposed here, is causing concern to civil libertarians there. We have seen some of the abuses perpetrated of that system. In town after town, throughout the length and breadth of the country, we have seen in recent weeks a build-up of opposition and concern by ordinary, honest Australians who want to know why we have to have the national identification number. If we look at the early rallies in Sydney which drew only 400 people, the early rallies in Melbourne that drew 800, the early rallies in Brisbane that drew 1,000, the rallies in Adelaide that drew 5,000 and 6,000 people and now this rally in Perth that has drawn 25,000, we see an indication of the concern. These rallies and public meetings will not stop until the identification card legislation is withdrawn from this House and thrown on the scrap-heap where it deserves to be. In the next few days alone, in places as far stretched as Perth, Cloncurry and Mount Isa, Dural in Sydney and Stafford in Brisbane, these rallies will continue to be held and people will continue to express the tremendous concern that they have about this legislation. What has happened in this House in the last fortnight? How many names have been attached to petitions that have been presented in this place, and, indeed, in the Senate? Hundreds of thousands of names of ordinary, decent Australians have been presented to this place. Does the Government want to take any notice of this particular concern by the general population? No. It says, `We are going to proceed with it'. How many bags of mail from people who have written to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) genuinely expressing their concern have been received? I bet that there have been absolutely dozens. Will the Prime Minister take any notice of this? Of course he will not. What other avenues do the people of Australia have to be able to get to a situation where the ID card legislation will be withdrawn? It has been perfectly legitimate for the Opposition parties to come here and tell the Government exactly what they are going to do because the Government's defective legislation. Let us not forget that the Minister for Community Services and Health has been in control of this legislation. He has provided the defective legislation in this House. I do not think Australians as a whole would want to be part of any of this defective legislation. It is a legitimate right of the duly elected representatives of the House of Representatives and the senate to oppose this legislation to the best of their ability. That is exactly what we are going to do because this legislation has no part in our way of life. This legislation is more akin to what is happening in some of the Eastern bloc countries than in a free and open democracy such as Australia. Australians have always believed that democracy is the right of the people and that the Parliament is the servant of the people. We are having the complete reverse now. We have a situation where the Government will impose a number on every citizen. The people of Australia, whether they are guilty or not, will become very much the servants of the Government of this place. I believe that that is un-Australian. I believe that the vast majority of Australians want no part in it at all. Even though we might stand here and talk about the hundreds of thousands of names that have gone through on the petitions, why do we not even look to those revered sources that the Government uses so much-the market research companies-to see what has happened in recent weeks. Sure, a lot of Australians thought an identity card system was probably fair enough in catching dole fraud and in bringing to justice people who might evade taxation. In fact, that figure was something like 68 per cent a year or two ago, but look at the dramatic fall that is going on now. Just two months ago the figures came out and there was only a 55 per cent approval rating. Look at what happened just last week on the latest market research-the approval rating was down to 39 per cent. What is wrong with the Government? It is turning around now and spending something like $100,000 on a market research program on the card legislation. What is that going to tell it? I will tell honourable members what that will tell the Government. It will tell it that the great bulk of the people of Australia want no part of an identity card whatsoever. Will the Government take any notice of that? No. Why is the Government going against the very wishes of the population? Why is the Government saying, `We are going to proceed with this.'? Why is the Government saying, `We are going to declare all Australians guilty rather than prove their innocence.'? I think that the idea of going to another Senate inquiry is the right way to go because the big, fatal flaw in that last inquiry-even though the bulk of the members of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card came out against it-was that they did not really have the legislation to enable them to sit down and analyse it. I think that the analysis by that Committee in the coming weeks in the Senate will be fascinating. Is it not a fact that Senator Bolkus from South Australia is going to chair that Committee? That will be absolutely fascinating. How many of the other members of the Government benches will now have the intestinal fortitude to come out and express their real concerns about what is involved in the ID card? It is a fact that 32 members of the Labor Party are opposed to the ID card. That is not a bad sort of percentage within one's own ranks to be concerned about. Why have we got this continual arrogance from Government Ministers and from the Prime Minister himself who says that he is going to proceed with this legislation no matter what? It is about time that those members of the Labor Party who are genuinely concerned with civil liberties really put their money where their mouth is and come out publicly and say, `We are opposed to this'. In recent weeks I have spoken on a number of platforms around Australia. Some fairly interesting people have been on those platforms. Since when has the Society of Labor Lawyers been insignificant within the ranks of the Labor Party because they have spoken there? Since when has the Council for Civil Liberties been diverse enemies of the Australian Labor Party because they have been there? Even some of the Labor Party's left wing mates with the Builders Labourers Federation have been on those platforms and they have expressed their concern. What has happened in Australia by virtue of this legislation is that there has been a coming together of all sections of Australian society to oppose this legislation which really is a blight on democracy in Australia. What must happen out there in the community now is that the rage must be maintained. If the Prime Minister and the Minister for Community Services and Health are convinced that they must proceed with this legislation, then it is the duty of all fair minded democrats in Australia to let the Government know their real concern about what is really involved in this whole ID card issue. Australians who believe that this legislation is wrong must let their feelings be known. I think that we should make an appeal today to ensure that those petitions continue to be signed. We should make an appeal today to every Australian who is opposed to the ID card to sit down and write a letter to the Prime Minister. He will not read them, but he can count the numbers. We must make sure that the Prime Minister realises the very depth of objection in the community today to this insidious piece of legislation. The ID numbering system should have no part in a democracy such as Australia; it should have no part in a country that has enjoyed its freedoms for 200 years. This identification system is the worst kind of gift that this Government could possibly impose on Australia during our Bicentennial year. The Opposition will continue to oppose the ID card legislation. We know it is dead in the water now. The Government really has only one option; that is to do the decent and honourable thing-bury the ID card straight away. It should get rid of that legislation because it has no part in a free society such as Australia. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(12.33) —Mr Deputy Speaker-- Question (by Mr Cunningham) put: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 54 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 21 —— Baldwin, P. J. Johns, G. T.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C.Blewett, N. Kerr, D. J. C.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lavarch, M. H.Charles, D. E. Lee, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Courtice, B. W. Mildren, J. B.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. O'Keefe, N. P.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dubois, S. C. Price, L. R. S.Duncan, P. Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Sciacca, C.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L.Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Grace, E. L. Snowdon, W. E.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Harvey, E. R. Theophanous, A. C.Hawke, R. J. L. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W.Jakobsen, C. A. Young, M. J.Jenkins, H. A. Aldred, K. J. Katter, R. C.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B.Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S.Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J.Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Brown, N. A. McVeigh, D. T.Burr, M. A. Miles, C. G.Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C.Cameron, Donald Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ewen Nehl, G. B. (Teller)Carlton, J. J. Peacock, A. S.Cobb, M. R. Porter, J. R.Connolly, D. M. Prosser, G. D.Cowan, D. B. Reith, P. K.Dobie, J. D. M. Robinson, IanDowner, A. J. G. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shack, P. D.Fischer, Tim Shipton, R. F.Fisher, Peter Sinclair, I. McC.Hall, Steele Smith, W. L.Halverson, R. G. Sullivan, K. J.Hawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hewson, J. R. White, P. N. D.Howard, J. W. Wilson, I. B. C.Hunt, R. J. D. Woods, R. L.Jull, D. F. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Howard's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 54 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 21 —— Baldwin, P. J. Johns, G. T.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C.Blewett, N. Kerr, D. J. C.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lavarch, M. H.Charles, D. E. Lee, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Courtice, B. W. Mildren, J. B.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. O'Keefe, N. P.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dubois, S. C. Price, L. R. S.Duncan, P. Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Sciacca, C.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L.Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Grace, E. L. Snowdon, W. E.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Harvey, E. R. Theophanous, A. C.Hawke, R. J. L. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W.Jakobsen, C. A. Young, M. J.Jenkins, H. A. Aldred, K. J. Katter, R. C.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B.Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S.Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J.Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Brown, N. A. McVeigh, D. T.Burr, M. A. Miles, C. G.Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C.Cameron, Donald Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ewen Nehl, G. B. (Teller)Carlton, J. J. Peacock, A. S.Cobb, M. R. Porter, J. R.Connolly, D. M. Prosser, G. D.Cowan, D. B. Reith, P. K.Dobie, J. D. M. Robinson, IanDowner, A. J. G. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shack, P. D.Fischer, Tim Shipton, R. F.Fisher, Peter Sinclair, I. McC.Hall, Steele Smith, W. L.Halverson, R. G. Sullivan, K. J.Hawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hewson, J. R. White, P. N. D.Howard, J. W. Wilson, I. B. C.Hunt, R. J. D Woods, R. L.Jull, D. F. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the motion (Mr Hawke's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 54 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 21 —— Baldwin, P. J. Johns, G. T.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C.Blewett, N. Kerr, D. J. C.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lavarch, M. H.Charles, D. E. Lee, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Courtice, B. W. Mildren, J. B.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. O'Keefe, N. P.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dubois, S. C. Price, L. R. S.Duncan, P. Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Sciacca, C.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L.Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Grace, E. L. Snowdon, W. E.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Harvey, E. R. Theophanous, A. C.Hawke, R. J. L. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W.Jakobsen, C. A. Young, M. J.Jenkins, H. A. Aldred, K. J. Katter, R. C.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B.Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S.Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J.Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Brown, N. A. McVeigh, D. T.Burr, M. A. Miles, C. G.Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C.Cameron, Donald Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ewen Nehl, G. B. (Teller)Carlton, J. J. Peacock, A. S.Cobb, M. R. Porter, J. R.Connolly, D. M. Prosser, G. D.Cowan, D. B. Reith, P. K.Dobie, J. D. M. Robinson, IanDowner, A. J. G. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shack, P. D.Fischer, Tim Shipton, R. F.Fisher, Peter Sinclair, I. McC.Hall, Steele Smith, W. L.Halverson, R. G. Sullivan, K. J.Hawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hewson, J. R. White, P. N. D.Howard, J. W. Wilson, I. B. C.Hunt, R. J. D. Woods, R. L.Jull, D. F. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Sitting suspended from 12.51 to 2 p.m. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —As a courtesy, I inform the House that the Treasurer, Mr Keating, is still unwell. Any questions normally addressed to Mr Keating should be directed to the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, Mr Dawkins. Mr WILSON —Did the Prime Minister, when he asked for a double dissolution which could lead to the passage of the identity card legislation at a joint sitting inform the Governor-General that the legislation would be inoperative unless the Senate, having first voted against the Bill, then approved regulations to bring it into operation? Mr Downer —A brilliant question. Mr HAWKE —A profound question, and I thank the honourable gentleman for it. I think that it is well known that the Governor-General is an assiduous occupant of that office. He brings to it considerable experience as a justice of the High Court of Australia. Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAWKE —Just wait, and honourable members will get the answer. I assure the House from my experience in dealing with the Governor-General that he is assiduous in reading all the material that goes to him. All those who have had to deal with him are aware that he operates in that manner. I did not insult the intelligence of the Governor-General by raising any question concerning any assumption that the historical practice of 87 years which had continued in an unbroken fashion would be broken. I suppose that, knowing the moral bankruptcy of those opposite, I should not have given them the credit that I implicitly did. Mr GRACE —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. What is the Government's attitude to the foreshadowed bipartisan caretaker government to be formed in Fiji? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for Fowler for his question. As distinct from those matters which divided the House this morning, I expect that the response which I am pleased to be able to give the honourable member will meet with the support of all honourable members. The Government welcomes yesterday's announcement that a council of state is to be formed in Fiji, headed by the Governor-General, Sir Penaia Ganilau, and comprising a balance of coalition and alliance members. We believe that the announcement constitutes a fundamentally important step towards a return to full parliamentary democracy in Fiji-a goal which I believe is supported by all honourable members. I think that it is proper to observe that this position has been reached as the result of Sir Penaia's tireless and dedicated work, Dr Bavadra's willingness to negotiate and his statesmanlike behaviour in dropping the writ against the Governor-General and the significant role played by Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara. We also hope that this agreement will lead to a reduction in tension in Fiji and in particular will contribute to the maintenance of law and order to the equal benefit of all the peoples of Fiji. As you are aware, Madam Speaker, from the very beginning my Government has made clear its preparedness to respond in kind to positive developments in Fiji. Once Fiji's new government is in place-consisting of Fiji's main political parties, including the coalition which formed government after Fiji's last elections-the Australian Government will be in a position to rebuild co-operation with Fiji in the many areas of common interest. The Government welcomes this latest development. I trust that in saying that I speak on behalf of all members of this place. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Prime Minister to comments today by the Western Australian Premier, Mr Burke, that it was absurd of the Government to compare the Opposition's decision to block the identity card regulations with the blocking of Supply in 1975. In view of the Prime Minister's claim, repeated a moment ago, that the Opposition's action violates an 87-year-old convention-which, of course, we reject-what steps will he take to ensure that the party line is observed by all his State colleagues? Mr HAWKE —The easiest way at this point to deal with this question is to refer to some statements made this morning which have just been brought to my attention. They were made by the shadow Attorney-General, Mr Reith. Government members-Who? Mr HAWKE —Honourable members are entitled to ask who he is. I had to check whether he was the shadow Attorney-General, but he is. As I said in the debate this morning, there is no flaw in the drafting. The flaw is in the Opposition in tearing up 87 years of convention. That point was effectively conceded this morning by the shadow Attorney-General on the Prue Goward program, when he correctly said: Under our law we've got this very good system which says that if the Government's going to make Regulations, before they actually become operative the Parliament can have a closer look at them and say somebody's drawn it up wrongly or there's something in it that goes beyond what the Parliament may have originally intended. Having put that position correctly, the shadow Attorney-General went on to say: There have been many instances where Regulations have been knocked back by the Senate because they've gone too far, they've been extreme or it might be beyond what's been intended by the Parliament. That statement is absolutely correct. The Leader of the Opposition, rather than asking his fanciful questions, might explain in terms of the statement by his shadow Attorney-General how the Australia Card regulations, which provide for a commencement date, either go too far, are extreme or are beyond what has been intended by the Parliament. The shadow Attorney-General has correctly articulated past practice. By the standards and criteria of the shadow Attorney-General, the Opposition has been guilty of breaking the practice and convention of the past 87 years. Mr DUBOIS —I refer the Minister for Social Security to claims about the effect of the recent Budget on pensioners. Will he inform the House about the progress by the Government in reaching the target of 25 per cent of average weekly earnings? Mr HOWE —One of the strongest planks of the Australian Labor Party's platform and our most consistent election promise has been the maintenance of living standards for Australia's two million pensioners. The Prime Minister promised in his 1983 election campaign, and he repeated it in 1985 and 1987, that he would bring the pension rate up to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. Labor believes that, despite the very difficult economic circumstances Australia faces, the incomes of the least well off should be protected. I am pleased to say that this target has almost been reached. As of June 1987, the pension rate equalled 24.8 per cent. Labor has wiped out the legacy of disregard for pensioners' incomes under the previous Government. The pension rate was as low as 22.7 per cent when we came to office despite the fact that we were looking at a prospective deficit of more than $8 billion. Labor will have added an extra $38.85 to the standard pension rate between December 1982 and December 1987. Substantial allocations of funds have been needed to achieve these goals. This financial year the indexation increases alone will add more than $1 billion to government outlays-more than $1 billion into the pockets of pensioners at a time of very considerable restraint in government spending and community incomes and, incidentally, at a time when this Government has achieved almost a balanced Budget. Let us not forget the contrast with the Opposition's plans to cut into pensions and benefit incomes. No one wants to return to a situation in which indexation was dropped for a year, as it was under the Fraser-Howard Government, or in which pensions drop, as they did, by 2.4 per cent in real terms. One has to remember that, at a time when this Government has achieved very significant real increases in pensioner incomes, at the end of this year we will have more than doubled the additional pension and benefit paid for children of pensioner and beneficiary families, doubled the mother's guardian's allowance, and increased supplementary payments, in terms of rent assistance, by 50c in the dollar. In my view, it is not too much to say that, in the discussions we have had in this Parliament in the last several days, we see underlined in the clearest possible terms the difference between honourable members on the Opposition side of the House and honourable members on the Government side of the House. On the one hand, every measure that we have introduced in this Parliament and every measure that has been designed to ensure that those who can afford to, pay their taxes, has ultimately been resisted by the Opposition, including the last measure, the Australia Card. On the other hand the Opposition has made constant suggestions to us that we ought to cut back on the incomes of the very poor. The record of this Government with respect to pensioners and low income people in the community stands up well against the record of any government in this country and it certainly contrasts with the shabbiness of the Opposition's policies. Mr McGAURAN —Will the Minister for Community Services and Health inform the House, firstly, what preparation has taken place to date for the introduction of the Government's ID card and, secondly, how much money has been committed or expended on its introduction? Dr BLEWETT —If the honourable member were aware of the decisions made by this House, he would know that a sunset clause on expenditure on the Australia Card came into effect at the end of December 1986. Therefore, it has not been possible for the Government to expend moneys on the card since that date and most of the planning, therefore, has ceased. But there was an allocation in this year's Budget which was based on the assumption that the Australia Card would be passing through the Joint Sitting towards the end of this year. Mr LANGMORE —My question is directed to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. The Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) has been the target of criticism and cynicism recently. Does the Minister have any comment in response to those criticisms? Mr JOHN BROWN —I find it very disappointing that a fair amount of cynical criticism has been pointed in the direction of the Institute of Sport in the last couple of weeks. I note that the honourable member for Fraser has a very active interest in the Institute of Sport, it being sited in his electorate. Considering that on most issues we have had a fairly bipartisan attitude towards the Institute of Sport I am sure that every member of this House would share my disappointment that obviously some anti-AIS or ill-informed members of the media have sought to point great criticism at the Institute of Sport, basically arising from Australia's lack of gold medals at the World Athletics Championships which were recently held in Rome. I might add as a sideline that almost every medal was won by athletes from behind the Iron Curtain. I think it is a pity that Australians are not out there shouting aloud with pride about the Institute of Sport. Only six years ago a former Liberal Minister, Bob Ellicott, to his great credit, set up the Institute of Sport and I am pleased to say that he is now a life member of that Institute, and so he should be. It has achieved remarkable success on the international stage with the athletes who have had the use of its facilities. It is certainly recognised in almost every country that has an interest in sport as being the best of its kind in the world in terms of the facilities for Australia's elite athletes and in terms of sports medicine and research. It seems to me to be a pity that the great Australian tradition of knocking seems to direct this sort of criticism at the AIS in a very unjustified fashion. Despite all the criticism that was directed about the lack of athletics gold medals, I was very pleased to see this week that the Press reported two very significant successes, but in very muted terms. The Australian men's under-16 tennis team won the world's championship for the second time in a row, but it merited very little Press in comparison with the headlines that greeted our lack of success in athletics. At the same time, one of the young women at our squash division in Brisbane, Sarah Fitzgerald, with the advantage of having been coached by the great Heather McKay who is probably the world's greatest squash player ever, man or woman, has again won the world's junior women's championship. But again there was very little Press. This can be repeated in a whole host of activities for the 15 residential sports and for something like 45 visiting sports that bring elite athletes into Canberra. I think the investment that this Government has made in the Institute of Sport following its inception by Bob Ellicott back in 1980 has been a marvellous investment in terms of allowing our athletes, who have brought us so much national pride over a long time, an opportunity to compete on equal terms with their peers around the world. I hope that all sections of the media will take a more positive view of something about which we should all be proud and drop that mocking attitude about Australia's lack of success in one sport. One pertinent point should be made. It is a strict rule that the Institute of Sport in Canberra is a totally drug-free environment. I am sure that every member of this House believes, as I do, that we do not want to win gold medals if they are produced by artificial performances, resulting from the ingestion of any form of artificial stimulant. I assure every member of the House that a very strict regime of drug testing takes place at the Institute of Sport and every athlete and every coach is warned that any suggestion of any form of drug taking will lead to instant dismissal. Mr REITH —I refer the Attorney-General to the report on fraud on the Commonwealth which I understand is shortly to be presented to the Parliament. I ask: Will he assure the House that neither the final report nor any of the draft reports have been amended so as to delete any estimate of the extent of fraud against the Commonwealth? Will the entire report be tabled? Does this latest report establish that the more cost-effective means of combating fraud is better administration rather than the intrusive ID card? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The fraud report has been received and is now before Cabinet. I expect that it will be tabled very soon. In respect of the particular matters that the honourable gentleman mentioned, as he would expect, fraud, of course, does take place if there can be some deviation from departmental procedures or their enforcement. The report does talk about looking at departmental procedures. Of course, that is an obvious matter. In respect of the specific question about the merits of the Australia Card, one will find on page 100 of the report that the Australia Card is given very strong support on the basis that it would certainly have a great advantage and it would have an effective benefit to cost ratio of 6 : 1. Mr CROSS —My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. Did the Government's information paper, The Defence of Australia, issued in March this year, state that the most important part of the United States system for early warning of ballistic missile attack in which Australia is involved is known as the defence support program (DSP), and that this program assists in reducing the risk of nuclear war and contributes to stability in the super-power relationship? Is the Minister aware of recent claims in a number of places that the capabilities of the DSP system, supported by the Australian-United States joint facilities, go beyond what is needed for early warning, and in fact give the system what are known as war-fighting capabilities? Can the Minister indicate the facts in this matter? Does the DSP have war fighting capabilities which go beyond its early warning function, or does it not? Mr BEAZLEY —I am aware of the claims that have been made. Some of them have been made by people who have made, and continue to make, a very substantial contribution to the strategic debate in this country. They require a detailed answer. The claims are based on a number of assertions about the specific capabilities of the system. While I am not prepared to indicate whether each and every statement made about the joint facilities is true or false, I assure the honourable member that a number of these assertions are incorrect. For example, the DSP satellites are said to carry: ultraviolet sensors which are able to detect the fluorescence from gases surrounding the booster or nose cones of missiles in flight, and thereby enable the missiles to be tracked; a visible light sensor which enables observers to view the plumes of intercontinental ballistic missiles as they are launched, and which might also be used for some reconnaissance purposes; infra-red equipment that can provide data on warhead energy levels and types, as well as data on warhead impact points for post-attack assessment; and nuclear detonation sensors able to determine the site of nuclear detonations to an accuracy of about 100 metres. None of these assertions is correct. As the capabilities in question are the ones which would be necessary if DSP were to have usefulness, for so-called nuclear war-fighting strategies, the conclusion logically follows that the description of the DSP in the Government's White Paper is the correct one. For the record, I also point out that possible improvements in the United States' missile attack warning systems should not be taken to mean that the DSP will in future acquire these nuclear war-fighting capabilities. Some of the capabilities mentioned by some commentators too have been under development in the program once known as DSP 2, or the advanced warning system, are actually intended to form the basis of an altogether different warning system that may replace the DSP. That system was renamed the booster surveillance and tracking system and incorporated in the strategic defence initiative (SDI) research program some years ago. The United States has not sought to involve any of the joint defence facilities in Australia in its plans for developing or operating such a system; nor, lest there still be any doubt on this point, are the joint defence facilities in Australia involved in SDI. To claim, as some have done, that the facilities are so involved simply because information that has been collected in accordance with their mission requirements may later have been used in some SDI-related applications, stretches the language and common sense seams to breaking point. Any such data collected at the Australian sites has not been collected for the purposes of SDI research, but specifically to support the early warning function of the DSP. Any other use to which the data may be put is quite incidental and does not derogate from its purpose in enhancing early warning. I repeat that the joint defence facilities in Australia do not form part of the SDI. There have been no changes to the missions, functions or manning of the facilities to assist in SDI research. The United States SDI program is an entirely separate activity with altogether different funding and staffing. The Australian Government does not participate in it. Mr BEALE —My question is directed to the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support. Yesterday I asked the Minister why steps were not taken on 24 March 1987 to cancel the coastal surveillance contract with Amann Aviation Pty Ltd when it became known that the Department of Aviation had very serious reservations about that company's ability to meet the terms of the contract. The Minister undertook to obtain `a report on the details of the matter'. The Minister has not done this. He has instead supplied me with a letter drawing my attention to previous comments recorded in Hansard. I now ask the Minister: Why has he misled the House for the fifth time in a week? Why did he not answer the question I asked yesterday? Why was the Amann contract not cancelled? Mr DUNCAN —I refer the honourable member to the letter that I gave him last night which addressed the matters about which he questioned me yesterday. Mr SNOW —My question is directed to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. In view of the Minister's self-description as the mayor of Canberra, and because this Parliament is about the only establishment in the nation's capital that remotely resembles a town hall, will the Minister urge the flying of the flag of the Canberra-Queanbeyan Raiders above this building following their win against Manly-Warringah on Sunday? Mr JOHN BROWN —Madam Speaker-- Mr MacKellar —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: may I add to the question by asking the Minister whether he will fly the Manly-Warringah flag, should it be successful on Sunday? Mr JOHN BROWN —I must confess that this question was not entirely without notice. The honourable member for Eden-Monaro did have the decency to tell me that he was going to ask it. I checked with Madam Speaker. The answer is no, on a couple of grounds: the President of the Senate, of course, like the honourable member for Warringah, is an avowed Manly supporter, so that would create a difficulty. Of course, Madam Speaker is a great Hawthorn supporter. There is really a dichotomy of interests that would preclude the flying of the Raiders flag. On that subject, I think that everybody in Canberra-the quarter of a million people who live here and those of us who live here temporarily-are very proud of the achievements of the Raiders this year. Mr Jull —They are all from Queensland. Mr JOHN BROWN —Nobody is perfect. We all have our difficulties. I am sure that when the Raiders run on to the Sydney Cricket Ground on Sunday they will be carrying the hopes and aspirations of a quarter of a million Canberrans. If the win of the Raiders on Sunday has the same significant psychological uplift for the people of Canberra-at a time when they are espousing independence and an identity which is singular to them-as the win Parramatta had in the early 1980s in terms of stirring up the people of the western suburbs, it will be well won. I assure the honourable member for Eden-Monaro that my wishes, and the wishes of 250,000 Canberrans, run with the Raiders on Sunday. Mr HOWARD —I ask the Minister for Community Services and Health: Did parliamentary counsel draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that the relevant dates designated under the Australia Card Bill would be the subject of regulations when the Bill was cleared by the legislation committee of Cabinet? Was the possibility of those relevant dates being fixed by proclamation rather than by regulation specifically canvassed at any stage during the approval process of the legislation by the Government? Dr BLEWETT —The answer to the question by the Leader of the Opposition is no. At no stage was this issue brought to my attention by the officials, but of course it is important-- Mr Howard —Parliamentary counsel? Dr BLEWETT —Brought to my attention, yes. Mr Howard —But were you at the legislation committee's meeting? Madam SPEAKER —Order! Dr BLEWETT —What I am saying, quite clearly, is that none of the officials advising the Government raised with me any problems in relation to these provisions. Mr Howard —No, no, no-not a problem. That is not what I asked. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked his question. Dr BLEWETT —All I can say is that no problems in relation to this issue were raised by any of the advisers to me on this matter. However, I have to say that it is fairly important that at that stage everybody was acting on the assumption that the rules of this Parliament would not suddenly be torn up by the Opposition. Mr MARTIN —My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. Has the Government asked the New South Wales Government to reduce its taxes and charges on the coal industry? What assistance will the Commonwealth Government give? What progress has been made in developing a long term strategy for the Australian coal industry? Mr KERIN —I thank the honourable member for Macarthur for his question. He has a very great and dedicated interest in the coal industry. The Prime Minister has written to the New South Wales Premier, Mr Unsworth, asking that his Government give close consideration to the effect of State charges as they apply to mines in that State considered to be at risk. Overall, our coal industry is one of the most efficient, low cost, major coal exporters in the world. What we have is a situation where, with oversupply and intense competition, prices have dropped to so low a level that the viability of individual mines is at risk. Since late last year there have been 15 mine closures and almost 2,000 retrenchments or voluntary retirements. Reflecting the deteriorating financial position of coal companies, another major producer, Austen and Butta, reported yesterday a $16m operating loss last financial year after closing three of its mines and further rationalising its local operations. The company, like others with mines at risk, is seeking further reductions in government charges. Over recent weeks, I and the Government have been examining closely the financial situation of the industry and one must conclude that one of the barriers to the financial viability of at-risk mines is State charges. There is not much scope for reductions in Commonwealth charges. These are minimal in the overall context and would do very little to reduce operating costs. For example, the Commonwealth has collected only about $13m in company tax from the New South Wales coal industry over the past three years. Even in the so-called free enterprise, but now known as the corrupt State of Queensland, the charges on the industry almost amount to extortion. What the Commonwealth has proposed is to put forward for discussion a paper on a strategy for the industry which will address development, marketing, conservation and industrial relations issues. I do not imagine that the discussion of an appropriate strategy will be a quick process. We will try to achieve a common understanding of the problems and some agreement on how best they should be tackled, bearing in mind the Commonwealth Government's firm view that a national marketing authority is no solution. While that discussion is going on, industry parties should not see it as in any way removing the need for progress on industry issues, particularly productivity increases and industry costs generally but including State charges. Madam SPEAKER —I inform the House that the Hon. Frank Crean, a former Minister in the Whitlam Government, is present in the gallery this afternoon. On behalf of the House I bid him welcome. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr HOWARD —Will the Minister for Community Services and Health table in the Parliament the memorandum relating to the Australia Card Bill prepared by parliamentary counsel for the legislation committee? Dr BLEWETT —I would be prepared to lay that document before the House, but I make one point about the Leader of the Opposition's previous question. What I was saying then was that I do not recollect any problems being raised-I think that I would have even though it was about a year ago-but it may well be that there is simply a note to the effect of the clauses without it raising any issues in relation to those clauses. Mr LAMB —Can the Minister for Employment, Education and Training indicate to the House the latest trends in the rates of participation in the work force? Mr DAWKINS —I thank the honourable member for his question and indicate that there has been a very impressive performance as far as the labour market is concerned over the three or four years that this Government has been in office. We must remember, of course, that when we came in there was an unemployment rate of some 10.3 per cent and that, as at August this year, the rate was some 8.1 per cent. This has been achieved at a time when the participation rate in the work force has been increasing. That means that the Government's performance in being able to stimulate the labour market, thus creating in excess of 828,000 jobs, is very impressive indeed. It is one which compares extremely favourably with performances of other countries, particularly members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. That is the major reason why at the last election the people decided that this Government's policies were the ones which were totally appropriate to the circumstances in which Australia finds itself not only as we work our way through the most massive form of structural change which is necessary but also as we have been able to do so without bringing about the sort of cataclysm which is often associated with that kind of structural change when it has occurred in other countries. Not only has our success in the last four years been an enormous achievement but also it portends extremely well for the next few years as we continue to see the success of the Australian economy. Mr HUNT —My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services and Health. Have drafting instructions been given to parliamentary counsel to redraft the Australia Card legislation to accommodate a number of amendments to the existing legislation? If so, when; and along what lines? Dr BLEWETT —I know that amendments have been discussed, but I am not aware of any drafting instructions having been issued to prepare those amendments. I will certainly take this up with my colleague Senator Ryan. Mr BRUMBY —I ask the Minister for Social Security: What benefits will the Government's new family package provide for low income wage earners? How do these benefits compare with claims made yesterday by the Victorian National Party that the family package will do nothing to assist low income, working families? Mr HOWE —Clearly, the families package will be of considerable benefit to many low income working families. Indeed, as honourable members will be aware, there will be quite a large number of people who, while on low wages, have not been eligible for the family income supplement. Those families will become eligible for the family allowance supplement payment when it comes in in December, so many working families will find that they will be gaining as much as $22 per week per child, and those with older children could receive an extra $6 for those older children so that they could gain in respect of teenage children up to $28 a week. There has been some confusion, to which the honourable gent referred, in respect of the issue of what the Opposition likes to call the poverty trap. Rather than the family package creating poverty traps, it removes poverty traps associated with the loss of rent assistance and child payments on return to work. The whole design of the family package is there to ensure that there is a strong incentive for people on full or partial benefit particularly people with families, to move into the work force without loss of income. People with incomes of up to more than $400 a week will find that they are able to receive some assistance in relation to the family package. It is also important to point out that the question of effective marginal tax rates is a somewhat different question from the question of the poverty trap. There is nothing in this package which leads people into poverty. There are concerns about effective marginal tax rates. The withdrawal rate for the family allowance supplement does not apply to each extra dollar of earnings in the same way as marginal tax rates. Income increases of less than 25 per cent will not affect the family allowance supplement entitlement for six months, so the family on $340 with two children will get $45 a week family allowance supplement. If they earn $20 a week overtime, they will pay an extra $5.80 in tax but keep the full family allowance supplement until re-assessed at the end of six months. Because increases in income up to 25 per cent will not affect entitlement for up to six months, the effective marginal tax rates will not generally have an adverse affect on disposable income changes which, for example, are influenced by short term periods of overtime. Of course, with respect to effective marginal tax rates, it would be possible to partially mitigate that suggested problem by lowering the threshold, but to do that would be to withdraw a payment from people who are likely to benefit very little from decreases in tax rates. If one wants to assist-and the Government wants to provide assistance to low income working families-the way to do it is through the outlay side of the Budget. That is what the Government has done. It has provided significant improvements and, what is more, a substantial incentive for people on full or partial benefits to increase their participation within the work force. Mr HOWARD —I ask a question of the Minister for Community Services and Health. I refer to the answer that he gave a moment ago to the effect that he was not aware of any amendments having been drafted. I remind him that, in a radio interview on 17 September, Senator Ryan said: Those amendments, foreshadowed amendments, have been drafted after extensive consultation with civil liberties groups . . . Can the Minister inform us exactly who is right-himself or Senator Ryan? In view of the fact that Parliament will be getting up for eight days tonight, can he give an undertaking to table parliamentary counsel's memorandum, referred to in my previous question, before the House rises tonight? Dr BLEWETT —I know that there have been discussions between Senator Ryan and various groups about amendments. The answer that I gave a moment ago was to the best of my understanding. I was not aware that those amendments had been prepared. I indicated to the honourable member that I would seek an answer from Senator Ryan about the state of those proposals. Mr Howard —What about the Parliamentary Counsel's memorandum? Dr BLEWETT —On that, I will seek to do so today. Mr GAYLER —My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Science and Small Business, relates to the proposed space station on Cape York in north Queensland. Can the Minister advise on the viability of such a space station, and as to whether Commonwealth subsidy would be required for the development of such stations? Mr BARRY JONES —There have been a number of reports in the newspaper from time to time about the feasibility of establishing a space port at Cape York in Queensland. The Premier of Queensland was very vocal on this matter last year and still is, marginally. Of course the Government and everybody else is aware of the proposal and the Government has taken an active interest in it. When the Premier announced the commissioning of a study in September 1986, the proposal was for a major international commercial space port. The proposed facility would be privately financed, constructed, marketed and operated, and available to an international market. Phase one of the study was released in February. Its findings were that Cape York Peninsula offered a number of advantages over most operational sites elsewhere in the world: it is much closer to the Equator, only about 11 degrees south, whereas Cape Canaveral is 28 degrees north of the Equator. The closer one gets to the equator, the smaller the amount of fuel that one needs to get the package up, so the bigger the payload can be. Following receipt by the Queensland Government of the summary report of phase two of the study, the Queensland Premier released a document soliciting proposals from commercial organisations interested in the construction and operation of that space port. Registrations of interest are to close on 30 November 1987. It is understood that a number of overseas companies have expressed interest in the space port. The Commonwealth is following progress, although it has not been privy to the result of the phase two study report on the commercial viability of the proposals. Apart from any interest in encouraging commercial proposals to proceed, the Commonwealth has a direct interest in any proposal. Before it could proceed, a range of Commonwealth issues involving Commonwealth powers would have to be discussed. They relate to legal, industrial, trade, defence and foreign affairs matters and to the need for subsidy or Commonwealth equity. These issues have been raised not by us but by others. The Australian Space Board, a non-statutory advisory board set up to advise on space matters, is taking a close interest in the possibilities that such a development could have for space-related developments in Australian industry. A number of Australian companies will be taking a similar interest and the matter will be monitored by the Government as time goes by, particularly when the date for the close of the registration of interest draws closer. Dr BLEWETT —I seek indulgence to add to an answer given to the honourable member for Gippsland. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Dr BLEWETT —I have nothing to add to what I said about development and planning work, and moneys for that, in relation to the Australia Card. However, I should have made the point that approximately $500,000 has been allocated for information programs. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training) —For the information of the House, I present the following paper: Advance to the Minister for Finance-statement of heads of expenditure and the amounts charged thereto pursuant to section 36a of the Audit Act 1901 for the year ended 30 June 1987. Mr DAWKINS —While I am on my feet I table an answer, on behalf of the Treasurer, to a question asked of me by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories) —Pursuant to section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, I present a proposal to relocate the Commencement Column Monument on the land axis between the old and the new Parliament House. The area is within the parliamentary zone. The views of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House are also being sought. When those views are available I shall be in a position to take further action under the Parliament Act to seek approval of the work by the House. Mr HUMPHREYS(Griffith-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —Pursuant to section 215 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, I present the annual report of the Veterans Review Board for 1986-87. Mr REITH(Flinders) —Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr REITH —Yes, I do. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr REITH —During Question Time today the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) quoted from a radio interview that I gave this morning. His claim was that my opinion is at odds with the Opposition's stance on the power of the Senate to disallow a regulation under an Australia Card Act if it passes the Senate or a joint sitting. The Prime Minister's claim relies basically on two misrepresentations. The first misrepresentation relates to my views about the Senate's power. Essentially, a claim was put to me by the radio interviewer-a claim of the Government-that to disallow a regulation would be constitutional vandalism, to which I replied quite clearly that that was not a view that I shared. I may add that it is my view that the only constitutional vandalism-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will not debate the issue. He will simply show me where he has been misrepresented. Mr REITH —I will do so, Madam Speaker. The only constitutional vandalism is Labor's claim that the Senate should give up a power it has had for over 80 years. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member is continuing to debate. He will give the second point briefly. Mr REITH —The second point of misrepresentation is that the Prime Minister claimed that I support the existence of a constitutional convention. I do not support the existence of a constitutional convention. I invite the Prime Minister and his staffers to read Hansard. Madam SPEAKER —Order! That is the end of the personal explanation. 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 resubmitted to Parliament. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Mr Aldred,Mr Beale,Mr Burr,Mr Donald Cameron,Mr Dobie,Mr Halverson,Mr Hawker,Mr Hunt,Mr Jull,Mr Miles,Mr Rocher,Mr Ruddock,Mr Shipton,Mrs Sullivan and Dr Wooldridge. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Mr Beale,Mr Kent,Mr Lindsay,Mr Lloyd,Mr Milton and Mr Scott. 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. by Mr Andrew,Mr Downer,Mr Jull,Mr Kent and Mrs Sullivan. To 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 taxpayer's money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman,Mr Cobb,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Shack 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-efficient 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 ever 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 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 Fairfax 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 Millar. 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 Cadman,Mr Dobie and Mr Fitzgibbon. 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 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 call upon the 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,Mr McArthur and Mr White. To the honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that many Post Office agencies are to be closed. They provide a network of offices with postal and agency services to residential areas and small communities. They serve a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced if forced to travel further to purchase postal items or collect parcels. It would be an unnecessary expense particularly for pensioners without their own transport. We maintain that the purpose of Post Offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer. They are a community centre particularly in country areas and if necessary they should be subsidised to retain them. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of Post Office agencies and that the network should be extended, with the agency services they offer expanded. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman and Mr 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 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 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 reasons 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 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 Halverson 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: 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 2,000 public servants within the HIC [Health Insurance Commission], with the sole task of identifying every man, women 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 to 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 Rocher and Mr Shack. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. We the undersigned small business people and supporters wish to draw attention to and protest against recent tax changes and the horrific administrative burdens which will be placed upon small businesses by these changes. We request that Fringe Benefits Tax, Capital Gains Tax, Dividend Imputation, Negative gearing, Foreign tax credits and Substantiation legislation be immediately repealed. We also request that the proposed legislation yet to be tabled in Parliament in respect of self assessment be discontinued. To make up the shortfall in revenue as a result of these requests, the promised personal tax cuts should be deferred until such time as they can be funded by pruning government expenditure. Unless the above action is taken immediately the private sector of the economy will contract and Australia will be further down the road to becoming a banana republic. by Mr Beale. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: Any proposal to establish memorials to peace, the so-called Aboriginal War and anti-war activists and other left wing causes at the Australian War Memorial at Canberra would desecrate the Memorial as a fitting and solemn monument to those who served in Australia's Armed Forces and to those who died in defence of their country. Your petitioners humbly pray that that House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Act to prevent anything which would desecrate the nation's memorial to Australia's former serviceman and women and war dead. 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. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the Fringe Benefits Tax is an iniquitous and unjust impost which will further damage the Australian economy and further increase costs to employers. The Tax will: (1) further increase the level of unemployment; (2) increase the administrative costs and overheads for business and Government; (3) particularly disadvantage small business and farmers; and (4) act as a disincentive to those who are the most productive and skilled; and we the undersigned call upon the Government to immediately repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and 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 Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we oppose plans by Telecom Australia to close many of the Telecom Business Offices (TBO's) and replace them with a reduced service to be co-located with the District Customer Services Office. We believe the public should be able to make telephone bill payments, applications for new services, selection of 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that they are totally opposed to any change in the present Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change in any way the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. Mr Donald Cameron-Madam Speaker, may I draw the attention of the House to the fact that that is the second largest petition that has been presented in this nation's history, with 100,000 signatures. Madam SPEAKER-The honourable member had my indulgence after all. by Mr Donald Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This humble petition of certain citizens of Queensland, Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Give a speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a Referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron. 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 taxpayer, 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 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 Mr Connolly. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned shows: We are gravely concerned by the threat to social morality and the welfare of children, posed by the unrestricted importation, distribution and sale of X-rated pornographic video material in and from the Australian Capital Territory. Your Petitioners request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should recognise our concern and reverse its amendments to ACT legislation and Customs regulations which have resulted in Australia wide distribution of material restricted under State censorship laws. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Connolly. 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 the reductions in staffing of the Department of Social Security over recent years, and deplore the plans to reduce staff further. Social Security payments are the only source of income for many Australians. It is important that these people and their dependants receive their correct entitlement in a timely and efficient manner. This has been made difficult by the effect of widespread changes in the last Federal Budget and the May Economic Statement, combined with a continued reduction in staff. We believe that people who are dependent upon the Department of Social Security for their most basic needs of food and rent should not be expected to put up with inefficiencies in the Department caused by insufficient staffing and the resultant inadequate training. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to instruct the Department of Finance to accept the findings of the recent Joint Staffing Review (JSR II) and increase Social Security staffing levels accordingly. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Courtice. To the Honourable, the Speaker, and the 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth, do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government: Take the action necessary to create an Australian Republic And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Ms Jakobsen. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows- That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of 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, lightning 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. 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. We consider that this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combatting the growing problems of tax evasion, illegal immigrants or social security. We therefore ask the House to take action to prevent the implementation of this legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr McVeigh. 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 it's 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 Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Any proposals to abolish the Department of Veterans' Affairs gravely concern ex-servicemen, ex-servicewomen and their families, because they renege on clear and unequivocal commitments from various Commonwealth Governments to properly care for Australia's Veterans. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Parliament to: Ensure that the Department of Veterans' Affairs continues to exist as a separate and distinct Department of State servicing the needs of Veterans and their families. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. 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 certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That, as a consequence of the Hawke Government's decision to introduce a two dollar coin in 1988. Whereas the introduction of a one dollar coin was only a twofold increase in the maximum value of coinage, the elimination of the two dollar note represents a fivefold increase before a note can be used. It will have taken eighteen years from decimalisation to go from the fifty cent piece as the highest value coin to a one dollar coin, but only a further four years to replace the two dollar note with a coin. The lowest value paper note will be five dollars, forcing a dramatic increase in the weight of coinage carried and dislocation of the retail industry. Many people, particularly the elderly, will mistake the value of the coin for that of another lower value coin just as many now confuse the one dollar coin with the ten cent piece. That the addition of two new coins in four years creates the biggest number of coins in circulation at any time in Australia's history and will lead to the removal of the one cent and two cent coins; this will accelerate the cost of living, particularly the cost of food where numerous items are involved and future price rises would need to be five cent increases on every item on every occasion. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the proposed two dollar coin not be proceeded with by the Hawke Government, and no future Government proceed with this proposal for several years. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mrs Sullivan. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at the failure of the government to show restraint with equity. In particular, the decision to defer the November pension adjustments has resulted in a loss of $25.62 for a single pensioner and $21.36 for each married pensioner. The prospect of a further deferral of the May adjustment will result in the loss of another $35.10 for a single pensioner and $29.10 for each married pensioner. When you are scrimping to make ends meet, as is the case with many pensioners, you can't afford such a cut in living standards. Pensioners are looking for a new deal from politicians-more of the same is not good enough! Your petitioners request an immediate return to payment of May and November C.P.I. increases, and as is duty bound will ever pray the Government grant this request now. by Mrs Sullivan. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that the mail delivery service in the town of Dowerin in Western Australia is to cease. The mail delivery service provides a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced if forced to travel to a Post Office to collect mail. It would be an unnecessary expense particularly for pensioners without their own transport. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the cessation of the mail delivery service in Dowerin. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by 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 Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: Labor's Capital Gains Tax is standing in the way of economic development on the Far North Coast, a region with great potential for further growth and renowned for the enterprise and initiative of its local community. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal its anti-business anti-farming and anti-individual Capital Gains Tax. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: 1. We the undersigned are totally opposed to the introduction of a $2.00 fee on prescription drugs for pensioners; 2. The impact of such a fee will be particularly felt by the chronically ill elderly who will be faced with a $2.00 burden with the purchase of each Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme drug; Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Ensure that prescription drugs continue to be provided to the pensioner population without the $2.00 fee on each prescription. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: 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 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. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Victoria respectfully showeth that: 1. the effect of present Government policy in not returning a fairer share of road taxes and fuel excise to the community for road construction and maintenance is totally iniquitous; and 2. unless immediate action is taken to redress this funding situation, our road network will disintegrate beyond reasonable repair. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr O'Keefe. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain concerned electors from the Geelong district, Victoria, Australia. We would like to commend the Government for its involvement in the formulation of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty (Rarotonga Treaty) but would urge that further action should be taken to ensure a Truly Nuclear Free Zone in the South Pacific. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Parliament support the following measures. In the nuclear free zone there should be: (1) No nuclear weapon transit nor temporary presence at ports and airfields of nuclear armed ships or aeroplanes. (2) No support facilities and programmes for nuclear weapons systems. (3) No nuclear waste reprocessing, transport, storage or disposal on land or sea. (4) No mining, export and/or processing of uranium. by Mr Scholes. Petitions received. Madam SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The urgent need to lift the restrictions and burdens on Australia's mineral and energy exports. 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 SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.00) —Since the election, which is really not that long ago, on 11 July and, indeed, right through since March 1983 the Hawke Government has been responsible for trying to perpetrate a number of myths on the Australian electorate. One of those myths is that our traditional exports, particularly those in the minerals and energy area and in agriculture, do not matter. The second myth-we heard a little more of that from the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) who is at the table during Question Time today-is that where there are difficulties facing exports that those are all beyond the power of this Federal Government. We on this side of the House regard the important role of energy, the way by which minerals contribute towards the economic and social development of large tracts of Australia and the way by which those traditional exports can continue to play an important part in the provision of export earnings for Australia as matters which cannot be ignored. That in no way lessens the importance that has to be given to the changing dimension of Australia's industry, nor does it, in any way, deny that we would want to expand opportunities in high technology, manufacturing and tourism and indeed in every possible way to overcome what has become a chronic adverse balance of payments problem. In this place since the presentation of the Budget the two predominant areas of concern to the Australian community which have emerged are, firstly, the extent to which our overseas debt is continuing to balloon out and, secondly, our current account is in a very serious and continuing adverse position. The reason that this matter of public importance was brought up by the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) and me yesterday was that it seems to us that the Government has not only been deluding itself but it has also been attempting to delude the Australian electorate as to the role and importance of three particular areas of minerals. Of course it is true that there has been some general improvement in gold prices. The general interest in gold has meant that there has been an impression that all is well in the mining industry. While that has been true it is also true that in other sectors of the mining industry there are and have been very significant problems. Base metal prices have not been good; there have been problems in copper prices; and there has certainly been a very real difficulty with oil. We know that some of the problems that are now occurring in the Middle East result from the impact of the decline in oil prices on the economies of countries there. Australia is one of the world's biggest mineral and energy producers and exporters. We had mineral exports worth $13,000m last year. We are expected to increase this by 12 per cent this year to $14.5 billion. It makes an enormous contribution to our economy as I have said not only in the direct contribution from exports but indirectly it also employs over 78,000 people directly, many in remote and isolated areas. In the National Party we have two members whose electorates have absolutely and fundamentally depended upon the growth of those industries; that is the electorates of the honourable member for Riverina-Darling (Mr Hicks) and the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter). The industry employs over 78,000 people directly, but it contributed about $3,500m to the State and Commonwealth revenues in 1985-86. It is that point that I would suggest the Minister failed to recognise when talking about the coal industry a little while ago and suggesting that there was not anything that the Commonwealth could do to try to help the coal producers in their present plight. Investment in the industry is about $20 billion. The direct impact is only part of the story. Mineral-related activities comprise about one-third of the value added by manufacturing in Australia. The mining and oil industries employ about 200,000 people and then there is all the flow-on and the infrastructure, all of which is critically important. There is no doubt that if honourable members have a look at its contribution to regional development they will see that from 1967 to 1985 there were 24 new towns with a total population of over 40,000 people, 12 new ports and more than 20 airfields and almost 12,000 kilometres of heavy railway line. Mr Deputy Speaker, need I say it: 90 per cent of that development began and was completed during the days of coalition governments and most of it-forward planning though it might have been-was certainly initiated during our day and much of it has fallen off since this Government has assumed the realms of responsibility. Over the last few years there have been a series of major turmoils such as falling world oil prices. This has flowed on now to coal and we are all aware of the difficulties facing the industry there. There is a decline in world demand-I will talk about that in a moment-and domestically, we have had significant industrial trouble. We have got problems with work practices, costs, charges, wages, taxes and transport and energy charges and there is a very real and fundamental problem in trying to stimulate the whole of the energy and mineral industry at a time when the Government is long on rhetoric and very short on action. The rate of growth in sales is low. Net profits are down again and, alarmingly, exploration spending has declined for the fourth successive year. Unfortunately, Labor's response has been too little too late. In some cases-in the oil tax regime, for example-it is positively damaging. The Government does not seem to understand that as far as the future deficit position is concerned it might be all very well to hope that the North West Shelf will bring in some great bonanza, but the reality is that unless there is significant and continued exploration this country will become so critically oil-deficient that we will have to depend on increasing imports and that is going to turn around totally the whole of the economic position of this country. I am afraid the Government's response flows from a fundamental misunderstanding of the importance of the industry and of the whole nature of our exports. Honourable members will remember that under Messrs Whitlam and Connor, Labor's approach was based on massive intervention and regulation. We had the whole discredited theory of resources diplomacy. But under this Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and successive Ministers the approach has been to hope the industry will go away. The Government takes the maximum slice of tax while it happens and then it is going to act only in extreme circumstances as, indeed, we found with the Prime Minister's intervention in the coal industry this year. In fact, his intervention did absolutely nothing either to encourage confidence for those who were employed in the area or to expand our prospects for the continued survival of the industry. In search of a manufacturing-led recovery in the current account deficit, the Government has let the mining industry swing in the wind. Everyone agrees that we need to lift manufactured exports. Depending on them alone is wishful thinking. The Government's export effort virtually ignores the rural and mining sectors. Yet it is in those sectors with the right cost and wage environment which can do most to reduce our disastrous current deficit and ease the burden of overseas debt. The Australian Financial Review said in its editorial on 3 September: Given that we can do very little to influence world prices and volumes demanded, we have no choice but to lower production costs and remove some of the regulatory and taxation burdens imposed by Governments. Indeed, the same editorial made this important point: It has to be driven home to all Australians that unnecessarily high taxes and charges on our export industries may provide them with subsidised social facilities and restrain rises in charges in Government-provided services but these subsidies are harming our long-run competitiveness. Yesterday, at a function which the Minister and a number of others and I attended, a publication was released by Dr Andy Stoeckel, the former head of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics and Sandy Cuthbertson, a former First Assistant Commissioner of the Industries Assistance Commission. I commend to everybody an analysis that was presented and displayed fairly effectively in graphic form on page 2 of that publication. It sets down the policy to improve trade. It sets down in balance the fact that if 60 per cent of effort is put into overcoming the domestic troubles of industry-it is specifically referring to agricultural industry-most of our problems will be behind us. If the Minister analyses those areas he will find, first of all, 25 per cent with respect to industry policy. I suggest that exactly the same statistics apply to minerals and energy as they do to agriculture where there are problems about research allocations and assistance to particular industries and disadvantages that other sectors suffer. There is a 10 per cent tax. The Minister ignores the role that taxes have on providing a disincentive to our mining companies. Companies such as Mount Isa Mines complained last year that its fringe benefits burden alone was in excess of $3 1/2 billion. Then there is 15 per cent of the macroeconomic problem where we need a tighter fiscal stance, less reliance on monetary policy and genuine competitive interest rates. A total of 50 per cent is in labour and productivity. In the mining and minerals industry work practices have been appalling and there is the necessity to return to productivity. Where the second tier wage increase has failed abysmally there is a need to look at management and work practices. The unions have to accept that they must be prepared to change their work practices or there will be a continuation of what is occurring in the coal industry at the moment. The other day we all saw the stand taken by the Amalgamated Metal Foundry and Shipwrights Union with respect to Peko-Wallsend Ltd. The extent to which it persists in refusing the changes in work practices is to ensure that those who currently work in the industry are unlikely to be able to preserve their jobs. We must have reduced unit labour costs, there must be greater capital utilisation and lower unit capital costs and there must be an opportunity for private sector investment. A great deal can and should be done in that area by the Government. I wish to speak briefly in this matter of public importance debate today on two other industries which concern me greatly. Of course, the crisis in the coal industry follows the Government's refusal to face the facts until it was too late. It seems to me that the Government is even worse when it comes to looking at the situation in the uranium industry. Whilst I am delighted that the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, who is at the table, has made a few comments which suggest that at long last he realises that there have to be changes in the uranium industry, the reality is that the Government's political attitudes and prejudices to a few people down south have resulted in this absolutely idiotic three mine uranium export policy. We all know that there are tremendous uranium resources in Australia. We know that a policy that says that there is good uranium in one place and bad uranium in another place-good uranium in Roxby Downs and bad uranium in Nabarlek-is absolute rubbish. The Minister-and we are prepared to back him in his determination-must make sure that his colleagues in Labor Caucus and his other colleagues within the Labor Party, particularly at their next annual conference, recognise that their policy on uranium is bad for Australia, bad for employment and bad for Australia's balance of payments prospects. We must recognise the role that uranium can play in the lesser developed areas of Australia. There is no doubt that a great deal can be done if the factional leaders in the Labor Party are prepared to accept some of the rhetoric that the Minister has been advancing. Despite the economic imperative to redress the flagging balance of payments, Australia is losing over half a billion dollars a year simply because of Labor's prejudicial policy against uranium exports. There is no doubt that, if we can only have a rational position on yellowcake exports and overcome the political intransigence and disproportionate political influence of the pro-Aboriginal, anti-nuclear conservation lobbies within the Labor Party, Australia's export potential will be significantly enhanced. We have set down adequate safeguards for uranium. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), as Minister for Foreign Affairs, was largely responsible for introducing those safeguards internationally. We set down safeguards that ensure that Australia's uranium is not exported willy-nilly; it is exported subject to very tight constraints. The Minister at the table and everybody else in Labor Caucus do not realise that the sooner they get away from their present absolutely abysmal prejudicial attitude towards uranium exports the better. Indeed, I am delighted to see that even the new Labor member for the Northern Territory (Mr Snowdon) apparently disagrees with Caucus about the prospects of uranium exports from the Alligator Rivers area. I cannot say that there is too much else that I would agree with him on, but I am delighted to know that at least in that area there is some move. It is absolutely essential that we do something to improve the export potential for Australia's uranium resources, and to do it in a way that maintains the safeguards laid down by coalition governments. The other commodity I wish to refer to is oil. Oil is vital to Australia. Domestic production is dropping as the Bass Strait fields age and replacements are not being found. By the early 1990s domestic oil production will have fallen by about 50 per cent and our annual oil import bill will have risen to about $3,000m. The only reaction of the Government to this serious situation is to argue that production from the North West Shelf gas field should by then be offsetting the oil import bill. There is no recognition of the truth; the Government's oil tax policies are fundamentally flawed and motivated not by logic but by ideology and greed. The Government has a role to play in the coal, uranium and oil industries. It should assist by ensuring that exports are freely allowed subject to the sorts of safeguards I spoke of before. Secondly, it must help to lift the burden of our labour policy which imposes an unnecessary discipline on private sector investment. Thirdly, it must reduce the present unduly harsh tax burden which serves as a real disincentive. It gives no incentive to an industry which could contribute so much at a time when Australia is in such an economic crisis in the international scene. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy)(3.15) —Mr Deputy Speaker, yesterday when the Opposition proposed this discussion of a matter of public importance I thought it was rather incredible. I think it is astounding that it has proposed it again today. What we have heard from the tired old war horse, the right honourable member for New England, the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair), would not have passed for a schoolboy essay. There was total confusion as to whether he was prepared to look at the reality of commodity markets, whether he wanted to get into socialist planning, or whether he just wanted to have a bit of a dig at a few areas where there may be inconsistencies in the way governments over the years have addressed some of these very complex questions. I am absolutely amazed by some of the statements he has made. When he was last in government, Australia's coal exports as a share of total world markets were 14.4 per cent; today they are 27.4 per cent. Yet, he wants to focus on coal. I am also truly staggered by his remarks on uranium. Olympic Dam has not even started producing uranium yet. The Ranger mine will be able effectively to double its capacity by 1993-95. I must tell him that people are not actually falling over themselves trying to buy our uranium. There is a world glut of uranium. The world markets will not recover until at least the mid-1990s. Oil exploration is now on the way up. I would have thought that all those market-driven people on the Opposition benches would have conceded that oil exploration has some correlation to the price of oil. Over recent years many Australian-based oil explorers have been getting into consortiums, involving themselves off-shore in countries adjacent to Australia and effectively adopting a very sensible strategy for Australia's long term interests. This Government is not interfering in many of the vital commercial decisions that these companies should make. That is, by and large, the direction we are taking. The right honourable member for New England was totally confused. He simply did not know where he was. He seems to have just remembered that he is the Opposition spokesman for resources and trade. Unfortunately for him, he had not researched the subject very well, otherwise he would have found that this Government's record in minerals and energy trade is one that we are very happy to debate and that the Opposition's record when it was in government, administered by the right honourable member's predecessor as the Leader of the National Party, was not one that bears close examination-Doug of export controls. Our exercise of the export control power, which is one of the main instruments for controlling trade, has been based on the premise that where export control is plainly in the national interest we will exercise it. Where no national interest benefit can be demonstrated we have had no hesitation in removing and reducing export controls. We do not regard these debates about privatisation, public ownership and regulation or deregulation from an ideological perspective: we look at the realities of the situations and the commodities and we get on with the business of trying to create the best environment possible for those industries. Before I refer to some of the specifics of our policies I will first make a few comparisons which demonstrate how the minerals and energy industries have fared under our reasonable approach compared with the restrictive and burdensome regime of the Fraser-Anthony years. Since 1982-83, the real value of resource exports has increased by 53 per cent. Despite the terms of trade fall in 1985-86 and 1986-87, the value of output of the mining industry has increased by more than 40 per cent in real terms. The value of alumina exports has increased by 43 per cent; zinc, by 57 per cent; copper, by 43 per cent; iron ore, by 18 per cent; and gold, by about six-fold. Yet the honourable member still comes in here and sets up the straw man of the myth that agriculture and minerals do not count. My portfolio now administers policies associated with 84 per cent of Australia's exports. No one in the Government is saying that we should in any way relent in our efforts to promote agricultural and resource and energy trade. We are saying that when the world markets demonstrate to us so convincingly every day that world commodity markets can be corrupted so easily by the rich and powerful nations it is madness to put all our pennies in that basket. We have to try to diversify our economy, but for those agricultural, mineral and energy commodities we have to get into value adding. We have to enhance their capacity to contribute more to national income and we have to take off regulations. That is what we have been doing where it has been in the interests of the industry. Crude oil exports have increased from zero to $782m in 1986-87. Without the sorts of improvements I have just spoken about and without the Government's policies our balance of payments would be in a worse situation than it is in now. The Government is fully aware of that. Let us turn to specific policies within this sector, in particular the crude oil market. The market was heavily regulated by the Fraser Government. Exports were restricted, prices were set, crude oil liftings were specified by the Government and a highly complex system of levies on the industry was developed. On 1 January 1988 the crude oil market will be deregulated and the Government no longer will be making the detailed decisions for this industry which the Opposition was quite prepared to make when it was in government. It made a virtue of it. Exports and imports will be allowed and producers and refiners will negotiate prices and sales which optimise their own operations. The consumer and the country will be the winners. We have also allowed free market sales of crude oil-something that was never allowed by the Fraser Government. Indeed, as I mentioned, crude oil exports accounted for $782m worth of exports in 1986-87, and producers now will be able to take advantage of the riches in the world market-to the benefit of Australia's trade position. The Fraser Administration, of which the right honourable member was a member, would not allow that. We are also rationalising the crude oil excise system. The system of excise and royalty, or even royalty, or even royalty alone, together with export restrictions-a system put in place by the Opposition-would never have allowed new fields such as Jabiru and Challis to get off the ground. The resource rent tax has been welcomed by the more sensible parts of the oil industry as the most rational way for the Government to take some return for the community from the community's own resource. Under the resource rent tax a project is taxed only when super-profits exist. High cost marginal projects escape the tax altogether. We have made similar rationalisations in the administration of this industry through the introduction of cash bidding for some exploration blocks. This greatly reduced the administrative involvement in awarding acreage. We have streamlined and eased the burden of the crude oil excise system. On-shore oil producers, for example, now pay no crude oil excise. That seems to be some encouragement. The downstream part of the oil industry is now almost too competitive, if we want to take it a bit further. The competition which exists between the petrol marketers, I guess to the great benefit of consumers, has resulted in a very lean and competitive refining-marketing sector with relatively low profitability. In the minerals area, our approach will bear any examination the Opposition cares to attempt. The industry is not now administered according to the whims of powerful interest groups. The mechanisms of environmental impact statements, the Australian Heritage Commission and export controls have been administered so as to allow the benefit and costs of conflicting land use to be carefully weighed. We will be looking at this process in even more depth in the near future to ensure that it is working as efficiently as possible. It is a legitimate and necessary area of government involvement which the Opposition barely even acknowledged, let alone tackled. Our policy on uranium has allowed that industry to make a significant contribution to the economic well-being of this country, while keeping well within the safeguard requirements necessary when dealing with radioactive material. The open slather policy advocated by the Opposition, if that is what it is advocating today, would not have increased that contribution by one dollar. As I have already said, the existing three mines have the capacity to double their output to take advantage of any improvement in the world market. The Government itself holds 2,268 tonnes which is quite prepared to sell, yet the Leader of the National Party said that we are holding this up because we are stopping the export of yellowcake. That is what we are actually exporting. I thought even he would have found that out. It is interesting to point out some of the realities of the market-place. We have a three-mine policy-we have three mines-and we have a minimum price. Our prices are spot prices, and with those sorts of controls we cannot hold the world market; but the world market itself really does mean that investment at this time is rather a nonsense. We will not get a greater slice of the world market by taking an open slather approach to uranium mines. We now know that the various nuclear projects that the Opposition has been drawn to from time to time-such as the Jervis Bay nuclear power station and a uranium enrichment plant-would have, in terms of the economic costs and benefits, left us with many very expensive white elephants. I have already referred to some of the points raised with respect to coal exports. Our policies on coal exports have allowed that industry's export tonnage almost to double since 1982-83 and the value of those exports to increase by 77 per cent. We have moved from being an also-ran in the world export stakes to being the world's leading coal exporter. That is not an indicator of restrictions and burdens. My predecessor-he was criticised for it by the coal unions-even removed additional controls such that we do not send coal exporters abroad with price guidelines but we exercise a monitoring role after contract negotiations have been started to see that Australian coal companies do not bid against each other and bid the price down. That policy is working very well. I have taken key crucial decisions in respect of both steaming coal and metallurgical coal exports since I have been Minister, and the way those controls have been exercised has been beneficial to the industry. So, really, we are implementing a policy of encouragement and minimum involvement in commercial negotiations, and that has been successful in allowing this industry to be a major positive contributor to our balance of payments. To sum up, this matter of public importance is more an indicator of the Opposition spokesman's inexperience in this area of policy. His speech was so bad that I think he must have written it himself. He has really chosen an area in which the Government has a strong record of achievement, a record which I have no qualms in comparing with the Opposition's directions less ad hockery I wish to pick up just a few more points. My colleague the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin), I guess, will address the coal industry a lot more; but one of the matters the Leader of the National Party picked up was work practices. If we look at the North West Shelf to see what happened in the iron ore province there and look at the enormous amount of concessions given by trade unions in very willing negotiations with the companies, we see that many work practice problems have been resolved very satisfactorily. If we look at what has been achieved at the enterprise level between management and labour in the coal mines in the western district of New South Wales, we find that concessions have been made by the trade union movement-$215 a week in one case, and a 50 per cent cut in bonuses in another case. Even then those mines are still at risk, partly because of high State charges but not because of anything to do with productivity. The reality for some of the very efficient mines in that area is that they would have to cut wages by another 60 per cent to get costs down by another $5 a tonne. The problem is the world market price as well as State charges. The problem does not lie in work practice negotiations at all. The Leader of the National Party talked about regulations. I have already addressed that pretty effectively. We are taking regulations off where they are acting as an impediment to any of these industries. I guess it took the greatest gall, of course, for the Leader of the National Party to talk about taxes. If we look at oil and petrol excise, we see that the Fraser-Anthony years were the years of greatest tax on this industry. They got on it and they could not get off it; it was like a narcotic. Many other things need to be analysed if we are to look at this whole complex industry instead of bringing into this place fatuous matters of public importance. I thought the right honourable member might even have referred at one stage to the exchange rate. One of the realities is that the exchange rate is now affecting the profitability of the people in these industries which are so exposed on world markets. Part of the problem I have in explaining to some people the reasons these industries are in trouble is our enormous exposure on world markets because we have been very successful in getting a greater share of those markets. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Opposition's matter of public importance today really should be treated with contempt. The Opposition ought to put a bit more homework into it, do a bit more research and try to see whether it can put up something that makes a bit of sense. Mr SMITH(Bass)(3.29) —I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate on a matter of public importance-- Motion (by Mr West) agreed to: That the business of the day be called on. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(3.30) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, and by reason of the urgent nature of the work, it is expedient that the following proposed work be carried out without having been referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works: Construction of survey motor launches for the Royal Australian Navy. This proposal is to acquire four survey motor launches to enhance the Royal Australian Navy's capabilities to conduct surveys of Australia's inshore waters. Australia's present survey force includes HMAS Cook, Flinders and Moresby which provide the major effort in offshore operations. The Navy uses the two heavy landing crafts, Brunei and Betano, for inshore surveys. However, these two craft are designed for amphibious work and landing supplies. They are not suited to survey work. The acquisition of the survey motor launches has been deferred for some years due to financial constraints. However, their acquisition is now urgent to enable the surveying of coastal waters, particularly around northern Australia. The survey of northern coastal waters has important strategic and commercial implications. For instance, several commercial vessels have run aground in recent years. Better charts are urgently needed for the inshore waters to minimise the risks of commercial loss, environmental disasters and possible loss of life. Naval operations in these waters are also dependent on sufficient charting resources. There is also an international obligation to survey Australia's coastal waters. Tenders for the construction of the launches closed in October 1986 and evaluation of the responses has now been completed. It is intended that a contract will be awarded next month with the first survey launch being completed in November 1988. The fourth and final launch is to be delivered in October 1989. The estimated total project cost is $28m at September 1986 prices. As the construction of the launches is now urgent, it is not appropriate for the proposal to be referred to the Joint Committee on Public Works for consideration and report. It has not been possible to bring this proposal to the House at an earlier date due to the sensitive nature of the tenders and the requirements for a detailed evaluation process. Any deferral of the construction program which I have just detailed could result in additional costs to rectify degradation of essential equipment to be installed in the craft. Additional costs may be incurred if the contract is not awarded by October 1987. If the House agrees to support this motion, the contract can now be awarded and detailed planning and construction can commence. I commend to the House this motion that it is expedient to carry out this important work. Mr PORTER(Barker)(3.34) —Regrettably, this is yet another example of this Government's gross administrative incompetence. We have heard many examples today of the Government's inability to administer its departments and properly to get on with the job of government. This is yet another example. The Government requests that the purchase of these vessels not be considered by the Joint Committee on Public Works. That Committee normally has the job of reviewing government purchases. Its role as set out in 17 (3) (a) of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, is to have regard to: the stated purpose of the work and its suitability for that purpose . . . In other words, the Committee's role is to consider whether the Government's request for expenditure of money is appropriate. It must consider whether the work will achieve its goal or whether it will be a white elephant. The Government is saying to us, `We do not want the Public Works Committee to consider this proposal. We want the Parliament to accept that it is urgent.' The Public Works Committee Act allows works to be approved without being referred to the Public Works Committee, provided: The House of Representatives has resolved that, by reason of the urgent nature of the work, it is expedient that it be carried out without having been referred to the Committee . . . Let us look at the explanation put up by the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) for the urgency. First, he said, `We have not gone ahead with this project to acquire survey motor launches for some years because of financial constraints.' The project has been around for a number of years, but the Government has not acted upon it because it says that it has not had the money. Suddenly, today, the Minister says to the House, `This acquisition is now most urgent to enable the surveying of coastal waters, particularly around northern Australia'. Why is the need suddenly most urgent? The project has been before the Government for years. The Government did not have the money before, but suddenly it has found the money, so it rushes into the House and says that the project is most urgent because `we have to survey the coastal waters, particularly around northern Australia'. All this week and last we heard about the Amann Aviation fiasco. The Government clearly has not been able to get its act together to establish proper contracts for the air surveillance of northern Australia. So it is no wonder that the Government rushes in here today and says, `We need these boats now to survey the coastal waters, particularly around northern Australia'. Why has there been this sudden rush? Why, after a couple of years, is the Government rushing into the Parliament and saying that it is now urgent? Is the explanation in the Minister's speech? He said: Tenders for the construction of the launches closed in October 1986 and evaluation of the responses has now been completed. Why did the Minister not refer the work to the Public Works Committee when the Government started considering funding of the project and called for tenders last year? Why were the works not referred then? There is deathly silence from the Government. The Government has to come up with a better explanation than is in the three-page speech. The Government says that the project has been around for years but that it has not had the money. Then the Government decided that it would allocate the money, so a year ago it put the project out to tender. But the Government still did not bring the matter before the Public Works Committee. Now the Government suddenly says that the project is most urgent, giving no explanation. The Minister said in his statement: It has not been possible to bring this proposal to the House at an earlier date due to the sensitive nature of the tenders and the requirements for a detailed evaluation process. Is that not the case with most tenders that the Government lets or puts out? Are not all tenders sensitive? Certainly there are commercial sensitivities. Do not all tenders require a detailed evaluation? That is no excuse. Mr Beale —The coastal surveillance contract did not get one. They did not get a detailed evaluation. Mr PORTER —My colleague is quite right. Suddenly the Government is concerned about detailed evaluations of tenders. The Minister then said: It is intended that a contract will be awarded next month with the first survey launch being completed in November 1988. So on the death knock the Government wants to award the tender next month and, on the death knock, it rushes into this Parliament and says, `Heavens above, we cannot refer it to the Public Works Committee because we want to award the contract next month'. No explanation is given as to why suddenly it is urgent for the Government to award this tender. I put it to the Minister, who is seated at the table, that the program has been around for a couple of years. The Government sought tenders last year and now it wants to award them next month. There is no excuse other than gross administrative incompetence for the Minister rushing into the House and saying that the matter is now urgent. It is no more urgent than it has been for the last three years. Mr Young —It is-much more. Mr PORTER —Why? Mr Young —You will know when the announcements are made. Stop knocking South Australia. Mr Beale —This Parliament is supposed to debate that sort of thing. Mr PORTER —This is the point. There is something behind this motion. Again the Government is not telling the full story. The Minister is saying that there is some reason but he is not prepared to give us the reason. That is interesting because as I understand it the real reason to declare the acquisition as now being urgent is the Government's gross administrative incompetence. The tenders were called last October and they become void at the end of next month. So the Government is not telling the Parliament-but this is the case-that the Government has bungled again and it is asking us, `Please do not delay these contracts because they are urgent. If you ask us to explain we will have to say that we have bungled again'. The Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young), has just said, `We cannot explain to you now the reason why we want to declare this urgent'. I know that he cannot. The Government has bungled again. How many bungles have we unearthed this week? Mr Young —You only have to read your speech on the front page of the Advertiser tomorrow. Mr PORTER —It would be a nice change to read some of my speeches on the front page of the Advertiser. The residents of South Australia would be better off if they read some of my speeches on the front page of the Advertiser. The Minister for Administrative Services says that there is another reason the Government is seeking to declare this project urgent. He said: Any deferral of the construction program that I have just detailed could result in additional costs to rectify degradation of essential equipment to be installed in the craft. I ask the Minister: what on earth does that mean? Does that mean that the Government has actually bought some of the equipment that will go on these survey vessels and if we do not immediately buy the vessels then the equipment in some way will be-- Mr Millar —Subject to degradation. Mr PORTER —The equipment will be subject to degradation. What does the Minister mean? Has the Government bought the gear and left it out in the open? Mr Ruddock —Haven't you got a shed to put it in? Mr PORTER —Doesn't the Government have a shed to put it in? What on earth is going on? I want to know what the Minister means when he says: Any deferral of the construction program that I have just detailed could result in additional costs to rectify degradation of essential equipment to be installed in the craft. What does the Minister mean? We tried to find out. We went and asked people in the Minister's office. They said, `We do not know. Go and see Beazley. He is the one responsible'. So we went and saw the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) and he said, `Oh no, it is West's problem'. This is another classic example of the new administrative arrangements. No one is responsible in this Government. We know that it is a balls-up but Ministers are now trying to shift the responsibility. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for Barker will withdraw that type of language. Mr Beale —It is sometimes called a big, big mess-up. Mr PORTER —Mr Deputy Speaker, I withdraw. Clearly, it is a very big mess-up. I just cannot believe that this Government can come into this House with this pathetic excuse for its gross administrative incompetence. It cannot effectively run its tendering processes; we have seen that quite clearly over the last two weeks. The Ministers do not know who on earth is in charge of these programs and now, on the death knock, because the tenders will be invalid at the end of next month, because the Government is running out of time, the Minister has rushed into this House to declare the project urgent without a scrap of support for the declaration of urgency. This Government has had this project lying around for two or three years. It opened the tenders a year ago and now, on the death knock, the Minister rushes into this House and says that the matter is urgent. Let me tell the Minister that this is a classic example of the bungling that is going on in the Government. There may well be some other reasons why the Government does not want the Public Works Committee to have a look at these projects because last week we discovered that an internal investigation is being undertaken in the Department of Defence into allegations of corruption and fraud in the tendering of contracts for defence equipment. The Canberra Times detailed the allegations in an article headed `Defence-deals fraud alleged'. What are the allegations? The article states: The allegations are believed to refer to relatively unknown companies with allegedly dubious backgrounds, said to account for about 20 per cent of direct purchases for supplies placed by the Department of Defence. . . . . . . . . . . . . Another fraudulent procedure allegedly in use in the department is the amendment of provisional action priority review documents, so that deficiencies in stock and liabilities could be written off and new orders placed to overcome them. Is that why the Government is trying to avoid any investigation of this project? Is this one of the projects that is under internal review because of allegations of fraud and corruption? What does the Government have to hide in relation to the awarding of tenders in this case? There is no substance to the reasons that the Minister has given for declaring this matter urgent. His excuse is paper thin. There is no substance to the argument for the declaration of urgency. We find that the project has been around for three years and that the Government is seeking a declaration of urgency for a defence contract at a time when there are serious allegations of fraud and corruption in the tendering process in the Department of Defence for defence equipment. I understand that this is a defence contract to be let by the Royal Australian Navy for survey motor launches. I believe that it is time for the Government to come clean on this issue. We have raised genuine concerns. Clearly, it is not a matter to be declared urgent and the Government ought to come clean. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. I call the honourable member for McPherson. Mr Young —How long will you be? Mr WHITE(McPherson)(3.49) —This is an important matter because we are talking about $28m for this project. Mr Beale —If you have a lot of business why did you bring on the stupid censure motion this morning? Mr WHITE —The Opposition has already outlined why we are not happy with this proposal. It is a proposal to bypass the parliamentary system. If the Government is short of time, as the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) has said, why did it move that stupid censure motion this morning, waste the Parliament's time, and-not that we minded-give us all of those free kicks? If it wants to move another one when Parliament resumes, that will be fine. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member might return to the matter that is before the House. Mr WHITE —I see that the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young) is present. No doubt the next thing he will say is that the Opposition is anti-Australian business because we are questioning a $28m contract which the Government is trying to slide through without any scrutiny. Mr Young —Where do the white-shoe brigade stand on the ID card in your electorate? Mr WHITE —Would not the Minister like to tip a bit of that on me. The fact is that this matter has been brought in as a matter of some urgency. There is no urgency about it. The Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) stated: The acquisition of the survey motor launches has been deferred for some years due to financial constraints. All of a sudden it is urgent. He continued: Tenders for the construction of the launches closed in October 1986. . . That is a few days short of 12 months. All of a sudden, the Minister tries to convince us that it is urgent. Inquiries this morning to the Minister's office and to the office of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) were entirely unsatisfactory. One passed the buck to the other. After going to Minister Beazley's office, I was told, `Go and see Minister West, he is the bloke who is responsible for all this'. I went to Minister West's office and spoke to one of his staff, as he was not there. The staff member said, `No, it has nothing to do with us, the Minister is just moving. You should see the Minister for Defence'. Mr Beale —It's as bad as Biggles and Bungles. Mr Young —You should have been here during the Fraser Government. Boy, were they beauties. Mr WHITE —It is no wonder that the Government has problems with the identity card if this is the way in which it conducts its business. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is far too much interjection and noise. We might deal with notice No. 9. We will not have any more interjections from either side. Mr WHITE —At last someone from one of the offices said, `The real reason that we want this put through is because we would have had it by now except that the election interfered with it'. Who called the election? Three months later the Government is blaming us and telling the House that this is a matter of urgency and must be put through. A suggestion has also been put to me that naval vessels should not be considered by the Public Works Committee (PWC). I do not know whether there is any validity in that suggestion. Mr Young —Yes. Mr WHITE —If there is, why does the Government not amend the legislation, if it is so convinced of it? The same thing happened when the submarine contract was being considered by the House. When the Minister for Defence read his speech regarding the submarine contract, he said, `It is too complicated, we don't want it to go to the PWC'. It was quite clear that he never had any intention of referring it to the Public Works Committee. It is also quite clear, from talking to members of his staff today, that there was no intention of referring this matter to the Public Works Committee, either. The Government will ram it through on the pretext that it is urgent. Mr Deputy Speaker, it is not good enough. There should have been some Public Works Committee scrutiny of the submarine contract. The Minister for Defence has entered the chamber. He might be able to answer this point. It is an appropriate time for him to come in. Mr Beale —No, it's West's problem, not his. Mr WHITE —Is it? I ask the Minister for Defence: whose problem is it? Is it his problem or is it the problem of the Minister for Administrative Services? Had the submarine contract been subjected to some proper scrutiny, we might have got the answers to some questions that are plaguing the submarine contract right now. The Minister said that all the submarines would be built in Australia. How much of the first submarine will now be built in Sweden? Perhaps he could answer that. He might also tell us which performance standards will be adhered to by the Government. Which performance standard is the Government insisting on from the Australian Submarine Corporation (ASC), which will build the submarine? Are they the performance standards submitted by ASC or are they the performance standards which the Royal Australian Navy upgraded by taking the ASC standards and upgrading them? Perhaps he can answer that. Also, while the Minister is present, he might tell us who is responsible and who will pick up the tab for the final integration of the combat systems with the vessel? We would not be asking those questions if the PWC had had a chance to scrutinise the matter. The thing that really annoys members on this side of the House is the arrogance of this Government. When one dares to go to Minister's offices and ask questions, they say, `What's this? Why are we being questioned about this? We want to put this through. It is none of your business'. If the Government had had any chance of it going through with some degree of co-operation, it blew it this morning when I visited the office of the Minister for Defence to ask some simple questions about what it was all about. It was like drawing blood out of a stone. Eventually someone rang up and very grudgingly gave a few details when we tried to establish why this was such an urgent matter. It was very unsatisfactory. The same thing happened in regard to the office of the Minister for Administrative Services. No satisfactory explanation has been given as to why this matter has suddenly become urgent. The fact is that the Government and the Minister for Defence had no intention of ever referring this matter to the Public Works Committee. They are trying in an arrogant way to bypass the system and ram it through in the hope that we will agree to it. Mr Deputy Speaker, we certainly do not. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr HUMPHREYS(Griffith-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(3.57) —I move: That this House- (1) recognises the importance of the National Welcome Home Parade of Vietnam Veterans in Sydney on 3 October 1987; (2) notes that the Australian Armed Forces served with great distinction in Vietnam between 1962 and 1972, earning great credit for themselves and for this nation; (3) pays tribute to all Australian men and women who served in that theatre of war and honours the memory of those Australians who died in Vietnam in the service of their country; and (4) expresses its appreciation and the appreciation of the Australian people for the individual and collective commitment, effort and sacrifice of its sailors, soldiers and airmen, men and women alike, who took part in the Vietnam conflict. I think it is very important to have read the terms of the motion so that all of those persons who are listening to the broadcast of the debate today-especially Vietnam veterans-will understand what we are doing. It gives me very great pleasure, as the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, to speak to this motion. I am very pleased to be associated with the Vietnam veterans' national reunion to be held in Sydney from 2 October to 7 October, which is next week. I would like to thank the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) for bringing this matter to my attention. I am very pleased that the honourable member will second this motion. As most honourable members would know, the honourable member for Farrer is a Vietnam veteran. I think he suffered a shrapnel wound in Vietnam. I am also pleased to see that the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), who is also a Vietnam veteran, is present. There is a bipartisan approach to this motion. I am very pleased to say that the honourable member for Farrer was the instigator of the motion. I also thank the Leader of the House and Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young) for allowing us time to debate this motion. I know he is also very concerned about, and pays great tribute to, the Vietnam veterans of this nation. As I said, it is pleasing to see that the honourable member for McPherson is present. I had the honour, with the honourable member for McPherson, of being part of a parliamentary delegation to Vietnam. It was very interesting to speak to Vietnamese Government officials and also to hear both sides of the story. The visit brought back many memories to the honourable member for McPherson. It also showed members of the delegation, at first hand, the destruction, devastation and suffering of the Vietnamese people. They suffered as Australian service men and women did. I take a special interest in Vietnam veterans because my nephew was a member of the United States forces in Vietnam. He was conscripted to serve as a member of the United States Army's medical corps in Vietnam. When I visited the United States as the Parliament's representative at the United Nations in 1985, I had an opportunity to go to Texas to speak to my nephew. I can assure honourable members that he had some very sad stories to tell. We have all seen movies where the medic is called in to help his colleagues and comrades wounded in combat. He had to do just that. He is not the same young man who had to go to Vietnam. Likewise, many young men and women in Australia suffer as my nephew does. Some honourable members may be wondering why my nephew served with the United States Army. My eldest sister was a war bride. She is now an American citizen and lives there. That is the connection. My sister married an American soldier just after the Second World War. That is why I pay tribute to not only Australian Vietnam veterans but also American Vietnam veterans. I pay a special tribute to the previous Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Arthur Gietzelt. I can assure honourable members and the Parliament that he was instrumental in ensuring that Vietnam veterans were given a hearing in the Parliament, the Caucus and especially in Cabinet. He was instrumental in $15,000 of taxpayers' money being granted to ensure that the reunion is a success. I also pay tribute to the organisers of the march. A tremendous amount work has been done behind the scenes. I am sure that it will be a great period for all Australian men and women who are able to witness the proceedings of the week. I am sure that the event will bring back many memories. I pay tribute to the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) for his support to the Vietnam veterans by supplying aircraft so that service men and women from Perth, Darwin and other far-away places can go to Sydney. For those who are disabled and are not able to make their own way, the Government, and especially the Minister for Defence, have made available not only aircraft but also Land-Rovers. Many other services will be provided by defence personnel and I am sure that many disabled veterans will be housed. I thank the Secretary to my Department, Mr Noel Tanzer, and all the deputy commissioners around Australia who have assisted Vietnam veterans. I inform those veterans who may be listening to the broadcast today that the Vietnam Veterans' Counselling Service will be open in Sydney, the hospitals will be open for those who have problems, and other assistance will be provided. I think that 100 wheelchairs are being supplied by the Department in Sydney. I also thank the State governments, most of which have donated $10,000 towards the reunion. One can imagine there being thousands of Vietnam veterans in Sydney at that time, many of whom, with their families, will have to be billeted. I thank those involved in that area for providing assistance. I also thank those in private enterprise who have donated, together with the Returned Services League of Australia and other organisations. Their contributions have been very valuable in terms of organising this great reunion. It is important to inform honourable members that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has let my office know what arrangements will be made for those wanting to make donations so we can pass on the information to the Vietnam executive which is organising the march. Any donation which a person wants to make to Vietnam veterans will be tax deductible if it is made to a charitable organisation which is willing to accept donations. I urge all Australians to support this celebration, this reunion, of the Vietnam veterans in Sydney. I hope that people will line the routes of the march. I am sure that it will be a very interesting time and will be very encouraging for those Australian men and women who served our country in the Vietnam encounter. A total of 49,211 Australian service men and women served in Vietnam; 19,450 were national servicemen and 44,295 were conscripted but never went to Vietnam. A total of 41,910 were members of the Army; 4,443, the Air Force; and 2,858, the Navy. I hope that the same number of persons involved will be there on the day. I conclude by reading to the Parliament and to all those listening the Prime Minister's message to the Vietnam veterans: On the occasion of the Australian Vietnam Forces National Reunion and Welcome Home Parade, Sydney, October 1987, I should like to convey to Australia's Vietnam veterans my own and our nation's best wishes. This special commemorative event enables all of us to reflect on the significance for Australia of our ten year involvement in the Vietnam War. Although all Australian forces were withdrawn from Vietnam 14 years ago, Vietnam may never in a sense be withdrawn from the lives and minds of many of our veterans and their families. There is, of course, no denying the fact that the Vietnam war was one of the most divisive and disturbing issues in Australia's history. But equally, whatever our individual views on the merits of Australian involvement, all of us acknowledge the courage, dedication and sacrifices of our forces in Vietnam. In that conflict, they demonstrated once again the traditional valour and professionalism of the Australian services. To our Vietnam veterans, and to all who participate in the Commemorative Reunion in Sydney this October, I should like to say personally, and on behalf of all Australians, that we share a sense of pride, gratitude and respect for you and your fallen comrades. You have honoured us with your deeds and with your sacrifices. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(4.08) —On behalf of the Opposition, I support the motion before the House, which gives recognition to Australian Vietnam veterans, and indicate the Opposition's total support for the wording of the motion. This is one of those unique bipartisan occasions. I am pleased to report that, partly at my instigation, the Senate has passed a motion along similar lines today. No doubt the House will do so shortly. I am pleased that I will be joined in my support for the motion by the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White). We are the only two members of Parliament who are Vietnam veterans. Perhaps it is a reflection of the passage of time that, following the most recent election, there are now only five returned servicemen in the Federal Parliament. But that does not in any way take away from the sense of feeling associated with the motion before the Chair. Vietnam veterans of Australia are finally to be welcomed home in a national welcome home parade to be held in Sydney on Saturday, 3 October. The weekend, quite properly, includes reunions, probably a very moving wreath-laying ceremony at 4.30 a.m. in Martin Place, and the parade itself. It has been organised by the Australian Vietnam Forces Reunion Committee under the chairmanship of the hardworking Mr Peter Poulton. It will allow Vietnam veterans to show that they are proud to have served their country. It is vital that the Australian people and the Australian Parliament do not pass up the opportunity to make this truly a welcoming home by the nation. For this reason the Opposition instigated in both Houses of Parliament the raising of a motion recognising the parade and the dedication of Australian Vietnam veterans. As the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys) has indicated, some 49,211 Australians served in Vietnam. Very sadly, only some 48,700 Australians returned from Vietnam. Some 500 Australians never returned from Vietnam. This tragic war, which resulted in turmoil in Vietnam for decades, also claimed the lives of over 2 million Vietnamese. Our Australian Vietnam veterans gave it their very best. They fought in very difficult circumstances and showed a great deal of determination and dedication, and all the while maintained the high standards set by Australian soldiers in other conflicts. In many ways, the Vietnam conflict was unique. For example, there was the advent of the ultra-modern helicopter as a form of transport, the advent of instant television coverage of the war and a range of other factors. It was a war in which the commitment of the Western nations declined as the casualties mounted and as time marched on. It was a war which attracted world-wide controversy and, tragically, the troops serving there unfairly attracted some of the blame associated with that controversy. Yet, the sacrifice made by thousands of Australian sailors, soldiers, airmen, nursing staff and other personnel has never been fully recognised. On the positive side, some good things did eventuate because of Australia's involvement in the war. Medical advances in the treatment of injuries have significantly benefited, and this will help future generations. As well, Australia's military organisation was shown to be cohesive and strong. Its soldiers were well disciplined and professional and, above all, under extreme pressure they coped with the problems of being involved in a very controversial and difficult war. Vietnam veterans can understandably be disappointed with their welcome home up until now. Controversy surrounding Australia's involvement in Vietnam and disappointment about the outcome of that conflict have left Australians unsure about how to express their appreciation for the individual commitment, effort and sacrifice shown by those Australians who went. However, we hope that on this long weekend in October that will all change. The weekend is the culmination of efforts made by the Australian Vietnam Forces Reunion Committee and its Chairman, Peter Poulton, and several hundred organising behind the scenes. This Committee has not only organised and publicised the event but arranged for over 500 financially disadvantaged and disabled veterans to be flown into Sydney for the march. I acknowledge the contribution made by the Government, by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) and by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs in the provision of Hercules and other forms of Royal Australian Air Force transport to assist with that movement. It is hoped that over 20,000 Vietnam veterans from across the nation will attend, and, significantly, the parade will also include contingents from Korea, the Philippines, Thailand and New Zealand, and a large group from the United States, as well as a South Vietnamese contingent comprised of veterans living in Australia. This march and weekend follows the successful welcoming home of United States Vietnam veterans, which was held in Chicago from 12 to 15 June 1986. I have in my hand a copy of the welcome home parade booklet and poster associated with that very successful parade. In Chicago, a huge tickertape parade was organised, and it included an Australian contingent. It was truly a recognition that the veterans of Vietnam had served their country and deserved the respect and appreciation of its people. However, even though the Government has announced its support for the parade, and that support is shared across Australia, up till now there has not been a statement from the Parliament of its appreciation of the sacrifices made by Australians in Vietnam. This motion rectifies that, both in the lower House and, as I said earlier, in the Senate earlier this afternoon. Now, the nation and the Parliament have the ideal opportunity to remedy the defect of never having said, in a formal sense `Thank you' to the people who risked their lives in the Australian national interest. Not to be actively involved in this welcome home parade now, either directly or indirectly, would be to pass up the best opportunity we are likely ever to have to extend a welcome home, even if it is some 10 years to late. The Australian Vietnam forces welcome home parade should be supported by our whole nation, either directly or indirectly. I commend both the motion and the national welcome home parade for our Vietnam veterans to the nation as a whole. I would only add that Australian troops in Vietnam were not into drugs, even if they were into alcohol on occasions-I suppose that that is part of our fighting tradition. They were not into civilian massacres and mayhem. They were into giving disciplined and dedicated service, giving forth their best in extremely difficult circumstances. By this bipartisan motion, we thank them and welcome them home at last, and we wish them well. The House might allow me to say: `We went, we served and we are glad that we are going to be welcomed home at last'. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(4.16) —I wish briefly to express my support for the motion and to be associated with it as a Vietnam veteran and also as the shadow Minister for Defence. I pay tribute on behalf of all Australians to all those who served in Vietnam. All wars are savage and difficult, and all people who served in particular theatres believe that that was probably the most savage and difficult of the lot. Who is to judge? Certainly, Vietnam was no different in that regard. It took its toll of life and limb and of the mental health of many people, some of whom are still suffering. In some ways, it was more difficult. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys) paid tribute to the national servicemen who served in Vietnam. In some ways it was more difficult for them because they were hauled off the streets, so to speak, trained and often were in Australia one day and within 24 hours, without any adjustment period, were in the middle of a theatre of war. I pay tribute to them. I was a company commander at the time and half the soldiers that I had were national servicemen. Within a matter of weeks of those people joining the company one would not have known who was a national serviceman and who was a regular. What is more, one would not have cared. All that mattered was who did the job properly. Unfairly, servicemen have been blamed for that war. People say, `You were in Vietnam, therefore, you must be one of the guilty parties'. In this House, at one stage a couple of years ago, I was accused of being a hired killer because I had been in Vietnam. I hope that that sort of sentiment has died down, because it should be clearly recognised that people who went to Vietnam went because the Government sent them there and not for any other reason. Over the years since their return, they have had little recognition and I hope that this march in a week's time will go a long way to redressing the imbalance and the lack of recognition that people who served in Vietnam have been accorded compared to the returned service men and women of other wars. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 6 October 1987, at 2 p.m., unless Madam Speaker fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(4.18) —I move: That, unless otherwise ordered, the following proposed standing order be adopted as a sessional order: General purpose standing committees 28B. (a) General purpose standing committees shall be appointed at the commencement of each Parliament as follows: (i) Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs; (ii) Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts; (iii) Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training; (iv) Standing Committee on Community Affairs; (v) Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs; (vi) Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology; (vii) Standing Committee on Infrastructure, and (viii) Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration. (b) A standing committee appointed pursuant to paragraph (a) shall be empowered to inquire into and report on any matters referred to it by either the House or a Minister including any pre-legislation proposal, Bill, motion, petition, vote or expenditure, other financial matter, report or paper. (c) Each committee appointed under subparagraphs (a) (i) to (iv) and (vi) to (viii), inclusive, shall consist of 12 members and the committee appointed under subparagraph (a) (v) shall consist of 10 members, with membership of each committee reflecting the proportion of Government to Opposition Members in the House, namely, 6 Government and 4 Opposition for a committee of 10 members and 7 Government and 5 Opposition for a committee of 12 members. Each committee may be supplemented with up to 3 members for a particular inquiry. Government members are to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips and Opposition members are to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips. (d) Every nomination of a member to a committee shall be forthwith notified in writing to the Speaker. (e) Each committee shall elect a Government member as its chairman. (f) Each committee shall elect a deputy chairman who shall act as a chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chairman at that meeting. (g) For a standing committee of 12 to 15 members, 6 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee including 4 Government members, and for a committee of 10 or 11 members, 5 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee including 3 Government members. (h) Each committee shall have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to any sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine. (i) Each committee shall appoint the chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only and at any time when the chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee the members of the sub-committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to act as chairman at that meeting. (j) The quorum of a sub-committee shall be a majority of the members of that sub-committee. (k) Members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may participate in the public proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (l) Each committee or any sub-committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records. (m) Each committee or any sub-committee shall have power to move from place to place. (n) Any sub-committee shall have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any sittings or adjournment of the House. (o) Each committee or any sub-committee shall have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (p) Each committee shall have leave to report from time to time. (q) Each committee or any sub-committee shall have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the relevant standing committees appointed during previous Parliaments. (r) Each committee shall have power to confer with a similar committee of the Senate. Parliament has a history of attempting to form committees after each election to deal with matters that may be raised between elections by notice of standing committees or select committees, joint committees between the two Houses, et cetera. In some ways it has been effective and in others it has left a great deal of criticism that perhaps the House of Representatives did not cover as broadly as should be the case, matters raised within this Parliament. This has a long history in that for a long time the Parliament had a very narrow view of the world. If we go back 30 or 40 years we find that the Parliament did not debate the wide range of matters that now come before it. It is true to say that there is hardly one issue affecting the lives of the Australian people that is not, at some stage, debated through legislation, general debate, interest or questions by members of the national Parliament. It is with this in mind that the Government has resolved that we should move to establish general purpose committees. I do not wish to go through them all. They are listed on the Notice Paper. Honourable members will see from them that with the addition of the joint committees which are being established, there is hardly an issue that cannot be covered. The references can come from the Minister or the House. The numbers of people to serve on the committees are listed. I have not been following the matter that closely but I understand from the Press that the Government has already elected the chairmen of the various committees. I understand that the Opposition will be doing likewise. It is hoped that we will be able to establish the committees as quickly as possible to have the sort of experience of them that we should have prior to our moving to the new Parliament. It may well be that people will have criticisms over the next 12 months of the committees which would require the Parliament-I do not say the Government-looking at some amendment to their operations. Nevertheless, this is an enormously important step that the Government takes in offering to the Parliament-particularly the Opposition-far greater latitude in the operation of the committee system than was ever given previously. Mr Tim Fischer —More than you want to give. Mr YOUNG —It is not more than I wanted to give. But let me say that it is more than the Liberal and National parties were ever prepared to give during their reign of government. As a member of the Opposition from 1975 to 1983 I know that we continually pressed the Fraser Government to look at expanding the committee system in the House of Representatives but we were denied on every possible occasion. This Government has taken the opportunity-- Mr McGauran —Five years to do it. Mr YOUNG —Well, we have just been elected for another three years. The truth is that the blokes opposite would not win an election with a shot of elephant juice. This is a very important step in the third term-- Mr McGauran —It is an afterthought. Mr YOUNG —I say to the honourable member for Gippsland that this is quite a simple proposition. If he does not like it, he should tell us not to have it. As Leader of the House and as a member of the Cabinet, if the honourable member from the Opposition tells us that he does not want this system I will carry the message back to Cabinet. Mr McGauran —It has taken too long to put this before us. Mr YOUNG —The honourable member has been busy filling in his colouring books and everything else while he has been sitting opposite for the last four years. He has another three years to go so he should just enjoy himself. Let us see which committee he could serve on. It could be the infrastructure committee, I think. Since the McGaurans own most of the things in Gippsland the honourable member should be pretty good on that committee. Those interjections were uncalled for and unseemly. Let me say that this Government has given the Opposition far greater flexibility in its dealing with these issues through the general purpose committees than has ever been the case previously. It is our sincere hope that the committees work successfully. If they need some minor tinkering when we move to the new Parliament, because of the operations or perhaps because of some criticism that members serving on the committees may have, the Government certainly will be only too willing to look at this. It has been the experience of all members of parliament that the committees are capable of doing an enormous amount of constructive work within the parliamentary system. When we are away from the microphones and the media and we have to sit around the table sorting out the various specific problems referred to committees, we find that the committees of this Parliament do enormously constructive and positive work. It is to be hoped that the general purpose committees which we now move to establish can live in the same way. Mr FIFE(Hume-Manager of Opposition Business)(4.24) —The Opposition welcomes the Government's move to expand the trend that was commenced by the Fraser Government when it established the Standing Committee on Expenditure. We echo the sentiments expressed by the Governor-General on 21 August 1983: This proposal would give members of parliament a more effective role and participation in the great affairs of this nation. Like the Government, the Opposition will watch very carefully the operations of the committees and we will not be hesitant to suggest alterations that might be made. Whilst we support the thrust of what the Government has in mind there are two matters that concern us. I would like to bring them to the attention of the House. The first is the indication from the Government that staffing and funding of the committee structure will not be increased. Whilst the Leader of the House (Mr Young) has gone to pains to point out that the number of committees will be increased, as I understand it, the Government has not proposed in this financial year to provide any additional staffing or funding. Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask the Leader of the House to go back to the Government to have this matter reviewed. If there is to be no increase in staffing and funding, it follows of course that the existing committees will not be serviced as well as they have been in the past-and those existing committees are vital and very important. I will mention one of them. The Joint Committee of Public Accounts is a very effective watch-dog on public expenditure. I would not want to see that Committee's activities stifled because of lack of proper staffing and facilities. In a spirit of co-operation, through you Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask the Leader of the House to give us an indication as to the degree of support that will be available in the current financial year and also an undertaking that he will request the Government to review the funding and staffing arrangements. The other matter that is of concern is in relation to the establishment of the Joint Committee on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. The current proposal before the House is for there to be three senators on the Committee, one from the Government and two from the Opposition, and four members of the House of Representatives, three Australian Labor Party members and one member from the Opposition. The Opposition is a coalition of the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia. We would very much like to see the representation from this chamber increased so as to accommodate two Opposition representatives. We would of course agree to an increase in the number of Government representatives. Our proposal is that the 3 : 1 arrangement in the House of Representatives be increased to 4 : 2. I am mindful that that proposal would require an amendment to the legislation. I give an undertaking, on behalf of the Opposition, that if the Government agrees with our proposal we will facilitate such an amendment. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser)(4.29) —I would like to congratulate the Government on its courage and commitment to strengthening the effectiveness of parliament in introducing the comprehensive committee system. Parliamentarians and commentators have been seeking this reform for two or three decades. So far no government has been willing to undertake it. So this reform is very important. It will increase the opportunities for backbenchers to be involved in thorough, comprehensive and careful study of particularly important questions. It will also give Ministers an additional forum in which they can present material or to which they can refer issues they regard as requiring further study and it will also give the public the opportunity to put before parliament ideas and information about subjects under discussion. It is a very important reform in strengthening the effectiveness of Parliament. It is a reform that a number of other Westminster-style parliaments have introduced. We are not leading the way in this, but we can draw on their experience in ensuring that this new committee system is effective. I think it will add in important ways to the effectiveness of all backbenchers and, I hope, to the effectiveness of the Government itself. I congratulate the Government on introducing this motion. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(4.31) —In addressing the motion establishing the general purpose standing committee, I also wish to canvass the role of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts in part. Let me first refer to the proposed Standing Orders for the committees. Under proposed Standing Order 28b (a), a number of committees are to be established. Paragraph (b) states: A standing committee appointed pursuant to paragraph (a) shall be empowered to inquire into and report on any matters referred to it by either the House or a Minister- In other words, the only matters that will be able to be considered by general purpose committees will be those matters which the responsible Minister or the Government are prepared to refer to those committees for inquiry or examination. In other words, the conduct of business before those committees is clearly in the hands of the Government; the amount of work the committees do will be in the hands of the Government; and the references that will be made will also be in the hands of the Government. It needs to be clearly understood that, unlike the Public Accounts Committee, the work load of each of those committees can be determined by the Government of the day. The Public Accounts Committee conversely is established under an Act of Parliament. Under its own charter the Public Accounts Committee has specific responsibilities to the Parliament; that is, to the House of Representatives and the Senate. At the moment the Public Accounts Committee has to consider a large number of matters referred to it by the Government, but under its charter it also has to look at all of those matters raised by the Auditor-General and to decide which ones warrant further inquiry by the Committee itself. To give some idea of the breadth of that charter, I would like, for the sake of brevity, to incorporate in Hansard a list of the matters that were before the Committee for consideration as at 1 June. Leave granted. The list read as follows- COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA JOINT PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS PARLIAMENT HOUSE CANBERRA, A.C.T. TEL. 72 7455 TELEX AA61689 FAX 727689 Our reference: A5/3/5 CURRENT REFERENCES/INQUIRIES (as at 1 June 1987) Amendments to the Audit Act Appointment of Auditors for Statutory Marketing Authorities Appointment of an independent Auditor of the Australian Audit Office Auditor-General's Reports on Efficiency Audits: Australian Wool Corporation Property Operations Export Inspection Services-Administration of Meat Inspection Administration of Capital Grants to Non-Government Schools Defence-PICES (Principal Item Stock Control and Entitlement System) Army Mapping Parliament House Construction Authority Offshore Petroleum Royalties and Excise Australian Customs Services-Licensing of Agents Australian Government Publishing Service Defence-RAAF Ammunition-Explosives Ordinance, compliance with NATO Safety Standards Expenditure from the Advance to the Minister for Finance: Appropriation Acts 1985-86 Appropriation Acts 1986-87 National Biological Standards Laboratory Responses Received on Report No: 241-Reports of Auditor General 1983-84 and September 1984 any Commonwealth Department or Authority of the Commonwealth Staffed Under the Public Service Act 1922: Australian Taxation Office Department of Housing and Construction Review of 1985 Reports of the Auditor-General Review of 1986 Reports of the Auditor-General Review of 1987 Reports of the Auditor-General Stratplan-Department of Social Security ADP Re-equipment Program ADP Staffing M. J. Talberg Secretary 1 June 1987 Mr RUDDOCK —There are some 10 efficiency audits from a larger number which have been divided between the old Standing Committee on Expenditure and the Public Accounts Committee for consideration. In addition, there was expenditure from the Advance to the Minister for Finance in relation to a number of Appropriation Acts and three years of reports from the Auditor-General whose consideration had yet to be completed. The Public Accounts Committee has before it a very considerable work load, one which is very demanding but which is required of it by statute and by the Government. If honourable members refer to the report of the Public Accounts Committee they will find that a number of matters were raised by the Government which it wanted the Public Accounts Committee to look at. They included the approval of annual report guidelines and the approval of appointments of private auditors to statutory marketing bodies. As well, the Committee had the responsibility of undertaking an examination of all the acquisitions of computers by the Commonwealth. Why do I mention all these matters in this way? It is because we are seeing this very welcome advance with the establishment of a new committee system and with a number of new committees-eight precisely-that will have to be staffed, yet we have before us a proposal containing no additional resources for the Parliament to be able to undertake those works unless the activities of the other committees of the Parliament are curtailed and the staffing shared with the new committees to be established. In relation to the Public Accounts Committee and the work load that it has before it, the changes which I understand are foreshadowed will have a very significant impact. They will probably take more than half of the Committee's staff away and its effectiveness to be able to carry out its statutory responsibilities will be severely curtailed. I have an interest to declare: I was a member of the Public Accounts Committee in the last Parliament and I will probably seek to be a member of that Committee again because of the nature of the work that it undertakes. I have served on many committees of the Parliament-the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception, the Joint Select Committee on Family Law, the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and the Select Committee on Aboriginal Land Rights. I know something of the operation of parliamentary committees. The Public Accounts Committee is a unique creature of this Parliament which has served as an example to parliaments around Australia. Mr Young —Not to Queensland. Mr RUDDOCK —The Minister makes the point that I was coming to, and I thank him for that. It is one which we hope will be an example to Queensland. We can jointly encourage it by enhancing the reputation of the Public Accounts Committee and maintaining the reputation of the Public Accounts Committee to ensure that Queensland will recognise the folly of its ways. If the proposals that we have before us go on and the effectiveness of the Public Accounts Committee is curtailed and its reputation irreparably damaged, we will be doing this Parliament a great disservice and the desire of people to see accountability to the Parliament for expenditure of public moneys will be sabotaged. That is the fact of the matter. I make the plea most strongly to the Clerks of the Parliament, to Madam Speaker and to the Government to ensure that the resources necessary for this Committee to carry out its functions properly-they may have to be curtailed somewhat; I recognise that-be available to it to ensure that its statutory duties are properly fulfilled. I would regard it as a very poor day if, in establishing this new committee system, we saw the Public Accounts Committee of the Parliament effectively ruined. If I believe that its reputation is likely to be damaged I will report to the Parliament and I will certainly discontinue any involvement on my own part with it if it is not going to be able to carry out its functions properly. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(4.37) —I am reminded by the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore) that this particular moment in Australian parliamentary history is indeed a first because it is truly the first time since Federation that there has ever been established a comprehensive system of standing committees in the House of Representatives. Regrettably, that probably is not going to receive the publicity that it truly deserves to receive because of the importance of the moment and the potential that this change has to improve the quality of Australian democracy. Let me just say in a very bipartisan way-certainly with no reflection on the existing Government, of which I am a staunch and loyal member-that it is true that over the last 20 years, if not more, back bench members on both sides of the House have often felt that there are occasions when they may be tending to become the voting fodder of the Executive government. I truly believe that there is a vast repository of talent and goodwill on both sides of the House that ought to be channelled into constructive energy within the Parliament. I agree with one comment of the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), if I understood him correctly, that back bench members do have an important role to play. Certainly my own experience on the Public Accounts Committee bears out just how important parliamentary committees can be. I address myself briefly to the comments of the honourable member for Dundas. I do not think there would be anyone on this side of the House who would in any way countenance any change in the operation of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts that would lead to some diminution in the effectiveness of that Committee. If there is one thing that we all have in common on this side of the House-I am confident it is shared certainly in the Liberal Party of Australia and hopefully even in the National Party of Australia-it is the belief that the Public Accounts Committee operating effectively is an essential part of the parliamentary process, in the Federal arena and in the States. For that reason we have all sought to bring pressure to bear on the Queensland Government to establish a public accounts committee that will operate effectively. My response to the honourable member for Dundas is that I am confident that the Government will not allow anything to happen that would diminish the effectiveness of that great Committee. Of course, I too have to declare an interest as having received the support of my colleagues for election to chair that important Committee. It would be remiss of me if I did not give special credit to the honourable member for Fraser who, as honourable members on this side of the House know, was the person who within the Government led the charge for the establishment of this new, comprehensive committee system. Many of us have been strongly supporting the establishment of those committees, as has the Department of the House of Representatives, over a period of, I believe, some 18 years, but it is to the credit of the honourable member for Fraser that he was able to marshal the support to bring about this important change. This House owes him and the government of the day, which has had the courage to implement this reform, a great debt. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(4.42) —I would like to add one or two quick comments in the light of the reference that has been made to my home State of Queensland and the desirability of having a public accounts committee in that State. The Liberal Party in Queensland stood up in the 1983 State election campaign with one of its main platforms the introduction of a public accounts committee. The history of that State election is well known: the Liberal Party having been annihilated for its foresight. Since that time, we have seen a number of senior people in top Government positions in Queensland actually go to prison for the misappropriation of funds, of the people's money, government money. At this moment we are spectators of the saga of corruption in the Queensland Police Force. I want to use this forum again, as a Liberal, to direct a plea to the Premier of Queensland and indeed to the State Cabinet to recognise that corruption will thrive when people believe they will get away with it. All Federal government departments are aware of the fact that sooner or later they will be called to account in Parliament for their expenditure. In Queensland it is a never-never business: nobody will ever be touched. I believe that many of the problems in that State are due directly-perhaps indirectly-to the fact that nobody thinks he will ever be found out. I use this opportunity to commend previous governments in this place for allowing themselves to be subjected to scrutiny. At times it can be an embarrassment to the government of the day when things are uncovered as a result of the scrutiny in the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts. I believe that in a democratic system it is essential that everybody subscribe to the theory that if people are left alone and feel they are out of the public eye human nature is such that they will go astray. I commend the Federal Government for allowing the continuation of this Committee and being prepared to subject itself to scrutiny. I conclude by repeating to the Government of my State that it should wake up to itself because a lot of the troubles are of its own making. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(4.45) —I want to say only a few words in support of the proposed committee restructuring. In doing so, I also congratulate the Chairman of the committee which considered the matter, the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore), for the tremendous work which he put into this proposal and the way he conducted meetings. I am very pleased to see that these changes have been made and we have the opportunity to oversee the work of the Government. I have just one reservation and that is that the committees will rely on the Government, the Minister and the Parliament for their references. I hope that the Government will be helpful in these matters. Sometimes committees have been able to take up items themselves and that has been very helpful as it has enabled us to uncover a lot of problems. I think it has been helpful to the Government also. I hope that although we have lost the opportunity to determine our own references Ministers and the Government will enable the committees to take up some matters which committee members are concerned about and which may reveal things which could be of help to the Government. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(4.47) —I join colleagues on both sides of the House in commenting briefly on the Government's proposals to establish a range of committees. I should point out, however, that this has been Australian Labor Party policy since 1982. It has taken some three parliaments before the Government has got its act together to the extent that it has been able to do anything about it. I am concerned that the Government proposes to establish, according to my simple mathematics, no less than 22 committees all up. I think that is going to bring enormous strain on the Parliament on both sides and especially on the Opposition, which for obvious reasons, does not have the same number of people potentially available for committee work as the Government has. I join my colleague the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) in making some specific comments in relation to the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts (PAC). As the previous Chairman of that Committee, from 1975 to 1982, I totally agree with him that there is a very real risk; despite the comments made by the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner), who suggested, if I may quote him, that `members will not stand idly by and watch the diminution in the effectiveness of the Public Accounts Committee'. The simple fact of the matter is that an enormous cut back in the staff available to that Committee is proposed. It is well over 50 per cent as I recall. To suggest, therefore, that the Committee is going to be able to maintain the same level of productivity with half or less than half of its resources, is simply nonsense. A table of reports is included in the Public Accounts Committee's activities report for January 1985 to June 1986, report No. 255. It notes, for example, that in the financial year 1985-86 there were 19 reports; in 1983-84 there were 20, and so it goes. The figures speak for themselves. It is an extremely productive Committee irrespective of which party is in power. Lest there be any doubt about the long term value and prestige of that Committee, it is not gilding the lily of history to say that during my period as Chairman we established the Federal-State public accounts committees conferences. This PAC led the way in revitalising the capacity of the State parliaments to use their public accounts committees far more effectively than those in any other country in the Western world. I refer specifically to New South Wales. I recall that we had our first conference there deliberately to show the then State Labor Government what could be achieved. I remember that the Treasurer, Mr Renshaw, whom we invited to give the opening address, made the somewhat nonsensical remark on that occasion that he was surrounded by the best Treasury officials that money could buy: he did not need parliamentarians to tell him how to do his job. Within 12 months there were two inquiries, in both the upper House and the lower House, in the New South Wales Parliament. Two years later there were new terms of references for their Public Accounts Committee. I think it is fair to say that the State level the Public Accounts Committee in New South Wales would be by far the most effective instrument of public accountability in the several State Parliaments and ensures the capacity of Parliament to represent truly the interests of the people in the management of Federal and State financial affairs. Therefore, as an ex-Chairman of the Committee, I take a very dim view of any suggestion that this Parliament now go down the road of suggesting that we can gild the lily of accepting impression rather than substance and at the end of the day seriously expect the Australian people to thank the Government because it has been so abstemious in its expenditure on the Parliament. The Government can of course say, `Yes, we have increased the number of committees, although we have cut their resources to such an extent that none of them can do its job well; but don't worry, ladies and gentlemen, we have maintained our policy'. I say seriously to the Minister at the table, the Leader of the House (Mr Young), that we, as an opposition, support his intention to increase the capacity of members of parliament to make a worthwhile contribution, but let that contribution not be frustrated by honourable members' inability at the end of the day to say that the work of those committees was worth while. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(4.51) —in reply-I have just a couple of quick points I wish to say in reply. First, in relation to the National Crime Authority, I say to the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) that we have received correspondence from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) in relation to increasing the size of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority. That would take an amendment to the National Crime Authority Act, of course; and the Government will consider that, although it is not possible to do it at the moment. In relation to the questions of staff and/or references, which are directly related, there will be some upwards reclassification of staff in terms of their positions, but we will face a problem as we are not in a position to provide unlimited staff. One of the reasons the references will come from the Minister and/or the House is that initially, as honourable members will understand, there will have to be some sort of control over the number of references that go to a committee because too many references will lead to demands for extra staff. We will have to keep our eye on some of the more active committees which might like a whole range of references and then say that, because they have all those references, they want a third of all the staff available. The Joint Committee of Public Accounts (PAC) might say that it needs more staff because its role is far more important and it has references before it-- Mr Ruddock —It is a statutory committee. Mr YOUNG —I know-which the Government itself may agree with. The honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) has been very influential during the week. I listened to him this week and last week saying that we should cut government spending even more. His having persuaded me, honourable members opposite cannot persuade me now to put on more staff. They cannot have it both ways. I think if at the end of this session and at the end of next session honourable members look at the role of the committees, how they are being serviced and how effective they will be, we will have a better idea of whether they are being well serviced and whether they are carrying out their tasks. I give honourable members this assurance: there has been no attempt by the Government, and no discussion or hint at all about it, to interfere with the proper statutory role of the PAC. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, the following proposed standing order be adopted as a sessional order: Standing Committee on Procedure 28C. (a) A Standing Committee on Procedure shall be appointed at the commencement of each Parliament to inquire into and report on the practices and procedures of the House generally with a view to making recommendations for their improvement or change and for the development of new procedures. (b) The committee shall consist of 8 members, 5 members to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips and 3 members to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips. (c) The committee shall elect a Government member as its chairman. (d) The committee shall elect a deputy chairman who shall act as chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chairman at that meeting. (e) The committee shall have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to any sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine. (f) The committee shall appoint the chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee the members of the sub-committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to act as chairman at that meeting. (g) The quorum of a sub-committee shall be a majority of the members of that sub-committee. (h) Members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may participate in the public proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (i) The committee or any sub-committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records. (j) The committee or any sub-committee shall have power to move from place to place. (k) A sub-committee shall have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any sittings or adjournment of the House. (l) A sub-committee shall have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (m) The committee shall have leave to report from time to time. (n) The committee or any sub-committee shall have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Standing Committee on Procedure appointed during previous Parliaments. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(4.54) —I move: That standing order 25 (Standing Orders Committee) be suspended for the remainder of this session. This motion is moved in view of the previous resolution on the appointment of the Standing Committee on Procedure. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: (1) That a joint committee be appointed to consider and report on such matters relating to foreign affairs, defence and trade as may be referred to it by- (a) resolution of either House of the Parliament, (b) the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, or (c) the Minister for Defence. (2) That the committee consist of 30 members, 11 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 8 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, 5 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 4 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 2 Senators to be nominated by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. (3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (4) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time. (5) That the committee elect a Government member as its chairman. (6) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall act as a chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chairman at that meeting. (7) That 10 members of the committee, including 6 Government members, constitute a quorum of the committee. (8) That the committee have power to appoint not more than 3 sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to any sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine. (9) That, in addition to the members appointed pursuant to paragraph (8), the chairman and deputy chairman of the committee be ex officio members of each sub-committee appointed. (10) That the committee appoint the chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee the members of the sub-committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to act as chairman at that meeting. (11) That the quorum of a sub-committee be a majority of the members of that sub-committee. (12) That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may participate in the proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (13) That the committee or any sub-committee have power to send for persons, papers and records. (14) That the committee or any sub-committee have power to move from place to place. (15) That the sub-committee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives. (16) That a sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (17) That the committee in its inquiries take account of the investigations of other parliamentary committees and avoid duplication. (18) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (19) That the committee or any sub-committee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence appointed during previous Parliaments. (20) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. (21) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(4.55) —I seek leave of the House to amend Notice of Motion No. 5, in relation to the proposed Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, in the following terms: Omit paragraph (5), substitute the following paragraph: ``(5) That the committee elect a Government member as its chairman who shall have a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of voting, the chairman have a casting vote.'' Leave granted. Mr YOUNG —I move: (1) That a joint standing committee be appointed to inquire into and report on such matters relating to electoral laws and practices and their administration as may be referred to it by either House of the Parliament or a Minister. (2) That the committee consist of 8 members, 2 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 2 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 1 Senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. (3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (4) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint standing committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time. (5) That the committee elect a Government member as its chairman who shall have a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of voting, the chairman have a casting vote. (6) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall act as chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chairman at that meeting. (7) That 3 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee. (8) That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to any sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine. (9) That the committee appoint the chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only and at any time when the chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee the members of the sub-committee present shall elect another members of that sub-committee to act as chairman at that meeting. (10) That the quorum of a sub-committee be a majority of the members of that sub-committee. (11) That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may participate in the proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (12) That the committee or any sub-committee have power to send for persons, papers and records. (13) That the committee or any sub-committee have power to move from place to place. (14) That a sub-committee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives. (15) That a sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (16) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (17) That the committee of any sub-committee have power to consider and make use of- (a) submissions lodged with the Clerk of the Senate in response to public advertisements placed in accordance with the resolution of the Senate of 26 November 1981 relating to a proposed Joint Select Committee on the Electoral System, and (b) the evidence and records of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform appointed during previous Parliaments. (18) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. (19) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. The original motion could have left Committee voting tied, and while the Committee has done an enormous amount of good work and there has been no great problem with it we will do as we have done with the other committees in the case of a deadlock, and give the Chairman a casting vote. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(4.56) —I move: (1) That a joint select committee be appointed to inquire into and report on the operation of Regulation 4a of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the ACT Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983 in relation to videotapes and videodiscs and in particular- (a) the effectiveness of such legislation by comparison with previous legislation purporting to govern the importation, production, reproduction, sale and hire of violent, pornographic or otherwise obscene material; (b) whether the present classification system, as applied by the Film Censorship Board, is adequate as a basis for import and point of sale controls; (c) whether video retailers are observing the conditions of sale or hire attached to `X' classified material, particularly in relation to children under 18 years; (d) whether Regulation 4a of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations is adequate in identifying categories of prohibited material, and operating effectively in preventing the importation of videotapes/discs falling within the prohibited categories; (e) whether children under the age of 18 years are gaining access to videotapes/discs containing violent, pornographic or otherwise obscene material; (f) whether the ACT Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983 should be amended to make it an offence for persons purchasing or hiring videotapes/discs classified above `R' to allow, suffer or negligently permit children to view such material; (g) whether cinemas should be permitted to screen for public exhibition material classified above `R' subject to prohibition from entry of persons under the age of 18 years; (h) whether films which would merit a classification above `R' are being produced in Australia and if so whether Australian men and women are adequately protected by existing law from pressure to act in such films, and (i) the likely effects upon people, especially children, of exposure to violent, pornographic or otherwise obscene material. (2) That the committee consist of 9 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 2 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 1 Senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. (3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (4) That the committee elect a Government member as its chairman. (5) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall act as chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chairman at that meeting. (6) That 4 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee. (7) That the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records. (8) That the committee have power to move from place to place. (9) That the committee report by 10 December 1987. (10) That the committee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Senate Select Committee on Video Material appointed during the 33rd Parliament and the Joint Select Committee on Video Classification appointed during the 34th Parliament. (11) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. (12) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. The Joint Select Committee on Video Classification operated in the last Parliament and has not yet concluded its business. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: (1) That, in accordance with section 54 of the National Crime Authority Act 1984, matters relating to the powers and proceedings of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority shall be as follows: (a) That the committee consist of 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 2 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. (b) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (c) That the committee elect a Government member as its chairman. (d) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall act as chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chairman at that meeting. (e) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the chairman, or the deputy chairman when acting as chairman, have a casting vote. (f) That 4 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee. (g) That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to any sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine. (h) That the committee appoint the chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only and at any time when the chairman of the sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee the members of the sub-committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to act as chairman at that meeting. (i) That the quorum of a sub-committee be a majority of the members of that sub-committee. (j) That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may participate in the proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purposes of a quorum. (k) That the committee or any sub-committee have power to send for persons, papers and records. (l) That the committee or any sub-committee have power to move from place to place. (m) That a sub-committee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives. (n) That a sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence give before it and any document presented to it. (o) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (p) That the committee or any sub-committee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the committee appointed during previous Parliaments. (q) That, in carrying out its duties, the committee or any sub-committee, ensure that the operational methods and results of investigations of law enforcement agencies, as far as possible, be protected from disclosure where that would be against the public interest. (r) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. (2) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(4.57) —I move: That, unless otherwise ordered, the following amendments to the standing orders be adopted for the remainder of this session: Days and hours of meeting Standing order 40 be amended to read- 40. Unless otherwise ordered, the House shall meet for the despatch of business- (a) in the first sitting week, on- Tuesday, at 2 p.m. Wednesday, at 10 a.m. Thursday, at 10 a.m., and (b) in the second sitting week, on- Monday, at 2 p.m. Tuesday, at 2 p.m. Wednesday, at 10 a.m. Thursday, at 10 a.m. From the termination of the last sitting in the second week, the House shall stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on the third Tuesday after the termination, unless the Speaker shall, be telegram or letter addressed to each Member of the House, fix an alternative day or hour of meeting. The 4-weekly cycle will then be repeated. Adjournment and next meeting Standing order 48a be amended to read- 48a. At 7.15 p.m. on a Wednesday in a week in which the House is scheduled under the standing orders to meet on the Monday and at 10.15 p.m. on each other sitting day, the Speaker shall propose the question-That the House do now adjourn-which question shall be open to debate; if the House is in committee at the time stated, the Chairman shall report progress and upon such report being made, the Speaker shall forthwith propose the question-That the House do now adjourn-which question shall be open to debate. No amendment may be moved to this question: Provided that- (a) if a division is in progress at the time fixed for interruption, the division shall be completed and the result announced; (b) if, on the question-That the House do now adjourn-being proposed, a Minister requires the question to be put forthwith without debate, the Speaker shall forthwith put the question; (c) a motion for the adjournment of the House may be moved by a Minister at an earlier hour; (d) any business under discussion and not disposed of at the time of the adjournment shall be set down on the Notice Paper for the next sitting, and (e) if the question-That the House do now adjourn-is negatived, the House or committee shall resume the proceedings at the point at which they had been interrupted: Provided further that, if at 8 p.m. on a Wednesday in a week in which the House is scheduled under the standing orders to meet on the Monday, or at 11 p.m. on each other sitting day, the question before the House is-That the House do now adjourn-the Speaker shall interrupt the debate, at which time- (f) a Minister may require that the debate be extended until 8.10 p.m. or 11.10 p.m., as appropriate, to enable Ministers to speak in reply to matters raised in the preceding adjournment debate; at 8.10 p.m. or 11.10 p.m., as appropriate, or upon the earlier cessation of the debate, the Speaker shall forthwith adjourn the House until the time of its next meeting, or (g) if no action is taken by a Minister under paragraph (f), the Speaker shall forthwith adjourn the House until the time of its next meeting. When I gave notice to the Parliament of the Government's intention to consider those sections of the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Procedure which the Government had resolved should be determined in fact by the Parliament, a number of honourable members raised with me the question of whether the Parliament itself-and this was raised in evidence given to the Procedure Committee at the time-would meet for its two-week sittings from Monday to Thursday in both weeks. The Government does not find this proposition attractive because of the necessity for Cabinet to meet on the Monday prior to the sitting of those two weeks, or perhaps three weeks, of sittings of the Parliament. I think anyone who has served in the Ministry or the Cabinet would understand the necessity for that. Nevertheless, having looked at the program there is no doubt that a lot of members, particularly those who have to travel a long way, would be greatly benefited by perhaps sitting more time during the sitting days rather than the extra days themselves. For this purpose I seek the co-operation of the Parliament, and have moved that in the first week of a two-week sitting program we sit the normal hours on the Tuesday, starting at 2 p.m.; on the Wednesday at 10 a.m.; and on the Thursday at 10 a.m. Instead of finishing at 8 o'clock on the Wednesday night, we will sit right through, adjourning at 11 p.m. However, in the first week we would sit only on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday so honourable members can return to their electorates on the Friday, and in the second week of sitting we would have the normal pattern we have now of the Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. This means we will have half an hour less for parliamentary business than we have under the present system, but all honourable members will be back in their electorates attending to their constituents on the Friday rather than on the Friday night or the Saturday morning as is now the case, particularly for people who come from Cairns, Darwin, Perth and some of those places and who cannot get to those places on Friday night. Again this is something we put forward as an experiment in dealing with procedures. We hope it will be successful. Nevertheless, we will keep our eye on it. If it is not successful, we will be ready to move back to the existing procedures. I think all honourable members who have spoken to me will welcome the fact that we will be able to cram into the three days of the first sitting week almost the same amount of government business as we do now in four days. That will give them the additional day back in their constituencies. Mr FIFE(Hume-Manager of Opposition Business)(4.59) —The Opposition opposes this motion. The proposal that the Leader of the House (Mr Young) has put before the House effectively reduces the amount of time available to the Opposition to raise matters of public importance and to ask questions of Ministers. As a matter of fact, it really contradicts the resolutions we have just agreed to to establish committees, which, as I pointed out and the Leader of the House pointed out, give honourable members more opportunity to participate in the affairs of the nation through this Parliament. I know the Minister has made it clear that this is for a trial period, but we do not even support it for a trial period. If the Minister and the Government have additional business to deal with on a Wednesday night, we will gladly co-operate and we will be prepared to sit on Wednesday evenings, but we are not prepared to agree to give up Question Time or the opportunity to raise a matter of public importance on a Friday. The Minister was careful to say a few moments ago that, under the proposed arrangements, the House would be able to deal with the same amount of Government Business between Tuesday and Thursday as is currently dealt with between Tuesday and Friday, but the operative words were `Government Business'. As I understand it, the Government gets about 2 1/2 hours of business time on Fridays and, by sitting on Wednesday evenings, it will still get the additional 2 1/2 hours. The Opposition misses out on Question Time. Increasingly, Parliament has been missing out on questions ever since this Government took office. It is important for the House to know the average number of questions without notice asked on each sitting day over the past few years: in 1980, under the Fraser Government, 15.2; in 1981, 16.2; in 1982, 15.4; in 1983-the first year of the Hawke Government it dropped to 12.7; in 1984, 12.1; in 1985, 12; and in 1986, 11.8. Until 4 June this year, the average has been 10.7. The average number of questions without notice being asked on each sitting day has progressively dropped, yet in 1984 the size of the House of Representatives and the Senate was increased. There are more honourable members but fewer opportunities to ask questions. We oppose the motion. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(5.02) —in reply-I do not argue with the Question Time figures given by the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife)-- Mr Burr —Not even the logic. Mr YOUNG —Not even the logic. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure made a recommendation about the number of questions. When dealing before the election with the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), we suggested that the Government intended that there be no fewer than seven questions from the Opposition each Question Time. We are trying to rectify the problem in Question Time, in terms of the number and length of questions and the length of answers, by ensuring that at least a minimum of seven questions comes from the Opposition. Mr Fife —Will you increase the length of Question Time? Mr YOUNG —I doubt it. I shall ring up Nareen and ask Malcolm what he would have done. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 22 September, on motion by Ms Crawford: That the following Address-in-Reply to the Speech of His Excellency the Governor-General be agreed to: May it Please Your Excellency: We, the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia, in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign, and to thank Your Excellency for the Speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Before I call the honourable member for Bowman, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's maiden speech. I ask the House to extend to him the usual courtesies. Mr SCIACCA(Bowman)(5.04) —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish at the outset of my first speech to this Parliament sincerely to thank the electors of Bowman for the trust and confidence which they have placed in me. I am proud to represent them in this House. I am equally proud to be here as one of the five new Labor members from Queensland and to have the opportunity of contributing to this historic third Hawke Labor Government. I am, as many honourable members know, a naturalised Australian, having arrived in this country at the age of four with my parents and younger brother in 1951. I am Italian by birth and I stand here today as only the second ever Italian-born member of this Parliament and as the very first Sicilian-born. As a new Australian, immigration and ethnic affairs are a part of my heritage and, therefore, a matter in which I shall be very interested. Australia has come a long way from the days of its white Australia policy. This policy was effectively traded in for a multicultural Australia for unashamedly practical reasons after the Second World War. Only the most narrow-minded person would now deny the success of multiculturalism and the contribution made to Australia, both economically and culturally, by migrants of all nationalities. At the opening of Parliament last week, the Governor-General indicated in his Speech that the Government had commissioned a review of Australia's immigration policies. I welcome this review as I believe it will produce an immigration policy which will carry us into the next century. This initiative, first promised by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) during the recent federal election, shows this Labor Government's concern and commitment to a multicultural Australia. With approximately 1.2 million people applying to migrate to Australia each year, this updating of our immigration policy will ensure the current economic and social needs of our country are served and at the same time will preserve Australia's excellent record throughout the world as a humanitarian nation. The nature of this review will provide an opportunity for community and ethnic groups to communicate with one another and come to a better understanding of Australia's capacity for migrant intake. This review process is an initiative which I applaud and which has my fullest support. By virtue of my birthplace, I am here today representing not only my electorate of Bowman but also the large national Italian community. The Italo-Australian community represents the largest group of non-British immigrants in this country. On latest calculations, there are some 800,000 of us. This figure includes those of us who, like me, were born in Italy and those who have one or more parents born in Italy. So significant is the magnitude of the Italo-Australian community that it is serviced by two excellent Italian language newspapers, namely Il Globo and La Fiamma, which between them have a circulation of almost 100,000. I wish to record at this stage my sincere thanks to and appreciation of the Italian Ambassador to Australia, Mr Eric Da Rin, and his assistant, Mr Faustino Troni, both of whom have graciously extended their congratulations and good wishes to me on the occasion of my election to this House. In addition, I was extremely pleased to have received a congratulatory letter from the Italian Foreign Minister, the Hon. Gulio Andreotti. I can assure them that their support and encouragement has been greatly appreciated and I am proud to have been thought worthy of their congratulations. Italians have contributed to every aspect of the Australian community, including business, church life and sport. By their hard work and industry since the turn of the century they have built up the north Queensland sugar industry into the most efficient in the world. Their contribution to the overall economy of this country cannot be underestimated. Whilst I could find no accurate statistics to highlight my claim, I doubt whether each member of this House does not know of at least one Italo-Australian who owns a successful small business, a concrete or marble firm, a construction company, a farm, or simply a good Italian restaurant. The Italian company Electric Power Transmission, otherwise known as EPT, has been constructing power lines across the length and breadth of this nation for many years now, using the highest technology and engineering skills, and at present is electrifying much of the rail network in my home State of Queensland. Another Italo-Australian company, Transfield, has just completed the construction of the Gateway Bridge which links, across the Brisbane River, my electorate and that of Lilley. These are only two examples of the enterprise and contribution of the Italian community in Australia. There are obviously countless others. Italians are no longer referred to as new Australians. Having helped to lay the foundations to build Australia, they are now an inspiration to all new arrivals to our country and contribute to the evidence that Australia is still the land of golden opportunity. On my way to Canberra this week it was quite correctly suggested to me by my colleague the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) that I have a duty to the village of Piedimonte Etneo where I was born, to my grandparents, now both deceased, to my father and mother-who, I am sure, are both listening to this speech at home-and to all Sicilian-Australians to tell their story to this House. I am pleased to take up this suggestion, as Sicilians in this country generally have been much maligned because of the unsavoury activities of the very few. The reality is that the Sicilian community represents the largest single group within the national Italian community and numbers some 250,000. Many of them are descended, like me, from poor farming families. Their families, like mine, came to Australia with no knowledge of our language and, in fact, often unable to read or write even their own language. Their only material possessions were the clothes on their backs, but they brought with them the most valuable asset of all-a vision and a dream that through hard work, determination and tenacity they would succeed. Included in this dream was their firm belief that they could achieve for their children and for their grandchildren that which was not available to them in their own country, namely, equal opportunity-the same equal opportunity that Australians often take for granted. In addition to that vision they also brought with them what regretfully is becoming less and less important in our modern Australian society-that is, the preservation of the family unit and, moreover, a deep and profound respect for their elders. It is with pride that I can say that Italians generally, and Sicilians in particular, treat their parents and grandparents with a love and respect that borders on reverence. My own grandmother, who passed away only a few years ago, epitomised the very reason why the elderly command such emotions. She was a kind-hearted and warm Sicilian woman who was completely illiterate but, through hard work, along with my grandfather, raised her family in Sicily during wartime under very difficult circumstances. She imigrated to Australia when she was in her mid-60s, together with my grandfather, and died in the family home in Australia at the age of 86. Until the last weeks of her life she was not satisfied unless she was working and doing something constructive. Is it little wonder that it is highly unusual for the elderly in Italian families to be found in retirement homes? They generally end their lives in their children's home and this creates the cycle of respect that is carried down from generation to generation and which I naturally hope my children will continue when I grow old. The legacy that the original Sicilian immigrants have left and will leave is the knowledge that their children and grandchildren have in the main become successful, entered the professions and achieved distinction in many areas of Australian society. It is with pride and humility that I count myself amongst their numbers. I have mentioned previously in my speech that the concept of equal opportunity was the main reason why there has been such an influx of immigrants into this country since Federation. It is because of my sincere belief in the concept of equal opportunity for all, irrespective of their race, colour, or creed, that I am a member of the Australian Labor Party. In realising the vision and dreams of my family I have not forgotten the roots from which I came. I have sought throughout my whole adult life, through my legal practice and my connections with the trade union movement, and now as a Federal Labor member of parliament, to dedicate myself to the principle of creating a society of equal opportunity for all Australians. I have been a member of my Party for 23 years, having first jointed the youth wing of the Queensland Branch at age 17 and at 21 achieving the position of State President of Young Labor, Queensland branch. During the maiden speech of my colleague the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Johns) reference was made to the long and hard road which some honourable members have endured to obtain a seat in this House. Perhaps it can be said that he was unwittingly referring to me. I first sought to represent my Party in the State Parliament in Queensland in 1969 and had the rather unique distinction of casting my first ever vote in my own favour. I owe much to the great Australian Labor Party. Obviously, if it were not for my association with Labor I would surely not be standing here today. The people of Bowman elected me for a variety of reasons, but I am certain that the overwhelming majority elected me because I was part of a team-a team called the Australian Labor Party. I can find no better way to succinctly describe the approach of this Government than to use the words of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on delivering the Budget last week when he said that Labor was `governing with compassion and authority, good sense and confidence'. This is the Labor way. I now wish to make some mention of the at times comical and at other times sinister antics of the National Party State Government in my home State of Queensland. If I do not I will be shot. I had intended to make more detailed reference to these matters in my maiden speech to this House. However, because of advice that I have received from a member of this House, whose advice I respect, I will not be unduly provocative and will address my remarks in a much milder way. I come from a State where the Government is more concerned with prosecuting comedians than restoring the economy which it has allowed to run down over many years; where the Government is more interested in commissioning commando-style raids on university campuses in the early hours of the morning to remove condom vending machines, which, believe it or not, are illegal in that State; and where it is more concerned with disregarding public opinion on important issues than abolishing the worst gerrymandered electoral boundaries in the country. One of the major areas where the Queensland National Party State Government stands condemned is its unreasonable and confrontationist attitude toward the union movement. Although often denigrated by our conservative opponents here and in Queensland, I have found the trade union movement in Queensland to be a responsible body which at all times works in the interests of its membership. Queensland unions and unionists work in the very difficult atmosphere of animosity from an extremist State government and survive despite constant threats to their right to organise and even their fundamental right to exist. Democracy has long been sick in the State of Queensland but the final blow will be struck if the National Party Government further extends its already draconian industrial legislation and introduces work contracts. The proposed legislation provides only the bare minimum of guaranteed working conditions allowing the rest to be negotiated, supposedly voluntarily, between employers and employees. Job security in any workplace will become a thing of the past because the Government will specify that contracts must cover a period of less than three years. Awards will no longer apply and disputes will be settled between individuals in the civil courts rather than by the tried and true method of conciliation and arbitration before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The Hawke Labor Government has shown what co-operation and rational discussion with the union movement can achieve. I do not want to take anything away from my colleague the Treasurer; in fact I am sure that he would agree with me that much of the credit for the continuing economic recovery of this country must be attributed to the union movement. The restraint and maturity which it has shown in these troubled times makes it a pleasure for me to say in this place that I am a proud unionist and, in fact, I am, and have been for some time, a financial member of two major Australian industrial unions. I am a lawyer by profession and, as such, I have a great respect for the law and the institution of the law. My legal practice in Brisbane is renowned for the industrial work which it performs and while, because of my parliamentary and electoral responsibilities, I can no longer play a part in the practice of law I will be taking a keen interest in all legal matters that come before this House. My previous work in the field of industrial law and general common law damages claims brought me into direct contact with the trade union movement and its members. My work in the specific area of master and servant common law claims and workers compensation claims has given me an appreciation of the day to day problems which Australian workers face in their workplaces. I firmly believe that the Government's initiatives in the area of occupational health and safety will go a long way to minimise the many hundreds of millions of dollars that it costs the community yearly as a result of industrial accidents. It is surely appropriate that I devote a portion of the time available to me today to describe the area and the people which I represent in this place. The Federal electorate of Bowman is both complex and diverse. It is, in many respects, a microcosm of Australian society with much of the social and economic spectrum contained within its borders. The electorate is an area in which conservation and industry both play an important part. Moreton Island is among the bay islands which I have the honour to represent. The honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull) would know that. I have a keen interest in ensuring the preservation of Moreton Island in its natural state for future generations of Australians to enjoy. It is one of the largest sand masses in the world and, during the Federal election campaign, I had the privilege of escorting the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to this beautiful part of my electorate where he once again demonstrated this Government's commitment to the environment. As a financial member of the Moreton Island Protection Society, an active organisation dedicated to keeping the natural beauty of the island intact, I will continue to assist in the fight to ensure that the Queensland State Government is not able to destroy yet another part of Queensland's natural heritage. I am also proud to have situated in my electorate the Island known as North Stradbroke Island. North Stradbroke is one of the most historic and picturesque sections of the Moreton Bay area and boasts one of the oldest and culturally rich Aboriginal communities. North Stradbroke is a stark example of the environment and industry existing together harmoniously. It is famous for its rich mineral sands and, although sand mining has been in existence for decades, rehabilitation programs employed by the sand mining company are first class. Other well known islands in my electorate situated in Moreton Bay are Russell, Macleay, Karragarra, Lamb, Peel and Coochie Mudlo. Almost all of these islands are inhabited by permanent populations and form an integral part of the natural attraction of the Moreton Bay region. All honourable members will be welcome if they want to come for a holiday. In stark contrast to the islands is the northernmost end of my electorate, where much of the heavy industry is located. The community there is well established with the majority of residents on fixed incomes. It is a suburb of working class people; people who have worked hard all their lives; people who are entitled to expect a decent and safe standard of living for themselves and their children. Honourable members will recall, as a result of a question asked by me in this House last Tuesday week, the recent saga of the proposed construction of a caustic chlorine plant in the residential bayside suburb of Lytton. During the Federal election, when the National Party of Australia mistakenly thought it could win the seat of Bowman, the Queensland State Government announced that the plant would no longer be built in that area. Although much relieved and no doubt very grateful, the residents of the area recorded their usual strong support for the Australian Labor Party on election day. I take this opportunity of thanking them for not allowing themselves to be blackmailed or bribed by the Premier's ploy to try to buy their votes. In what can only be described as a shameful decision, the Premier reneged on his election commitment and announced that the plant would go ahead despite the obvious safety risks involved. Massive public outcry ensued, and even when faced with a revolt in his own Party the Premier stubbornly decided to use the issue to reassert his dominance, which was, I remind honourable members, already very badly tarnished after his failed Canberra push. In the end the chemical company itself did the honourable thing and yielded to massive public pressure. This is typical of the disregard which the Queensland Government has for the ordinary working men and women in Queensland. I state quite categorically that the people of Bowman are entitled to the same quality of life as the people of Kingaroy. Further south my electorate encompasses the famous Redlands district, formerly a farming area noted for its volcanic red soil. It was in this area that I grew up and my father operated a small market garden. Much of this areas has now become a medium density residential area, and in fact continues to grow at one of the fastest rates in Australia. This area is a typical mortgage belt area, with its young families and first home owners. It is these families in suburbs such as Alexandra Hills and Capalaba who have benefited from the first home owners scheme introduced by the Hawke Government, and will further benefit from the further declines expected in home loan interest rates. At the southernmost end of my electorate are the still rural areas of Thornlands and Redland Bay. These areas supply much of the market garden needs of south east Queensland, including the famous Redlands strawberries, of which the residents of the Redlands Shire are justifiably proud. It would not have been possible for me to take my seat in this place if it were not for the tremendous support and encouragement that I have received from a wide variety of relatives, friends and Labor Party supporters. I wish to place on record my sincere gratitude to and appreciation of my father and mother, who came to this country with the specific dream of giving my younger brother and me an education and the opportunity to succeed. My brother and I, for our part, have realised their hope and ambition by both entering the profession of law and now by my election to this House. I make specific mention of my brothers Joe and Phillip and my sister Sarina, who have been tremendous to me over many years in helping me to achieve my goals. My special thanks go to my branch members in Bowman, many of whom have shown me great loyalty and friendship over a long period. I assure them that their efforts will not be forgotten. I wish also to take this opportunity to place on record my sincere appreciation of the friendship, help and support that I have received from Mr Errol Hodder, Secretary of the Queensland branch of the Australian Workers Union, Mr Bob Briskey, recently retired State Secretary of the Amalgamated Postal and Telecommunications Union, and its current Federal President, Mr John Hogg, the Queensland State Secretary of the Shop Assistants Union, and my many other friends in the union movement. Last, but certainly not least, I want to make particular mention in this, my first speech to this House, of the love, affection and tremendous support that I have received from my wife, Tina. Her loyalty and support during the 17 years that she has been with me and during which time I have had my fair share of political ups and downs-mainly downs-has never faltered. I love her and my family very much. I am pleased and most grateful that she is here today with my two children, Zina and Sam, to hear me deliver this speech. It is certainly a moment for which the four of us have waited for so long. In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure that those honourable members present from both sides of the House who know me personally would acknowledge that despite the hard road behind me I have never lost that tenacity and determination characteristic of the Sicilian race. Those who do not know me quite as well will, I assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, be very quick to learn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —I congratulate the honourable member on his speech, but I encourage him to look up to see who is in the chair in future. Before I call the honourable member for Chisholm, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's maiden speech and I ask the House to extend to him the usual courtesies. Dr WOOLDRIDGE(Chisholm)(5.24) —It is a great privilege and honour to stand in this House as the representative of the people of Chisholm, an electorate in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne. I thank the people of Chisholm for the opportunity to serve them, a task to which I look forward with great enthusiasm. Chisholm was created in 1948 and was served from 1949 to 1970 by Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes, a man who is still fondly remembered in the electorate today. From 1970 to 1980 it was represented by Tony Staley, a man whose advice I sought some years ago when I considered standing for Chisholm, and whose enthusiasm and encouragement is, in part, responsible for my coming to this House. More recently, Chisholm was ably served by Graham Harris of the Liberal Party of Australia and Helen Mayer of the Australian Labor Party. Following those people, I am cognisant of the hard work and excellent representation to which the people of Chisholm are accustomed. One does not come to this place without a great deal of support from a large number of people, I wish to place on record my gratitude to the many people, both inside and outside the Liberal Party in Chisholm, whose tireless teamwork has enabled me to stand here today. These people have an unswerving belief in the role of the individual in society, in the ability of people to order their own lives and to make choices for themselves, and who have the desire to achieve justice by maximising the freedom and opportunity of the individual, rather than placing the duty of justice on authorities with the power to command people what to do. I also wish to acknowledge the role of my parents, family and close friends, in particular, Shelly Colman and Rob Collins, whose confidence and support gave me the courage to pursue my convictions rather than opt for a more secure existence, and whose hard work over a long period was an invaluable help. One comes to this place with a certain amount of baggage which colours one's outlook and perspective on life. I grew up in a very close family, one that encouraged personal responsibility, that valued competition in encouraging the individual to achieve his full potential, and that placed greater value on satisfaction with personal effort in any endeavour, rather than the ultimate success or failure of that endeavour. It is with this background that I come here with a vision for the type of society in which I wish to live. Much is said about Sweden as a model for society, for co-operation and consensus. Yet this is the type of society that has an inherently weak government, where it is very difficult for government to make a policy decision without the acquiescence of interest groups, and where the `power of the pull', the ability to get one's own way, leads to a high welfare state where all groups must be accommodated, but where the individual outside those groups is powerless and forgotten. Such a society suffers the tyranny of the majority. This is not a free society. In a free society, in the words of Walter Lippmann, `the state does not administer the affairs of men, it administers justice among men who conduct their own affairs'. This `power of the pull' is leading us to a society where powerful interest groups promote entrenched privilege, where anachronistic practices by labour and management continue unchanged, where rigid work rules, a legacy of an era of standardised mass production, remain protected, and where mature industries have more political sway than emerging ones. All this leads us along a road where social and economic fatigue erode our productive capacity. This is the Argentinean road. If we are to avoid the Argentinean road, it will be through the productive effort of ordinary Australians, who are often powerless and forgotten. It is these forgotten people-people in business, in professions and on the land-without strong business groups or strong trade union groups to speak for them, people who are working for their own security and happiness and that of their families, who are much of the dynamic, innovative and productive element of society. It was out of a sense of balance that Sir Robert Menzies directed much of his energy towards these forgotten people. Today, these people are again being squeezed. Once again, out of a sense of balance, I believe that the energies of government should be directed towards providing an environment to give these people the incentive and motivation to pursue their goals, free of the hand of government, inasmuch as their actions do not adversely diminish the freedom of others. Of course, in a society not all will cope. I see no contradiction between a society that promotes competition and rigorously defends the role of the individual, and yet has compassion for and an understanding of those who will not cope or cannot compete. It was Menzies' view that `industrial progress is not to be based on the poverty or despair of those who cannot cope'. That is a view which I hold. I turn to two areas of concern. The first relates to our aging population. Currently 10 per cent of our population is over 65 years of age. By the time I reach retiring age that number will have increased by 56 per cent. Whilst services for the aged are improving, one area stands out as being of particular concern-that is, services to those who are physically fit but failing mentally. With age-related dementia appearing as an increasing problem, services to this group are of great concern. Domiciliary services to these people, while improving, have a marked lack of nurses and other health personnel with psychiatric skills, skills which are necessary to properly advise and counsel a family on the difficulties and stresses associated with having an aged, demented person in the home. For the more seriously demented person-and that is 4 to 5 per cent of the population over 65 years-specialised hostels for difficult patients, particularly those who wander, are in short supply. Currently, many of these people are in psychiatric hospitals or nursing homes at about double the cost to the community. Such hostels do not require trained nursing staff but can be managed adequately by competent people with a minimum of in-service training. Finally, there is a great need for specialised nursing homes for seriously demented people who are physically well. Currently, such people are inappropriately placed in nursing homes, where they must be physically and chemically restrained, or in long term wards and psychiatric hospitals. In some cases, because of lack of knowledge or facilities, such people are treated in a manner the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals would not tolerate for animals. From the onset to death from Alzheimer's disease, the average lifespan is nine to 10 years and many people would spend half that time in institutional care. In raising this issue, I do not see the solution as a greater call on government funds but rather as a change in attitude at a State and Federal level, a more appropriate direction of government funding and a willingness to battle entrenched positions. In this way government could contribute to a more humane and compassionate treatment of those in our society with no voice at all. Secondly, I wish to speak about the identity card. A great deal has been said in this chamber about the taxation and social security aspects of this card. These are two of the three main areas in which it would impinge on people's lives. However, it is the third area of use, in relation to medical services, which has received no debate, which is of particular concern to me-this area being, in the words of the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett), `the only relatively regular use that will be made of the card by most Australians'. Clause 53 of the Australia Card Bill requires that a recognised hospital notify the Health Insurance Commission of the identity card number of any person entering that hospital. Quite simply, this means that any person entering a specialised private hospital for treatment of alcoholism, for treatment of psychiatric or stress-related disorder or to undergo plastic surgery, for example, will have the name of the hospital and the hospital stay recorded on a central computer. That will be recorded even if the hospital and medical bills are paid for totally by the patient. As a doctor I have indeed felt privileged-not in the sense in which that word is most commonly used by the detractors of the profession, but in the sense that one sees people when they are at their most vulnerable and one has the confidence and trust of people at such a time. There are few times in medical practice when one sees someone more vulnerable as an individual, or a family in more distress, than when a person needs treatment for alcoholism or a psychiatric disorder. Commonly, people move interstate because of the stigma involved. That will occur no more. Wherever a person goes, the government will know. We will have the intrusion of government into the most personal, private and intimate aspects of someone's life. Quite frankly, it is none of government's business and it is very small consolation to suggest that there will be adequate privacy provisions. In recent years we have seen the privacy of the Health Insurance Commission computer. The most recent example of which honourable members will be aware saw young women being interviewed at home and at work and their personal lives being brought before the courts merely because they had been referred to a doctor who was under investigation by the police. This aspect of the legislation is a major intrusion into a very intimate and personal aspect of someone's life. It really is the final insult that this piece of legislation places individuals as mere cogs in the corporate wheel of government. It will receive the contempt it deserves. Finally, one comes to this House not just as a representative of an electorate but also as a representative of a party. While I have been a member of the Liberal Party for only a relatively short time, I have never seriously doubted the philosophy of the Party. For the reasons I have already mentioned, I am proud to be a member of the Liberal Party in this House. It is a party that offers Australians the opportunity to maximise their own productive effort and reward and to give a voice to the forgotten people while at the same time showing compassion for those who genuinely need the help of government. I look forward to my time in this House and I thank honourable members for the courtesy they have extended to me. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! Before I call the honourable member for Hinkler I remind the House that this is the honourable member's maiden speech. I ask the House to extend to him the usual courtesies. Mr COURTICE(Hinkler)(5.35) —I wish to congratulate Madam Speaker on her re-election to such an important position in this House, and also Mr Deputy Speaker on his re-election. I also extend my gratitude to a woman in another house, my wife, Marcia, who along with my family has supported me so loyally in my efforts to be elected to Parliament. I am beginning to understand the significant sacrifices which wives and husbands make in the service of our great nation. In this respect, I wish to acknowledge the efforts and energy of my predecessor in the Hinkler division, Mr Bryan Conquest. My family has had a close relationship with representation in the Hinkler electorate. My father served on a local authority within the division. My great-uncle Ben served the State of Queensland as a senator for some 25 years. I am honoured to follow the lead they have given me. Their interests, like mine, were those of my local area. In my electorate, the industry, management and employees are responding positively to the changed circumstances our nation is facing. I refer honourable members to the Queensland sugar industry as proof of our ability to respond. Bundaberg is the centre for the Bundaberg Sugar Co. Ltd. The company, led as it then was by Mr Roy Diecke and his executive, foresaw major difficulties looming in the industry. With the co-operation of unions, cane growers and management, a revitalisation process was formulated. This process occurred long before the cry was taken up by the Queensland Government. The process of co-operation and consultation has ensured that today the Bundaberg Sugar Co. is in a sound position to face up to a changed world situation. This has been completed with a minimum number of industrial disputes. Honourable members might well contrast this approach with the destructive confrontationist alternatives. Bundaberg offers sugar producers and Australia a fully integrated package. It has excellent soil, a well-established port, a rum distillery, a sugar refinery and three mills-Bingera, Fairymead and Millaquin. Australia, through a provincial city like Bundaberg, has optimised its export income through this approach. Nearby, in Childers, the Isis sugar mill plays an important part in the region's prosperity. The challenge for all our primary producers is to examine ways in which they can achieve this integrated approach. I am convinced that employment can be created, and export income generated, if all primary producers examine the maximum income to be made from their product. The wool industry is one such industry. I am certain, too, that the cattle industry can be fully utilised. I assure all honourable members that Bundaberg has plenty of facilities ready to accommodate any ideas business people may have. The sugar industry welcomes the commitment of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to finance research into the industry. All our primary products will penetrate world markets, provided they are equipped with the latest research capability. I welcome, too, the assurance from the Prime Minister that rum maturation will no longer be an issue with the Government. As some honourable members would be aware, Canberra has the perfect climate for one of Bundaberg's finest products, Bundaberg rum. Members and their constituents who may have indulged in this beverage can be assured that their headaches have maintained employment in my electorate. As a member whose family owns a cane farm, I confess to a vested interest in my concern for the sugar industry. I might also say that all cane farms are experiencing the changes which are now being witnessed in our district. Our farm has now been partially leased for the growing of tomatoes. This diversification is occurring on farms throughout our region. As well as sugar, Childers now has large avocado farms. Brian Weiss first interested farmers in the district in the advantages of avocados. The Bundaberg region has surpassed Bowen as a major tomato growing centre. People like John Pressler, Ron Simpson, John Neighbour and Ray and Rosemary Anderson were the pavers in creating this industry in our local region. The Bundagerg office of the Commonwealth Employment Service has just notified that over 1,000 job vacancies exist for pickers in this industry over the next few months. This is significant cash infusion into our local economy. The success of this operation may be reflected in a glut in some markets. However, diversification has meant survival for primary producers in my electorate. In the Port Curtis region, diversification has seen the emergence of one of the largest paw-paw operations in Queensland. Roy and Thelma Wilson have contributed significantly to this industry in the region. The processing of these primary products can be undertaken in our region. These fruits and vegetables could easily be processed in our area. I call on our businessmen wishing to export these products to contact the Bundaberg Development Board. It, together with officers of Austrade, will be willing to ensure that the potential can be explored. To the west of the provincial cities are the citrus growing areas of Gayndah and Mundubbera. The fruit grown in this region is the finest citrus in the world. Hinkler produces some of Australia's finest primary products. These many and varied industries are the life blood of the numerous towns of the region. Cracow is producing gold once more. The devaluation of the dollar, imputation of company dividends, the prices and incomes accord and the incentives for research and development are incentive enough for business people to explore the opportunities. The major difficulty is the Queensland Government. Queensland has no major blueprint for manufacturing industry. Queensland manufacturing has lost jobs every year since 1982. The Australian Bureau of Statistics confirms a continuing decline in manufacturing in every month of 1987, over the same months of the previous year. The last time manufacturing was wasted so severely was in the early 1980s. The previous Federal Government followed the Gregory thesis. This theory meant that manufacturing was stripped, whilst Australia embarked upon a drive to export minerals. Regrettably, Queensland is still adhering solely to this thesis. A more diverse economy would have cushioned Queenslanders against a downturn in world commodity prices. Yet, a broad based economy is still achievable. It would be marvellous if the Queensland Government took up the challenge and made the Hinkler electorate the model for the transition from primary production to an integrated secondary industry. Factories within the Hinkler electorate have already taken up the new dynamics in the Australian economy. One important company is Austoft in Bundaberg. I invite all honourable members to come to Bundaberg and meet with the management of this progressive company. Its birth is noted inconspicuously in the book Australian Events and Places. In a chapter entitled `Bundaberg', the company is mentioned merely as a local engineering works, which was taken over in 1966 to manufacture whole stalk cane harvesters. The chapter merely noted that this was the only such plant in the world making this product in the 1970s. In 1971, the ownership passed to foreign interests and has been foreign owned since that time. In that sense, the company followed a distinctly Australian tradition. Throughout the 1970s and early 1980s, with sugar prices buoyant, there was simply no need to change a successful formula. The company was strong enough, even to withstand the overvalued dollar. By 1986, the sands of time had shifted against the sugar industry, but had shifted in favour of Australian manufacturing. By 1986, the management was successful in achieving a management buy out, and the company is now back in Australian hands. The company, now trading as Austoft, exports sugar cane harvesters to more than 40 countries, and now has 95 per cent of world export markets, as well as 100 per cent of the Australian market. In recent times, Austoft has diversified into other hydraulically operated construction equipment, through the development of trenchers and loaders. Last year, Austoft achieved 37 per cent of the Australian trencher market, after only one year in the business. Previously, most trenchers were imported from the United States of America and therefore Austoft is not only a significant exporter but is also replacing many imports. This company has taken up the challenge, and has now taken the bold step of acquiring an American company, which is the second largest in its field in North America. As a result, Austoft not only acquired the Mustang product range, but also a strong distribution channel into northern America and Europe, for its construction equipment. Austoft builds quality Australian products. It is Australian managed, and controlled. It is out there, on world markets, earning export income for Australia. There are some who would have us believe that such success could be achieved only by squashing the employees and allowing management to run riot. The fact is that Austoft is a highly people-oriented company. The management and work force consult about difficulties and directions the company is taking. Men like Leo Mulkearns, the general manager, and assistants like Geoff Campbell, Phil Ainsworth and John McGrath, are local Bundaberg people, showing the rest of the world. How ironic that their management techniques have to be shown to the rest of Australia. Honourable members opposite, who wanted to scrap the export management development grants, should go to Austoft. The company has received about $600,000 since the Hawke Government was elected in grants from the scheme. Come to Bundaberg, and see an Australian company becoming a world leader with the help of these grants. The Hinkler electorate is blessed with an industrial power house in Queensland in the city of Gladstone. Blessed with a natural harbour, Gladstone is the site for some of the largest industrial companies in Queensland: the Boyne Island aluminium smelter, Queensland Alumina, the Queensland Cement and Lime Co., a grain handling facility, a huge power station, and a coal loading facility at Clinton Wharf. With such assets, Gladstone's potential is unlimited. I am keen to see Gladstone become the industrial giant of central Queensland. It has overcome the image difficulties it had many years ago. Gladstone is now a wonderful city ready to move along the path to continuing economic recovery for Australia. I promised during the election campaign that I would try to establish a task force in Gladstone. I am delighted to inform the House that the inaugural meeting of the task force has been held. For the first time, we have seen in Gladstone, unions, local government, small business and management join together to promote and develop the region's resources. I would like to express my appreciation to the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) and members of the Port Kembla Task Force, for giving their valuable time to meet with the Gladstone group, to ensure that it got off on the correct footing. On the Gladstone group's behalf, I would also like to thank the Prime Minister for his interest in the project. The Prime Minister, during his recent visit announced an allocation of $25,000, to enable the Gladstone task force to set up a research capability. Although a fledging group, the Gladstone task force is meeting in a spirit of co-operation to place the future of Gladstone high on its agenda. Mr Deputy Speaker, if I may place this small commercial: If there are business people listening, and looking for a place to invest, I would say to them, `Get on a plane and head for Gladstone and Bundaberg'. The Hinkler division includes the tourist resorts of Heron Island and Lady Elliott Island, and coastal areas including Woodgate, Elliott Heads, Innes Park, Bargara, Moore Park and Agnes Waters. These areas are perfectly placed to take up the tourism explosion Australia is enjoying. The work being done by the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown), the Australian Tourist Commission, and entertainers like Paul Hogan, are giving Australia every opportunity to capitalise on our tourist potential. The devaluation of the dollar and the political instability in some of the world destinations have strengthened Australia's case for tourism. I am keen to see investment along the coastline of Hinkler to accommodate tourists. The climate in the region is one of the most equable in the world. It has much to offer tourists. I encourage all honourable members to consider these resorts when escaping the chills of Canberra. My speech would be incomplete without discussion about the wealth creating coal industries in Moura. Honourable members might well pause to consider the difficulties in the industry. I have representations before me from the Moura Widows Association. Honourable members may well recall the tragedy of the Moura mine disaster. Nearby is the Kianga mine, which was the source of tragedy some years ago. In these times, it is often forgotten that the men who win mineral wealth for Australia sometimes are required to pay the highest personal sacrifice. I pay tribute to these men and their families. As we are all aware, the world is not prepared to pay Australia what it once did for our coal. In Queensland, the coal industry employs 10,000 people directly and another 32,000 indirectly. Twenty-four cents of every dollar of the Queensland Government's revenue comes from rail freight charges. I call on the Queensland Government to cut rail freight charges by $80m. This would mean a cut of 20 per cent, but only in the profit margin of the State Government rail freight charges. It would reduce rail freight charges by $1.50 per tonne. The coal industry pays the Queensland Government $778m annually in royalties, payroll tax, rail freights and port charges. The Queensland Government's high taxing policy on coal is putting jobs at risk in the coal industry. A reduction in freights would give the industry a more competitive edge in world contracts. This would safeguard the jobs of miners who share real concerns about their future. I wish to remind the House that Australia would be in a more perilous condition if it were not for the enormous contribution being made by employees, management and farmers within my electorate. I am concerned to see Queensland reach its optimum economic potential. To do this, all sectors within my electorate will need to continue to work together. Australia cannot afford a return to the past-an era of divisiveness and confrontation. We cannot afford to allow our affairs to be entrusted to people who would rely on Australia's luck to see us through. We must be genuinely creative. The challenge we face as a nation can and will be overcome. We need only to embrace the Australian spirit in unity and with a sense of purpose to ensure that each and every Australian will control his own destiny, and retain his own dignity. Let us all, in our 200th year, look to a new horizon and ask how we can all best serve our nation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Presentation of Address-in-Reply Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! His Excellency the Governor-General is absent overseas. Madam Speaker will ascertain on His Excellency's return when it would meet his convenience to receive the Address-in-Reply and will notify honourable members accordingly. Debate resumed from 18 September, on motion by Mr Holding: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill concurrently with the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner Bill and the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner (Consequential Provisions) Bill. If there is no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(5.54) —The House is debating the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner Bill which establishes an Insurance and Superannuation Commission and introduces into legislation provisions for occupational superannuation standards. This legislation is of profound importance for the future development of superannuation in this country. Because of the significance of this legislation, the Opposition will not oppose its passage through the House. However, in saying so, I wish there to be no doubt in the eyes of the Government that we believe that this legislation essentially is an ad hoc exercise that shows little evidence of the Bills being related to the major problems facing long term retirement policy in Australia. For the benefit of honourable members it should be noted that Australia is experiencing rapid population aging. The numbers of persons aged 60 and over are expected to increase from two million in 1981 to three million in the year 2001 and five million by 2021. I cite those figures from the National Population Council report 1986. The report went on to say: The pace of population ageing will accelerate in the next century as the baby boom generation reaches old age. The proportion of the population aged 60 years and over is expected to increase from 14 to 22 per cent between 1981 and 2021. By 2020 men can expect to live another nineteen more years after they reach age 60 compared to another seventeen years in 1981. Women can expect to live another twenty-seven years after age 60 in 2020 compared to another twenty-two years in 1981. The dependency burden, namely, the numbers of aged relative to the working age population, increases steadily until 2001 and rapidly from 2011 to 2021. These statistics, while they are expectations of demographic trends, make it perfectly clear that the government and this Parliament ignore at our peril the long term aging of the Australian population. While efforts can be made through migration and so forth, the record of Western Europe and North America, which show similar trends to those of Australia, would suggest that both pre- and post-natal policies have been less than effective in making long term changes in the age structure of the population as a whole. Because of all these factors the simple reality is that relatively fewer Australians will be expected to maintain a high level of productivity and be prepared to devote more of their taxes to social security, if it is intended that the retired people of this generation will be able to live under reasonable circumstances. About 80 per cent of older Australians receive some pension payment. By the year 2001 the rate may increase with the growth in numbers of old people; that is, people aged 75 and over. Increasing rates are not expected to create any financial crisis but income support policy for the years 2011 to 2021 may require more radical policy responses, such as raising pension ages. Private superannuation is primarily paid out in small lump sums and seldom provides long term retirement income, leaving retirees with minimum incomes insufficient for financial independence. Coverage through industry superannuation is liable to increase the numbers in the work force who are covered by such plans. But the important thing is that despite the introduction of the 3 per cent productivity arrangement entered into by the Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions in 1985 the facts are that payments of pensions or lump sums at that level will achieve very little in encouraging the work force as a whole covered by those plans to have the capacity for long term protection or to give them the ability to have financial independence from the demands they may have to make on the public sector. I am also surprised that in this legislation no attempt was made to define what superannuation is, although there was a reference to superannuation plans. For the purpose of what I have to say I would like to put on record that the Opposition defines superannuation as: a system of deferred income for genuine retirement purposes. It is designed to enable people to maintain an adequate standard of living after retirement. It should also result in decreased dependence on the social security system. We believe that ideally every income earner should have access to a superannuation scheme with appropriate tax incentives which are both effective and affordable. These are questions which will be under considerable scrutiny in the coming months. Superannuation remains for most people an important source of domestic savings. It is estimated that approximately $100 billion is invested both in Australia and overseas. This is currently managed by superannuation funds which generate annual earnings of approximately $7.5 billion. These earnings are the basis of the independence and financial security of Australians who are planning for the future. There are approximately two million people in funded superannuation schemes. About 46 per cent of the work force are covered to some extent, of which the public sector constitutes the largest element. In fact, only about 27 per cent of non-public servants are currently covered by superannuation. In 1985-86 total contributions to superannuation funds were $9.25 billion while the total wages and salaries bill over the same period in Australia was $120 billion. Widespread implementation of the Government's 3 per cent productivity superannuation scheme could result in an extra $3.5 billion in superannuation contributions. But it is not expected that we will see widespread implementation in the short term, nor that the total contributions-all from employers, regrettably-will have a major impact, as I said earlier, on the capacity of the beneficiaries to truly have independence at a financial level. The potential growth, however, makes it even more essential that employer-financed benefits must be able to justify their tax concessions while, at the same time, we should be making every effort possible to encourage employees to also make a direct contribution towards their superannuation. It is a matter of great regret to the Opposition that this Labor Government, quite early in the piece, in its first year in office when it reviewed the superannuation benefits, determined to withdraw the $1,200 deduction which was currently in place at that time to encourage individuals to enter into joint schemes with employers and have access to tax deductibility as a result. The stupidity of the present system is that the individual in a joint scheme-if I may use that term-gets no tax deductions whatsoever although the employer gets 100 per cent tax deduction up to seven times final salary. On the other hand, small business people and the self-employed also are limited to deductions of only $1,500. I think it is perfectly obvious that this whole question of deductibilities in relation to superannuation is a matter which needs to be reviewed and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has already advised the House in the Budget session that that is his intention so to do. The legislation, therefore, which we are debating tonight, contains a number of very significant elements. Firstly, for example, in the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill we are told that it is the purpose of this legislation to put on record the Government's intentions in relation to superannuation standards. Unfortunately an examination of the legislation makes it more than evident that this is really not what it is all about. For example, the operating standards which are in part II of the Bill in fact contain little more than a set of statements of subject headings or intent. There is no serious attempt being made to offer to the Parliament and to the Australian people, to the insurance and superannuation industries and, above all, to the contributors of superannuation any sense of direction or philosophy which should underline what the Government really is directing its efforts at in this most crucial area of public finance. The Bill contains only the headings under which regulations may be promulgated. Since this matter has been in gestation since 1983, and the subject of a detailed statement by the Treasurer on 11 June 1986, some 15 months ago, the Opposition is not satisfied that the Government has taken sufficient account of the need to present to the Parliament, the superannuation industry and the millions of contributors and potential contributors, an adequate statement of its philosophy or the principles which should underpin any further regulatory action. For example, part II of the Bill says in relation to vesting that the regulations may prescribe standards applicable to the vesting in members of superannuation funds of benefits arising directly or indirectly from amounts contributed to superannuation funds. This limited statement is extraordinary when compared with the Treasurer's statement of 11 June where, in attachment 1, he referred to vesting standards and the benefits which should arise from employee contributions. The most important point he made was this: Employee contributions will vest in full in the employee from 1 July 1986. One of the amendments we will be moving in the process of this debate is to change the dates. The dates are wrong because we are debating legislation which, in fact, was initially debated in this House prior to the last election. It could not proceed to the Senate because of the double dissolution but, clearly, the dates need to be changed. We are surprised that there does not appear to have been an effort by the Government to date to offer amendments so to do in this debate. While the Government has chosen full rather than partial vesting as the basis of its policy, even though many employers and sections of the superannuation industry such as the National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Ltd have questioned this, surely full vesting in the employee is a principle which ought to have been expressed in the Bill. Yet there is no information whatsoever of detail in this relationship except to say that we are to look to a statement made by the Treasurer on 11 June last year. Similarly, in regard to the costs of funds management, the principle that `the level of management fees will be a matter for negotiation between trustees and fund managers'-also a statement made by the Treasurer at that time-should have been included in the Bill. Other important principles, such as the payment of benefits on retirement at age 55 or later, while certainly not an objective supported by the Opposition, nevertheless is a principle which should be expressed in the legislation. Other standards enunciated by the Treasurer in his statement of 11 June covering issues such as preservation and portability are also of fundamental importance and should also have been identified in the Bill. For example, the composition of trustee boards is a subject of great significance to both management and contributors whose interests must be paramount. The operating standards referred to in the Bill do not mention the Government's intention to require equal numbers of persons to be nominated by the unions and employers, nor does it stipulate that an independent trustee may be appointed. Why has this matter been ignored? I do not know. I hope the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan), who is at the table, can tell us, but certainly no effort has been made to do so in this legislation. The exercise of effective control over the investment policies of superannuation funds goes to the very heart of a successful national superannuation policy. Whatever formula is adopted, the objective of trustee boards and fund directors must be to ensure that the investments of superannuation funds are directed towards achieving maximum returns to members consistent with the sound management of fund assets. The need to include principles in the Bill which adequately cover investment standards should be obvious to the Government, yet it has failed so to do. The Government's determination not to set down principles but rather to keep the industry in a state of uncertainty, especially in areas such as investment and taxation, is, in my opinion, diametrically opposed to the need to pass legislation which creates a sound basis in law upon which the industry, contributors and fund managers can make long term plans directed at ensuring that people in retirement will have a degree of financial independence and make fewer demands on social welfare. As a result of the recent Budget, the industry is now on notice that the Government is considering seriously the imposition of a differential tax on superannuation income which will distinguish income generated from investments overseas from that in Australia. Such interference in the market-place surely contravenes paragraph 17 of the Treasurer's statement of 11 June in which he said: Investments of superannuation funds are to be directed towards achieving maximum returns to members consistent with the sound management of fund assets. While trustees and managers are expected to keep investments at arm's length we see here the ultimate example of double standards in a government setting regulations, whether under the tax Act or under occupational superannuation standards legislation, which will effectively remove from management the right to determine where it can achieve the maximum return on the investment of contributors' funds. We all know that Australia especially now needs massive investments in our industries, much of which comes from the insurance and superannuation industries. Apart from banks they represent the largest source of capital investment in this country. One has to ask the question, therefore: Is it worth while taking the risks which the Government is doing at this stage in not being prepared to establish what I would call a level playing field which encourages managers of investment funds to be able to make what they regard as the right decisions, whether they be domestic or foreign? Is it any wonder that industry is concerned that this Government's acceptance of the 3 per cent productivity claim of the Australian Council of Trade Unions would lead to a situation where pressure would be applied on fund managers to invest only in politically acceptable industries or countries. Regrettably, this is no idle threat. Last year the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association seriously considered interfering in the investment decisions of the Commonwealth's own Superannuation Fund Investment Trust for ideological reasons. The performance of trade union funds such as the building unions superannuation scheme, better known by the acronym `BUSS', will of course be judged over time but any discussion one has with either builders or labourers leaves one firmly of the view that the manner in which this scheme was established does not give confidence about the ultimate outcome. Funds dominated by some trade unions are seen more as an easy means for the unions to gain revenue through agency arrangements rather than as a bona fide means for providing employees with the best return on their investment. It is precisely for that reason that the Opposition parties have been concerned right from the beginning with how best we can establish a mechanism by which as many people as possible-hopefully one day all the working force-will be able to join superannuation funds. But surely the principle must be that they should be funds which people have entered voluntarily, of their free choice. Despite what the Treasurer said in his statement, workers in areas such as transportation, communications and building have no choice as to where their superannuation contributions will be placed. One of the other issues of great concern to us in this legislation is retrospectivity. This issue was raised by none other than the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills in its report No. 9 of 27 May 1987. It made some observations which I would like to report. It said: . . . clause 4 would apply the Bill, in effect, from 1 July 1986 so that superannuation funds and approved deposit funds would be required to comply with the conditions established by the Bill from that date in order to gain concessional taxation treatment. The report then went on to say: It appears that the basis of this retrospectivity is to be found in press releases which the Treasurer made on 11 June, 30 July and 22 December 1986. Once again the Committee has occasion to draw to the attention of Senators the practice of the Treasurer of treating his press releases as de facto changes to the law by introducing legislation backdated to the day on which he first announced the proposal to change the law. This is not the first time that this Senate Committee has complained about the way in which the Treasurer has responded to this Parliament. The Committee went on to say: . . . it appears that the Treasurer found it necessary in this case to modify or add to the terms of his initial announcement so that the de facto legislation may be said to have been amended before it was introduced into the Parliament. The Committee went on to make another statement which I would like to quote. This is of great importance not just in relation to this Bill but in relation to the growing tendency we have seen even in the context of the Australia Card, which has now died a quick death, for this Government to use regulations rather than legislation as the basis of its methodology of government-and worse than that, to prefer to use Press releases. The report stated: The practice of `legislation by press release' carries with it the assumption that citizens should arrange their affairs in accordance with announcements made by the Executive rather than in accordance with the laws made by Parliament. The Senate has effectively spoken on this matter. It went on to say: . . . Ministerial press releases and when the Minister concerned issues further press releases modifying or adding to the terms of the original press release. This should not be condoned as an alternative to logical and well thought out legislation. The report stated: The Committee condemns in the strongest terms the practice of `legislation by press release'. When, in November 1985, the Committee requested the Treasurer's comments on the fact that, in almost four years of existence, it had never received a response to a comment made by it on a Bill for which the Treasurer had been responsible, the Treasurer responded that, due to the considerable time pressures continuously experienced by his staff and the limited number of officials engaged in the legislation area, a practice of not responding had been adopted. What more do we need? We have the arrogance of a Treasurer who says to the Senate Committee which has the power of this Parliament to review regulations that he is not interested in the views of the Parliament; furthermore he has no intention of responding to the Committee. If that is the way we are going to proceed then clearly establishing more committees in the Parliament, or even being here, is a waste of time. If this man should have the luck one day to become Prime Minister-I am sure the Australian people will think otherwise-democracy in this nation will be reaching its nadir. Another important amendment we will propose-I will refer to this in due course-concerns the impact of this Bill in relation to timing. The 60-day appeal procedure which is the basis of appeals under the taxation Act should be the basis of appeals under this legislation. Unfortunately, that is not the situation. This Bill proposes that the 60-day appeal period be reduced to 21 days. One of the difficulties the Government will face in the implementation of this legislation is that there are between 200,000 and 300,000 superannuation funds operating in Australia today. This Bill sets down in its so-called operating standards, the details of which we will one day know of in regulation-as I said earlier, they are not contained in the Bill-the mechanism by which this new authority will have the duty to review all of those 300,000 schemes. Clearly, no authority can handle such a vast body of work. There are two possible alternatives. One is to allow the industry a degree of self-regulation, which is the situation that has applied in the past, and in time to review funds. That at least is a logical way of doing it. However, if the 60-day review procedure is to be cut down to 21 the problem is that if a scheme which has been in operation for three, four or five years prior to being reviewed by the agency is then found to have some element in it contrary to the operating standards the details of which we know so little about, there will be a catastrophic situation. Funds have been invested and many hundreds or thousands of people may be members of that scheme and it is just not a practical proposition so far down the road. The way in which we believe it should be done is simply to limit the timing arrangement and to allow the authority the capacity to work more closely with funds by issuing pro forma applications. Most schemes are similar. While schemes produced by the Australian Mutual Provident Society, for example, are designed to fit in with the requirements of a specific company or industry, nevertheless there is a certain similarity about the schemes. If the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner issues to fund managers a standard form, probably two-thirds or more of existing superannuation schemes would fit within that context and therefore the administrative costs, the time delays and the risks to the investment and the fund managers would be substantially less. I hope the Government will consider very seriously some of the proposals we are putting forward. As I said, this is extremely important legislation. It should set in place the principles of private sector as well as public sector superannuation for many years to come. One of the matters of great concern to us is simply this: whereas in the United States of America people are currently planning 50 years ahead and looking into the twenty-first century, they are not seeing a retirement age of 55 as the lotus eaters of Australia are; they are talking about a retirement age of 72. The point I made earlier is absolutely valid. Right across the Western world in the countries with the highest standards of living we are facing the fact of lower birth rates and longer life expectancy and therefore more people going into retirement. Whilst it is easy to overplay the financial costs involved in meeting the obvious social welfare requirements, at the same time any government worth its salt has a fundamental responsibility to this and future generations of Australians to make sure that we are planning far enough ahead. That is why the Opposition simply cannot accept the basis of the 3 per cent productivity proposals which were accepted by this Government last year and put forward by the Australian Council of Trade Unions. It was clearly a disguised form of wage increase, but if one sees it as the Government claims it was, as the basis for a universal system of superannuation, I regret to say that it is a failure. It is a failure for a number of reasons, principally because 3 per cent will bring one virtually nothing and certainly not enough money to make it worth while. A viable scheme requires a contribution by employer and/or employee of about 9 per cent for a worker on average weekly earnings (AWE), $438 a week, entering the scheme at age 25, to generate an indexed pension of 55 per cent of AWE by the age of 65, and 10 years certain after that, with an assumed real rate of interest of 3 per cent compound per annum. An assumed real interest rate of 2 per cent would require a contribution of about 13 per cent of total salary. This illustrates the fact that the 3 per cent productivity decision is the absolute minimum, and if a fund achieves real earnings of, say, 2 per cent per annum it would take an AWE employee 30 years to achieve a payment of $20,000 at age 60. That would buy an indexed annuity of about $18 to $19 a week. Clearly this is well below the $50 a week income currently allowed before the pension is reduced. While it is clear that the Government entered into these very important superannuation policy initiatives, forced to the barricades to a large degree by pressure from the Australian Council of Trade Unions, it is a matter of great regret that we now have in place a situation where many thousands of Australians are being encouraged to go into schemes which are worth only 3 per cent of their total salary, funded entirely by employers. While these schemes claim that employees are also encouraged to make a contribution, the regrettable fact is that there is a growing tendency in this country to imagine that costs of that nature have to be borne by the Government, by the employer or by somebody else, but not the employee. Having said that, I note that there is also a growing tendency in the upper end of the wage market for terms and conditions of employment packages to include schemes based absolutely on employer contributions. We believe it is desirable to have a system into which employers and employees contribute to these schemes. That is the best way of ensuring that a sufficient fund will be built up to enable employees to see their later independence as a reality-something which will never be achieved on the basis of a 3 per cent contribution. As a result of these problems, the Opposition therefore moves: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to provide for the operating standards to be incorporated in the Bill or in a separate Act so as to protect the rights of employees to determine whether they should join union superannuation funds or other funds of their choice'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Tuckey —Yes, the amendment is seconded. Mr GEAR(Canning)(6.23) —It must be a wonderful experience to go from government to opposition because it seems now that, along with a lot of other matters, the Opposition has finally discovered superannuation. Members of the Opposition are experts when they are over there on the Opposition benches, but when they are on the Government side they do absolutely nothing. When we look at superannuation in Australia and follow the history and evolution of the system we have now, we should note that for the majority of the time the Liberal Party has been in power, and it has done absolutely nothing. The evolution of our present retirement scheme began in 1951 when we had the National Welfare Fund. That was the embryo, at least, of a national superannuation scheme. I go back to 1983 and remind the House of the superannuation and retirement scheme that we inherited from the present Opposition, which has finally discovered superannuation. Not only has it discovered it; it could also give us a definition of it. Mr Connolly —It is a pity you could not give us one. Mr GEAR —It was a very good definition, too. When we came into power in 1983, a number of schemes were in operation. Later I will go through the statistics of how the schemes broke down, and I will accept many of the statistics used by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly). Certainly the majority of people in Australia did not do anything about providing for their own retirement. Even though previous Liberal governments had talked about the freedom of choice of Australians to do so, the fact is that hardly anyone did anything. Only about 40 per cent of the Australian population had access to superannuation schemes and, of the other 60 per cent who were supposed to provide for their own retirement, about 95 per cent of that group did absolutely nothing and now draw the old age pension. This was the situation when those people who actually went into a superannuation scheme finally retired. A superannuation scheme, as the honourable member for Bradfield pointed out, should involve income that is deferred so that a person can take it when he retires, on a regular basis. But what was happening was that people were taking their superannuation in a lump sum. Having received taxation advantages for those contributions during their working life, they then took their superannuation in a lump sum and paid virtually no tax on it. They would spend that sum sometimes on holidays, sometimes on holiday houses or sometimes on second cars-which by themselves are worthy things, and I do not doubt that the people earned such rewards, but that was not what superannuation schemes were all about. Superannuation schemes were designed to allow people to take their deferred income on a regular basis. People were taking their lump sum but were paying virtually no tax on it and were then going on to the old age pension. They were double dipping. As we call it. So they received a taxation concession through their working lives for investing in superannuation schemes, took the money as a lump sum, receiving another taxation concession, and then went on to the old age pension. As you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker, when we became the Government we ended that by putting a tax on lump sums and so gave people the incentive to roll those funds over and take their income on a regular basis over time. To shore up the system somewhat more, we brought in an assets test. Both of those measures were opposed by those opposite; in fact, they campaigned very heavily against us, with some effect, during the 1984 election campaign. However, they were necessary measures. They were hard things to do but we had to do them to shore up the superannuation scheme. The ludicrous situation was that once somebody had taken his lump sum and either spent it or, if he went the other road, invested it in a non-interest bearing scheme, he could still draw the old age pension. In fact, many of the pensioner newspapers ran full page advertisements inviting pensioners to do just that. This Government ended that, just about from day one. A most distressing part of the scheme operating under the previous Government was that it was used for tax avoidance. I refer to what are now called cherry picker schemes, where employers actually used superannuation schemes to avoid paying tax. Not only that but, at the same time, they used these schemes to cheat their employees out of entitlements. I acknowledge that the honourable member for Bradfield agrees with me. That was a distressing part of the superannuation scheme that we inherited. It does not happen nowadays, due to the measures of this Government. I move on now to some projections. Certainly the honourable member for Bradfield talked about projections. I would like to illustrate to the House some of the pitfalls in making projections about where we should be in the future. I agree with his assertion that we need to make those predictions. I looked at a speech made by a Treasurer Casey back in 1938. He made some projections and, with hindsight, we can look at how accurate they were. Back in 1938, Treasurer Casey projected 40 years ahead. He said there would be 1.28 million pensioners, and, in actual fact, in 1978 there were 1.38 million pensioners. So he was pretty close; it was an error of only 2 per cent. At the time he also predicted that actual cost of those pensioners to Budget revenue. In 1978 dollars, his 1938 prediction was that they would cost the Commonwealth $478m. In actual fact, they cost $3,229m-an error of 680 per cent. That just shows, if this is any example to go by, that making accurate projections is very hard indeed. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr GEAR —Prior to the suspension of the sitting for dinner I was talking about the predictions by Treasurer Casey in 1938 and drawing the attention of the House to the inaccuracy of those predictions, certainly in terms of the projections on the outlays of funding the pension system. As I said, in 1938 Treasurer Casey predicted a cost in 1978 of $478m. In actual fact it was $3,229m, an error of 680 per cent. I think also an Australian study of 583 private businesses and their superannuation funds causes some concern when we look at the participation rate. We see that 56 per cent of men and only 22 per cent of women represent the distribution of people who actually took part in superannuation schemes. Ninety-one per cent of executives participated in a superannuation scheme and 72 per cent of salaried people within those firms participated in superannuation schemes. But then there is a dramatic drop in that workers in schemes accounted for only 32 per cent of the distribution. Certainly, in Australia as a whole only 40 per cent of Australians had access to schemes and, of the 60 per cent who did not have access, about 95 per cent are now on the old age pension. The honourable member for Bradfield also talked about the predictions of the aging of the Australian population. I agree with him; it is a problem which really needs addressing. Even though he made the point that 3 per cent was not a lot, at least it is a start. The Bills before us today deal with the standards to be included in the regulations under the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill. Let me just refer briefly to a few of them. Certainly one of the great benefits of this Bill will be the portability of superannuation benefits. The standards announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) provide for benefits to be transferred from a superannuation fund that a member is leaving to one that he or she is joining. I know that that has been one of the obstacles to the present scheme: if one leaves a job and one enters an industry superannuation scheme one tends to lose the benefits and it is not an ongoing scheme. The portability of benefits under the superannuation scheme will be of great benefit. In addition, the membership of the trustee boards will make great advances as a result of this Bill. All superannuation funds established after 16 December 1985 are required to have equal participation of representatives of employers and employees on their trustee boards to encourage increased member participation in the management of superannuation funds. I refer to the infamous cherrypicker schemes whereby superannuation concessions were used to further tax avoidance schemes. That could not have happened had we had the participation of employees on those boards. There are other benefits in the Bill: minimum vesting standards, minimum preservation standards, the security of benefits standards. I have already mentioned the membership of the trustee boards. I turn to the reporting requirements. The Government will require superannuation funds to provide to members information on matters affecting their entitlements, including details of benefits for new members and the effects of any change to trust deeds on members' entitlements and the net earnings of the funds on the members' and the employers' contributions. I turn now to basic superannuation fund conditions. The superannuation funds will have to continue to satisfy a number of conditions to qualify for tax concessions. These conditions include: the fund has been established for the sole purpose of providing superannuation benefits to members on retirement or to dependants of members. I take the point made by the honourable member for Bradfield in his contribution tonight, and I certainly agree with the way in which he expressed his belief in superannuation. It certainly fits in with that. The level of benefits provided by a superannuation fund must be reasonable; that is, the level of benefits must not exceed the maximum levels in relation to final average salary currently set by the Commissioner of Taxation. We are saying there that they must be realistic; we do not want these superannuation funds being turned into vehicles for deferred pay to be taken later on. The other provision is that under the basic superannuation fund conditions the fund must be indefinitely continuing. I will not take any more time of the House. I know that we have a long way to go in the superannuation Bills which are before the House tonight, but every step we take along that track can only lead to Australia having a better retirement system than the one we currently have. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(8.06) —Superannuation, the subject of this legislation, is an issue that is of very great importance to the people of Australia. The honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) had a good deal to say about the inaccuracies of long term projections. Certainly, more in the way of planning and long term thought is needed in this matter than is evidenced in this makeshift legislation. Whatever estimates we come up with, the indications from demographic studies are very clear: as we move into the first decades of the twenty-first century we will have a very large retirement population. Detailed projections were set out by my colleague the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly). The cost of providing retirement income is not one which can or should be met from public funds-that is, taxation. Since there is a very long planning, implementation and build-up period involved, in the order of 30 years, the issue of an adequate superannuation policy is a quite central issue of policy. Yet the Government has not addressed it. It certainly does not do so in this makeshift legislation, specifically the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill. The Government is here reacting and moving to catch up with events. It is not initiating; it is not putting down some well thought out, long range policy and action. The legislation provides that the really critical matters-the actual standards for the superannuation funds-be laid down by regulation. Clearly, the Government does not know where it is going. Over the last 18 months we have had policy by Press release, something we have become accustomed to from this Government, with the Government driven to action by the demands of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) and the rulings of a compliant Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Indeed, the history of this matter stems from Australian Labor Party Government-ACTU action-all along we have had an Australian Labor Party-Australian Council of Trade Unions government-dating back to September 1985. This was recounted by my colleague the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) back in June and I will summarise his account. On 4 September 1985 the Government came to an agreement with the Australian Council of Trade Unions in the context of the Accord Mark 2. Under this agreement the unions were to obtain for their members, through the conciliation and arbitration system, in effect a 3 per cent disguised wage increase, called a productivity increase, in the form of superannuation contributions by employers on behalf of employees. That deal was arrived at between the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the ACTU to disguise a wage increase which was over and above what was economically justified. It was very necessary for the Treasurer to present a facade to the Australian business and financial community to try to suggest that the wage increase that was being granted, which was clearly in advance of what ought to be granted, somehow was not a wage increase at all. It was called a productivity increase, and it was to be paid in the form of superannuation. It was `superannuation based on productivity'. Could one get a more sensible or benign idea? Expressed in that sort of motherhood term, everyone would agree with it. On 16 December that year, before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission had made any decision, the Government published some guidelines and draft operating standards for occupational superannuation funds. Then on 11 June 1986 the Government published more comprehensive standards for these funds-again, by way of Press release. This was done as a matter of urgency to meet the requirements of the Australian Taxation Office so that the funds would enjoy the tax concessions that were available to superannuation funds. Towards the end of June, after the standards had been issued, the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission brought down its rather ambiguous decision on the 3 per cent claim. It was not prepared to agree that everybody should get it, but it would confirm consent agreements between employers and unions. That, of course, meant a field day for the more powerful unions, which went about the business of forcing employers to put money into union-controlled superannuation funds. On 30 June 1986-- Mr Holding —Can you name one employer that was coerced or forced? Dr HARRY EDWARDS —We will come to that. Mr Connolly —The BUS scheme. Mr Holding —Which employer? Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Large building industry employers generally, which brought in the BUS scheme-the building unions superannuation scheme-to which my colleague the honourable member for Bradfield, by way of interjection to the Minister, has referred. Mr Holding —You don't know what the BUS scheme is. You are relying on him. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —No, there is no problem about that. On 30 June 1986 the Government, which was clearly concerned by the Commission's absolute refusal to toe that line, issued a further statement promising consultation with the industry. On 10 March 1987 the Arbitration Commission, in the context of the unions pressing these claims, modified its decision and said that, rather than relying on consent arrangements, it would arbitrate in particular disputes. Therefore, it put itself in the position to impose this so-called productivity increase on the whole work force. That is the history of the matter. It started with a fraudulent deal between the Treasurer and the ACTU in order to disguise a wage increase. It has led to the Government trying hard to catch up, all along the line, with what the Arbitration Commission was deciding and what the unions were pushing for in the field. The standards set out in that Press release have been operative since 1 July 1986. We now have some legislation, but we still do not have the definitive standards. This legislation makes provision for regulations specifying the real operating standards to be made. This Bill sets up a framework for regulations. One would think that the Government might have been warned by the recent ID card experience! The Bill sets up this framework for the subsequent provision of actual regulations. There is still no thoughtout, long term policy. The Government, in its defence, talks about flexibility, keeping it all flexible. In place of that, one can read that it will proceed cautiously by regulation from time to time, lest it tread on the toes of some of its union mates! That is what it amounts to. The Opposition has expressed reservations about aspects of these standards. Those reservations have been set out by the honourable member for Bradfield. One point in particular is the preservation of benefits only to age 55, not to, say, age 65. In the United States at the moment there is talk of the age of 72. We are not opposing such aspects of the Bill. But the honourable member for Bradfield has moved, by way of an amendment to the motion for the second reading, that the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted so as to incorporate the actual operating standards which are required. I believe that that is the only proper course. However, failing that, we will move some 13 amendments. The first is to clause 3. At the end of the definition of `superannuation fund', we want to add the following words: ``, but does not include: (c) a fund established as a result of an employer or employers being threatened, intimidated or coerced by a trade union or trade unions.''. In effect, this amendment states that if the superannuation funds are to enjoy the taxation concessions that are available, we would want to be certain that the funds are not set up as a result of coercion. Everybody knows-whatever the Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs (Mr Holding) says-that there has been coercion, that people in the building industry, to which I have referred, have been bludgeoned, on building sites and elsewhere, into becoming members of these funds. Sub-contractors have been forced into these funds with employees. Mr Shipton —Small business suffers. Mr Andrew —We've had that experience in Wakefield. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Yes. Many have had experience of that, as my colleague the honourable member for Wakefield says. Membership of the superannuation fund, along with the union card, becomes a ticket for the job. Mr Andrew —What's worse, you can't get the job without it. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —That is exactly what I mean: one cannot get the job without it, as my colleague says. Mr Shipton —No freedom to work. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! If the honourable member for Higgins would go to his correct seat, he might interject from there, even though that would also be out of order. He has managed to do that on a number of occasions today. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Mr Deputy Speaker, I appreciate my colleagues' support. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —You may appreciate it, but the Chair does not. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —We will see how we go. The regulations that are built into the provision that the Opposition is trying to insert amount to an elementary matter of civil liberties and rights. Indeed, it is linked to our approach to industrial relations, and, as my colleague the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster) has said, to non-compulsory unionism. Mr Shipton —Freedom of the individual. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Yes, the freedom of the individual. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If the honourable member for Higgins interjects again, I will deal with him. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Funds such as the building unions superannuation scheme, the BUS scheme, to which my colleague the honourable member for Bradfield referred a moment ago, which have been set up-despite what the Minister says-as a result of coercion of employers by unions, would have to be examined very closely and would be excluded from the taxation concessions if it were found that they were set up as a result of coercion. Another key amendment, to be moved by the honourable member for Bradfield, is amendment No. 9 to clause 7 (2), on page 6 of the Bill. After paragraph (j) we propose that the following paragraph be inserted: ``(ja) the levels of administrative fees, commissions or other deductions which may be payable from amounts contributed to superannuation funds;''. That is the matter that we propose should be added to the list of matters about which a regulation prescribing actual standards should be introduced. The purpose of regulations made under that proposed sub-clause would be to control the `creaming off' of money paid into funds by unions and used for their own purposes, instead of being used to meet genuine costs of administering fund managers. It is common knowledge that the ACTU was privy to an understanding that anything from 30c to $1 a week from the proposed employer contribution should be received by the union. The official leaflet of the Allied Unions Superannuation Trust states that $1 is to be put aside each week for administration. I suggest that the House should think of what that would involve. It is anticipated that at least three million Australian employees become members, coerced or otherwise, of superannuation funds. At $1 a week, $50 a year, for three million employees that is about $150m per annum. At all events, the excess, above a reasonable administrative cost, may be $100m. That is a very large sum to be creamed off in this way. If employers are obliged to provide this money for retirement benefits for employees, the employees should be getting the money in the form of benefits. Of course, over time, nobody anticipates that the superannuation contribution will stay at 3 per cent. There is no way that a contribution of 3 per cent, even over 30 years or more, will provide a reasonable superannuation retirement income. Mr Wilson —It should go up. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —As my colleague the honourable member for Sturt says, it should go up. In 1973, when the Public Service scheme was before the Parliament, I discussed in this House what its true cost was and what its impact would be on the private sector. I suggested that to fund an adequate indexed retirement income would cost of the order of 15 or 20 per cent and upwards of income. That is what will be pressed for under these arrangements. The contribution may be 3 per cent now but increasingly larger amounts will be sought. If the charge about which we spoke a moment ago were to go up in proportion to the quantum of money to be administered, invested and so on, we would be looking at a siphoning off of the order of $750m. Mr Blunt —They would all have beach houses. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —I am not as worried about that as I am about the fact that the ACTU-Australian Labor Party political machine would probably be the best funded political machine anywhere in the world. That is what concerns me much more. Australians generally need to be wide awake to this and to just who may be able, and how, to control their lives. Let us have no argument as to the importance of introducing this amendment that there be regulations as to adequate standards of control in this area of administrative fees. What I have just said is quite apart from the loss of end benefit to members, who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of the schemes. This `bleeding off' has the effect of reducing the end benefit to members. In conclusion, I suggest that what needs to be reflected upon is the vast magnitude of the funds that will accrue to unions via such unions controlled investment funds. Even at 3 per cent-that is just the start; I have referred to 15 per cent or more-with the aggregate of wages in this country of about $130 billion, there could be $2 billion to $3 billion a year available for investment. As the percentage rises higher than that, the sums would be huge. It is not a case of union bashing to express disquiet at this. Union controlled superannuation funds could accumulate enough funds to buy control of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd every year. So there is a potential, if the funds are not properly set up and properly controlled, for an exercise of enormous leverage. That is why the issue of these standards is such an important one. That is why this makeshift legislation, which still does not spell them out definitively, is also inadequate. I commend and support the second reading amendment moved by my colleague the honourable member for Bradfield. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(8.25) —I support the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill, the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner Bill and the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner (Consequential Provisions) Bill. In doing so, I note that these are identical Bills to those which were debated in this place in June-only two or three months ago-prior to the dissolution of the Parliament for the election on 11 July. So we have already had considerable debate on these Bills. They have already been passed by this House. Following their passage tonight they will go to the Senate. The Bills give effect to various standards for the superannuation industry and they are basically the standards which have been outlined previously by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in Press releases during 1986-on 11 June, 30 July and 22 December. The Bills follow extensive consultation with and advice from groups which include the Life Insurance Federation of Australia, the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia and the Institute of Actuaries of Australia. The Government also took into account the views expressed in the final report of the task force on occupational superannuation which was tabled in this House in early 1983. Consultation is an important aspect of the process which this Government has undertaken in many of its major economic reforms and consultation will continue, of course, with key groups during the process of the drafting of the detailed regulations which will give effect to the legislation. These are important Bills because they deal with superannuation. I cannot think of a more important subject which this House could be discussing in the context of economic and social policy than superannuation. The decision which was taken by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to ensure that all Australian workers had the opportunity to be part of a superannuation scheme, I think, was an imaginative and historic decision, because there is an enormous need to improve and expand the scope of superannuation coverage in Australia. There are many good reasons for that. If one looks at the extent to which Commonwealth taxpayers fund age pensions in Australia at the moment, one sees that it is undoubtedly a growth area of government outlays. In 1981-82 the taxpayer, through the Federal Budget, paid out some $4 1/2 billion in age pensions. By last year the figures had increased to $6.2 billion. In the 1987-88 Budget almost $7 billion will be spent providing age pensions to retired Australians. In that context, 30 per cent of the Government's total social security outlays, which now total more than $20 billion, are paid in the form of age pensions. There is a second and important reason why superannuation coverage is essential to the social and economic advancement of this country. Currently we have around two million elderly and retired Australians. It is estimated that by 2001 the number of elderly and retired Australians will have increased to 2.6 million. An analysis of the work force shows that, by 2001, for each retired person there will be three or four people in the work force. Some population projections suggest that by midway through the twenty-first century the ratio of dependent elderly to those in the work force might be closer to 2:1. So clearly there is a need to provide encouragement and support for occupational superannuation. The Gruen report-the report of the Panel of Review of Proposed Income and Assets Test which was commissioned by this Government to look at the assets test primarily-also indicated that, on its calculations, over the next few decades the growth rate of elderly people in our population would be at 1.8 per cent per annum compared with a growth rate of a population in general of 1.1 per cent per annum. An overall retirement income policy is essential. Clearly, occupational superannuation is a very important part of an overall retirement income policy. There are many benefits of superannuation to individuals and to the nation. One of the major benefits is that superannuation provides a private provision of retirement income. Another benefit of superannuation is that it will, over time, reduce a retiree's dependence on transfer payments from social security and, therefore, reduce the overall level of public expenditure. There is a third argument, a very good economic argument, that increased superannuation will lead to an increased flow of savings and hence investment in the economy. In a nation like ours, which traditionally has had high levels of consumption expenditure and a level of savings and investment which are too low to maintain our competitiveness as a nation, any measure which attracts savings and therefore investment will enhance our capacity to improve the competitiveness of our nation and our economy, and that is a good thing. There is a final reason why superannuation is important, and that is that it brings a planned approach to the crucial matter of social policy. In this context of occupational superannuation, it is worth noting that, at the moment, almost half the work force has no form of superannuation cover, so any scheme which can broaden the coverage of superannuation is something which is of benefit to people in the work force. There are three Bills before the House, but the most important puts effect to standards which will be included in regulations governing occupational superannuation schemes. Most of those standards are already being applied in accordance with the Treasurer's statements released during 1986, and they provide for a wide range of standards covering the operational aspects of schemes. They include, for instance, things like minimum vesting standards, and these standards require employers to distribute benefits more evenly among employees, allowing employees who resign before retirement age to receive a larger share of benefit than they have previously. There are standards relating to preservation. These standards are designed to improve the level of benefits available to members of superannuation schemes at retirement, by requiring benefit to be retained in a superannuation fund or an approved deposit fund until the member retires. The standards also relate to a third important matter, and that is the portability of benefits. These standards provide for benefits to be transferred from a superannuation fund that a member is leaving to one that he or she is joining or to an approved deposit fund or deferred annuity fund. The fourth standard relates to the security of benefit. In this respect, the Government has announced several measures which will improve the security of members' benefits. New superannuation funds established after 16 December 1985 are not allowed to provide loans to members, as the provision of loans to members would be inconsistent with the preservation of benefits to retirement. The fifth standard relates to the membership of trustee boards. All superannuation funds established after 16 December 1985 are required to have equal participation of representatives of employers and employees on their trustee boards to encourage increased participation in the management of superannuation funds. There are two further standards which are incorporated in this legislation. They relate to reporting requirements and to basic superannuation fund conditions. In respect of that final matter, the funds will obviously have to satisfy a number of conditions to qualify for tax concessions. Those conditions include that the fund is being established for the sole purpose of providing superannuation benefits to members on retirement or to dependants of members, that the level of benefits provided by the superannuation fund must be reasonable, and that the fund must be indefinitely continuing. They are very important standards, in which, in consultation with the industry, the Government is putting into detailed regulations, and they will govern the operation of occupational superannuation funds in the future. I welcome those standards, which make an important contribution to the quality of superannuation which is available in Australia. Some of those issues-vesting, preservation and portability-will become increasingly important to all Australians as the quality and type of our working life changes considerably in the future. It could be said that, a century ago, even decades ago, the traditional work pattern of a typical Australian was such that one could expect to be employed in a job of one type for most of one's working life of 30 or 40 years. Technological change was much slower and the opportunities and necessity for people to change from one job to another were far fewer. There is no doubt now that with the trends emerging in Australian society, and which are clearly evident overseas in some of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, of rapidly changing technology and changing social and economic patterns, the old fashioned view that one could start a job early in life at 18 or 20 and keep that job through one's working life until retirement age at 60 or 65 is no longer relevant. Indeed, the changing educational, technological and training patterns in the future will mean that everyone in the work force will need to be much more flexible in his working arrangement. He will need to prepare for regular retraining during his working life and will need to be aware that it will be virtually impossible to maintain and keep the same job from youth to retirement. All of that is very relevant to superannuation, because if we want Australians to contribute more to their retirement income, then it is essential, if people are going to change jobs and move in and out of training and retraining programs more frequently and with more flexibility, to recognise that issues like vesting, portability and preservation are crucial to the flexibility and efficiency of an economy, particularly one that is becoming increasingly deregulated. If we want to pay attention to issues like international competitiveness, a highly educated and mobile work force and improvements in productivity, it will be necessary to have training and retaining programs with flexibility in working patterns and therefore to have increasing flexibility in the standards that apply to occupational superannuation funds. Basically, that is what these standards put effect to. The Opposition has preshadowed a number of amendments in this debate. The previous speaker in this debate, the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards), paid particular attention to two of those amendments. One was the proposed Opposition amendment to clause 3 which was to amend or alter the definition of a superannuation fund. I know that the Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Holding) will make some comment about this later, but there is a real problem with that amendment because it simply will not be possible for the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner objectively to determine that a fund has been established as a result of threats or coercion from trade unions, as the Opposition is suggesting. It is relevant to say in that respect that, in its decision in June 1986, the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission agreed to ratify agreements for new or improved superannuation benefits provided that the consent of employees was genuine. Subsequently, the Commission indicated, in its decision of 10 March 1987, that this approach had led to an unacceptable level of industrial disputation in respect of superannuation. Therefore, in its more recent decision of 10 March 1987, the Commission agreed to arbitrate on superannuation claims in instances where negotiation and conciliation had failed to produce agreement between employers and employees. We can say that, as a result of that decision, the level of industrial disputations relating to superannuation should be substantially reduced and that, if new or improved superannuation benefits result from an award made by the Commission, the question of a superannuation fund paying the benefits being established as a result of threats or coercion from the unions should not arise. I think that that is a fairly sound response to the Opposition's amendment, which is based on its usual paranoia about the union movement. If there were any contracts which were made between a union and an employer in which duress had been involved, which is the imputation of the amendment, then that would be void under law, so there is another argument saying that that amendment is redundant. The other amendment on which the honourable member for Berowra commented is that to clause 7 of the Bill to provide for the prescription of fees, commissions, et cetera which would be payable by funds. My response to that is that the Government's announced operating standards already contain a number of provisions which will make superannuation fund trustees more accountable to members. These provisions include a requirement that large superannuation funds established after 16 December 1985 and with more than 200 members must have equal representation of employers and employees on their trustee boards. I could respond in greater detail to that, but the fact that both employers and employees are reflected equally in the composition of the board is surely a sound response to the proposal which was put in that amendment. The Treasurer in the previous Liberal-National Government, the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), looked at the concept of a national superannuation scheme and decided not to introduce one. In his Press release in July 1979, saying why the then Liberal-National Government would not expand national superannuation, the then Treasurer made two points: First, the Government is concerned at recent attempts by trade unions to obtain employer contributions to superannuation schemes as a means of circumventing wage indexation guidelines. These claims, if successful, would add significantly to labour costs and would thus have implications for unemployment and inflation . . . Second, the Government is concerned to ensure that union activities in the superannuation area are directed towards meeting the genuine retirement needs of members and are subject to the same rules and standards as those expected of others involved in the area. In this respect the Government makes no distinction between those parties or organisations currently involved, or who would seek to become involved, in superannuation activities. Both of the concerns expressed by the then Treasurer, Mr Howard, in 1979, are more than met and more than adequately responded to by the existing program which is in place for the expansion of occupational superannuation. When the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission agreed in the wage case that a 3 per cent wage equivalent could be paid in superannuation-as it was then-it was doing so in an environment in which real labour unit costs had declined significantly under the policies of this Government. When we came to office, real labour unit costs on an indexed basis in late 1982 stood at 108. By 1985, the index of real labour unit costs had moved down to 97.5. So the professed concern that the Liberal and National parties had then and still have about superannuation adding to costs and reducing national economic productivity and competitiveness is simply not substantiated if we look at what has happened to real labour unit costs under this Government. This Government has been genuinely successful in ensuring a macroeconomic environment, including wages policy, which has ensured a downward trend in real labour unit costs. It has ensured that as a nation we are now more competitive than at any time in the last 20 years. When we look at last week's Federal Budget, which provides for a Budget deficit of only $27m, it is clear that the continuing trend towards improved international competitiveness and productivity growth will continue. I conclude by saying that the growth of superannuation is essential for proper social and economic development. At the moment, too few Australians have the opportunity of participating in superannuation schemes. Steps taken by this Government will ensure that many more men and women, particularly low income earners, will have the opportunity of participating in superannuation. It will ensure that the nation's stock of savings increases, that more fund is available for investment in productive enterprises in Australia and that along the road in 20, 30 or 40 years the drain on the public purse for age pensions in the year 2010 or 2040 will be reduced significantly. I stongly support these Bills before the House. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(8.44) —The Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill, the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner Bill and the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner (Consequential Provisions) Bill before the House tonight have been here before-some three months ago. It is a mark of the Government's incompetence that they are here in the same form that they were here last time, because they were inadequate then and they are inadequate now. Mr Beale —They are worse now. Mr BLUNT —They are worse now because the Government has had another three months to do something and has done nothing. The Bills are a mark of the Government's incompetence and an indictment of its failure to care about the retirement of Australians. What we are really talking about is a very important concept to all Australians; that is, their retirement income and security and how they plan for that retirement during their working lives. It takes probably 30 to 35 years to plan adequately to provide for a standard of living during retirement. The big problem that we on this side of the House have with this legislation-and we have many problems with it-is that it indicates that the Government has no retirement income policy. The whole structure of superannuation in Australia since June 1986 has been based on a Press release referred to by the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) as a statement-- Mr Brumby —Three Press releases. Mr BLUNT —He says, `Three Press releases'-hallelujah! Mr Beale —Government by three Press releases. Mr BLUNT —It is government by three Press releases. I am prepared to give credit to three Press releases; three Press releases are better than one, I guess, but not necessarily any better, because it certainly does not provide any surety for people planning their retirement that anything that they believe will operate at the present time will hold into the future. Of course, that is really what we are talking about tonight-whether people should be prepared to go ahead and plan for retirement over a long term with the possibility that they can have the rug pulled from underneath them by changes to regulations. One of the major problems with this legislation is that the operating standards for superannuation funds and approved deposit funds are not specified in the legislation. Nor are they specified in the Press release. The excuse given by the former Minister responsible in this area was that a committee was still working on it. That was three months ago and I presume that the committee is still working. The committee has been working since June 1986 and I am told that in that time 300,000 superannuation plans have been established. That involves at least 300,000 Australians. I notice that the Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs (Mr Holding), who is at the table, raises his eyebrows. There are probably in the order of one million or two million Australians involved because many of those funds would have more than one member. In the words of the honourable member for Bendigo, a couple of million Australians are planning for their retirement and putting in substantial amounts of money weekly or fortnightly on the basis of three Press releases. The Government introduces the legislation in this place and says, `Let us pass it and send it up to the Senate and at some time in the future we will bring in some regulations and tell people what the operating standards for superannuation funds and approved deposit funds will be'. In the meantime, a couple of million Australians are putting all this money aside on the basis that it will be available to them in 30 years time to provide some sort of security for their retirement. It is not good enough. Regulations are quite topical at the present time. I do not need to remind the House about the problems that can arise if people rely on regulations. We have seen today with the Australia Card Bill that the Government was not really aware of what could happen to regulations in the Senate. I am not suggesting that anyone on our side of the Parliament is opposed to superannuation, but if those opposite cannot plan to implement their identity card legislation because they cannot guarantee that the regulations will go through the Senate how dare they ask a couple of million Australians to put money away on a weekly basis on the strength of regulations that no one has yet seen going through the Senate or this House? Mr Beale —That is government by Press release. Mr BLUNT —Yes, and it is government by fiat and government by whim. People are planning over 30 years for their retirement and it takes a month to change regulations in this place. That is not the way to run a retirement income policy. What it really comes down to-- Mr Brumby —You are a hypocrite. Mr BLUNT —I would have a different attitude if the honourable member could provide us with some indication of what the regulations would look like. If those opposite could do that they could put them into the legislation. But if they are going to ask people to assign a trustee, to make contributions and to commit themselves to a superannuation fund, the very least they can do is put those operating standards into the legislation. Mr Brumby —Why didn't you do it? Mr BLUNT —Because those opposite have the numbers. They are the ones who have been running around with Simon Crean and the Australian Council of Trade Unions stitching up a deal for 3 per cent on productivity or whatever because the Government is over a political barrel and Simon Crean and Bill Kelty said, `Do this deal or you have a problem; this is the pay off'. The reality is that those opposite did the political deal before they knew how they would run these funds-300,000 funds and millions and millions of dollars. How much money is in approved deposit funds at the present time? Yet we do not know what the operating standards are. They are very important for those Australians who are putting aside $10, $20 or $30 on a daily basis for their superannuation. The Government determines who will be running those superannuation funds, what those funds can invest in, what information people are going to get about their investments and what is going to happen with their money. The Government has not told them. It brought this Bill into the House for the second time. The first time was three months ago. It comes back three months later and it is still no different. The Government has still done no work. It has been sitting on its hands not only for the past three months, but since June 1986. It is about time that everyone out there in a recently established superannuation fund knew exactly of the incompetence and inactivity of this Government. It has not got a feather to fly with. It does not care about superannuation for Australian workers; all it cares about is the superannuation deal with the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) to keep Simon Crean and Bill Kelty happy and to provide ongoing administration charges so that the ACTU can finance its activities notwithstanding its ever declining membership base. Because it is not getting enough money out of its membership subscriptions it needs to look at additional sources of income. The additional sources of income have got to be the ultimate cash flow; that is, an administration charge straight off the top of the average worker's contribution to his retirement income. That is what this Government has done. Not only has the Government done that, but it has also not told the average Australian worker. I wonder whether the honourable member for Bendigo is prepared to go out on to the shop floor of his electorate and tell some of this voters, his constituents, that he is supporting a Bill on the basis that they are investing for their future and there is no specificity on how that fund will, in fact, operate. I wonder whether the honourable member is prepared to do that. Is he prepared to go home, walk on to the average shop floor and talk about the lack of operating standards for superannuation funds? Would he invest his money in any sort of proposition where he did not know how it was going to be run? I would not and I do not think it is reasonable to ask the average Australian worker to do that. But that is what this Government is prepared to do. Mr Brumby —Superannuation is all right for you but not the average worker! Mr BLUNT —Here is the man who is talking about the average worker. If he had any commitment to the average worker he would not be supporting this Bill. He would abstain if he was not prepared to show some principle and vote with us. All we are saying is, `Don't do anything until you have laid down in black and white how these superannuation funds are going to work'. There is absolutely no guarantee that at some time in the future the Treasurer (Mr Keating) will not have a rush of blood to the head or maybe a bit of coercion from one of his mates in the trade union movement. If the honourable member does not think the ACTU has influence, just remember what happened to the National Taxation Summit. While the Treasurer was wandering around this place trying to get option C up, I think the ACTU and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and a few other factional leaders were off in a smoke filled motel room on the other side of town stitching together what the ALP's tax policy was. When are we going to see the same sort of collusion between the Australian Labor Party and some faction and the ACTU on superannuation funds? That is exactly what this Bill leaves the average Australian worker open to-some sort of back room deal on how superannuation in Australia will be run. It is just not good enough. America plans retirement income 50 years in advance. In Australia at present we are planning retirement income 18 months and more in arrears. People have been putting their money aside for their retirement for 18 months on the basis of the Treasurer's three Press releases-government by Press release-and this Government still does not know how it is going to run it. I have never come across a government with a hide like that. The honourable member for Bendigo talks about no action. Let me tell him that no action is not as bad as action that does not indicate to people where they are going. In Paul Keating's Australia it is hard to earn a dollar. Those people who are putting money into superannuation are putting it in after they have worked long and hard. They would be probably be thankful if they could have it in their pocket on a weekly basis after paying the Treasurer's taxes, after the Treasurer has increased government revenue over 75 per cent in five years and they are making their fortnightly contribution to superannuation. But they do not know how their funds are going to be operated. Mr Holding —But you don't think they should have a right to say how it is administered. Mr BLUNT —The Minister is interjecting that I do not think they should have a right to say how it is administered. Mr Holding —But do you think they should? Mr BLUNT —I am quite happy for the trustees of a superannuation fund to represent the people who are making the contributions. I have no argument with that at all provided those trustees know exactly what their obligations are. The Minister perhaps should give some thought-I presume he knows something about the law-to the obligations of trustees. They are to maximise the benefits flowing to the people on behalf of whom they operate. Mr Holding —Some of your mates in Executor Trustee and Agency. Mr BLUNT —That is right; we all know about that. Let us talk about another very celebrated case in Victoria involving superannuation and trustees. I think one Mr Landeryou went to an auction to buy a beach house for his wife and paid for it with a cheque on a trade union superannuation fund. Was he exercising his responsibilities as a trustee? Was he maximising the returns to the contributors to those funds? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! I ask the honourable member who has the call to direct his remarks through the Chair, and I ask both him and the Minister to stop swapping comments across the House. Mr BLUNT —With respect, Madam Deputy Speaker, I suggest that you should have suggested to the Minister that he cease interjecting. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Richmond has the call for debating and not for making suggestions as to how the Chair should operate. Mr BLUNT —I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are Standing Orders, of which I am sure you are very familiar. You are aware, as you have just said to me, that being the member with the call I have a right to speak without interruption. Now your responsibility in the chair is to enforce those Standing Orders. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I call on the honourable member for Richmond to continue with the debate, and I assume that he is not reflecting on the Chair. Mr BLUNT —No, I am not reflecting on the Chair. I am simply making reference to the Standing Orders and to the obligation of the person presently in the chair. The Minister may sit at the table and grin, but he knows that the point I make is very true. I have just referred to Mr Landeryou purchasing a house with a certain cheque. People are not protected against that sort of thing by this Bill, because it does not specify the operating standards for a superannuation fund. That is the very least safeguard that a person, who is making a contribution, could ask the Government to provide, particularly as the statement made by the Treasurer has been around for some 18 months, particularly since this Bill was introduced in the dying days of the last Parliament-and the Opposition parties at that time made exactly the same point-and particularly since this Bill, which passed through the House, was not accepted at that time by the Senate. The Government and the committee working on the Bill, with the industry, have had a further three months to work out those operating standards. I must ask why we have not seen them. There can be one of two answers. First, the Government has done nothing, it has just sat on its hands; or, secondly, it deliberately does not want to specify those operating standards. The Government's objective in having those standards may be that it does not want this Bill to be the subject of a full debate in this Parliament. I for one think that retirement income policy in this country should be addressed, and addressed publicly, because it is one of the most critical issues that this country is facing. We have only to have some basic knowledge of the demographic structure of our population to realise that unless we take some fundamental decisions now and start planning to finance retirement in this country by about the year 2010 we will have a major problem. Despite this Government's claims of having an understanding of welfare issues, it has done precious little towards introducing an effective welfare system or to address the problem of retirement income. As I mentioned before, the honourable member for Bendigo proudly proclaims that this whole thing is based on a Press release and the assets test. That is this Government's retirement income policy, and it is just not good enough. It will not take us out to the year 2010, and the Government will have to address these problems at some stage. If it really knew what it was doing it would be bringing the details into this House and it would have not only a parliamentary debate but also a public debate on the whole issue. Perhaps there are some sensitivities about the operating standards and about who will have what authority on superannuation funds and perhaps about how those funds will be required to invest their income. We saw in the ACTU document titled Australia Reconstructed proposals for 20 per cent of a superannuation funds income to be invested in specified areas. The Minister was making a reference some time ago to the rights of trustees. Trustees have an obligation to maximise the benefits for the people they are acting for, and not to stick money into something that Simon Crean, Bill Kelty or someone else thinks is a good idea to bolster the position of the trade union movement at a particular time. That is what we are talking about now. I and the Opposition think that the workers of Australia have a right to know what this Government's retirement income policy is, and we do not know. They expose themselves to the risk of the Government, on a whim or as a result of pressure from the ACTU, making fundamental changes to the operating standards of superannuation funds and approved deposit funds which will significantly affect the standard of living that they can afford in their retirement. As I pointed out, the real issue here is that it is very easy to change regulations but it takes 30 years to plan for one's retirement. I do not think this legislation is a very good deal for the average Australian worker. For that reason I support the amendments that will be moved by my colleague the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly). Mr WILSON(Sturt)(9.01) —I rise to take part in this debate because I too support the amendments to be moved by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), but I also state that the Opposition will allow the passage of this legislation because, like me, other members on this side of the House acknowledge the fact that this legislation is a step in the right direction. As my colleague the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), who has just resumed his seat, has indicated, it does not go far enough but it does set up an important framework which I believe should have been established many years ago. In that regard I am critical of all previous governments-Liberal governments and Labor governments. This framework under which superannuation funds can be given operating standards has been a long felt need. But that is not the end in itself: the end for which we should be aiming is the creation of an environment in which all Australian citizens can, through their own efforts, provide for themselves independence and self-reliance in their retirement at a standard of living which is acceptable to them and the community at large. When this Government came to office it missed a golden opportunity because 85 per cent of the age retirees of the country were in receipt of social security pensions, either full or part. Instead of going in the direction of penalising thrift, discouraging private provision by the imposition of the assets test, I believe it would have been cheaper for the nation if the pension had been made universally available; that there would be no income test and asset test and on the attainment of 65 years every Australian qualified by residence should have been entitled through an age pension to a basic minimum standard of living. A great majority of Australians who have been taxpayers in fact have been contributing to their own retirement. Our tax system these days does not include within it a contribution for retirement income; it did some 30 or 40 years ago. A little less than 10c in every tax dollar goes on funding the current age pension scheme. An extra contribution of 10c in every dollar of taxable income above the tax threshold would provide to every Australian aged 65 and over the full age pension. That would then enable Australians to plan for their retirement, to make their investment, savings and expenditure decisions in a normal commercial way without being influenced by the destructive structure of the tax and social security system with its high effective tax rates being the combination of taxation imposed on top of the income test and the implication of the assets test. What do we find? Many Australians in the 10 years before their retirment are wriggling and adjusting their expenditure and savings patterns so that when they reach retirement they will receive what they, in my view, are properly entitled to-the return on the taxes they have paid in anticipation that the Government will provide them with a secure basic minimum standard of living. As a consequence of the distortions in people's savings, investment and expenditure patterns, it is costing, in tax and in overseas indebtedness, far more than the direct cost of providing those people a guaranteed pension upon their retirement. Circumstances have changed since the Australian Labor Party came to office. There has been this move in respect of the 3 per cent superannuation pay increase. I think it is a great pity in terms of public policy that the debate about the 3 per cent superannuation payment has had two threads running through it which have become tangled in a most unfortunate way. One thread is the question of whether we as a nation can afford a pay increase. I want to put that debate to one side. I want to assume that it could be afforded, although I do not believe that to be the case. If one makes that assumption, and 3 per cent is put aside for every Australian, under the present tax regime we have no guarantee that the taxpayers at large-the public sector, to use the jargon-will be relieved of any future expenditure. The Labor Party Government has failed in this regard in its indications of the standards that are to be set under this legislation. It has failed, firstly, because it says people will be able to take out their superannuation benefits at 55. If they do not they have 10 years in which they can blow it and come back on to the public sector-double dipping. Secondly, there is no requirement to guarantee a stream of income from the time of retirement, or the assets to support a stream of income. I think those standards should be set. It is my view that we as a nation should aim to ensure that all Australians contribute for retirement, either to the superannuation funds or to some private provision-I will come to that in a moment-at least 10 per cent of their earnings. Three per cent is a long way from that. I turn to the public sector superannuation provision. I am aware, as many other members would be aware, that the government instrumentalities that join the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund have to pay 21 per cent of their payroll to have their employees members of it, and actuaries question whether that is enough. On information that I have, and having read the literature and talked with actuaries, I understand that 3 per cent of wages paid to the Government from the first dollar to 130 per cent of averaged weekly earnings for the whole employed work force would have provided a universal pension to every Australian of 10 per cent of average weekly earnings. Six per cent would have provided a pension of 20 per cent of average weekly earnings. Recognising that that would include some high income earners supporting low income earners, it may well be that 10 per cent is the more likely figure if adequate provision is to be made by individuals contributing in effect for their own retirement. That raises then a further question as to whether we look at a flat rate minimum standard for everyone guaranteed by the Government and by the framework of the tax and social security systems, or whether we allow the tax and social security systems to give huge benefits to high income earners so that they can have earnings related retirement benefits. One approach would have been, as I mentioned a few minutes ago, to have had a universal pension for all, to have withdrawn all the tax concessions in respect of private provision and to have left everyone to play on a level playing field-to make the savings they chose to make, to make the investments they wanted and to make the current expenditure outlays that they selected, knowing that everyone would be guaranteed a pension of 20 to 23 per cent of average weekly earnings through the flat rate provision. But now we do not have that situation because the Australian Labor Party missed that opportunity. What we have to ask ourselves when we are trying to cut expenditure and to help the average Australian on average weekly earnings and below is how we can possibly afford to have a tax forgone at the rate of $3 billion a year on the tax concessions available through superannuation fund schemes without any guarantee that there will be $3 billion a year relief on the demands on the social security system, either currently or in the future. So it is my view that all should be entitled to an age pension as of right on the attainment of retiring age or alternatively there should be a nexus between the tax concessions available directly or indirectly to employees and others providing for their retirement, or a maximum age pension to which they become entitled on retirement. Furthermore, those who benefit from the current superannuation fringe benefit tax relief should be required to provide security to the taxpayer that their superannuation savings will be available to provide them with retirement incomes. I said earlier that I wanted to touch upon private provision. It is my view that individuals have a deep desire to be self-reliant, to provide for themselves. If people are prepared to make their own provision for retirement, they should be able to operate out of the tax liability that they would otherwise be subjected to if they had failed to make that provision. I do not think that they should be required by governments or anyone else to put their savings into nominated superannuation funds. I think they should have freedom of choice. A factory worker should be able to make his or her private provision or go into the factory's superannuation scheme, the industry scheme or the one run by the union, but it should be a matter of genuine individual choice, with no pressure and everyone entitled to make the savings that he or she chooses. If people can make the savings that will provide them with the resources to give them a stream of income equivalent to the age pension on retirement, they should be exempted from the tax that they would otherwise be liable to pay. Most people, of course, want to go into superannuation funds but from time to time, for example, young families may want to purchase a house. I personally have no objection to saying to a young couple, `We can accelerate for you the rate at which you can pay for your house if, in making the savings and getting the tax relief to the extent of the amount of taxpayer cost for your age pension in that particular year, you will give security, by way of a mortgage or encumbrance or some such deed over the house, for that proportion of pension that that capital sum representing the relief of taxation would provide'. That mortgage could be moved from one house to another as mobile people changed their locations. In that way people would be able to fend for themselves. The money would not have to come into governments and be recycled through government departments and treasuries and creamed off in the expenses of government. People could be given the option of saying, `Yes, I, throughout my life, want to provide for my retirement'. Many would love to do that now, but they cannot because the tax system is totally insensitive to people's desire to achieve that goal. Also, our tax and social security system at present is giving great tax relief, without our really understanding its purpose, in respect of contributions to superannuation funds, the income of superannuation funds and the payments that are made to people on retirement. We could well ask what the objectives are. One is that people will have incomes in retirement. But that is not working. What level of income do we want to give tax relief for? Do we give it for a flat rate pension, or an earnings related pension? Is it to be a device that enables people in the upper income brackets to divert huge amounts of their income through superannuation funds to provide themselves ultimately with lump sums that add to their accumulated wealth without necessarily doing anything to relieve the public sector of the cost of a social security pension? If it does that, it will be terribly expensive. There may be a secondary reason for giving that tax relief: that we want people to save so that we can build up this country. If that is the objective, tax relief should be more directly targeted than is the device which is now available to a few people who can organise their affairs accordingly. We need a neutral tax system, whereby people are enabled to provide for themselves. If they provide for themselves they should be exempted from paying the taxes that they would otherwise have to pay to ensure that they have the social security pension when they need it. The principal matter of concern that I have in relation to this legislation is that it does not fix a proper retirement age. People should not be able to take out their retirement provision, I believe, until they are 65, except in the case of invalidity. It does not, to add a small further point, deal adequately with vesting. I do not think tax relief should be available unless the funds are vested to the benefit of the members of the funds. We want to ensure that the maximum provision is available to the maximum number of people so that ultimately there is private provision for retirement incomes by most Australians. We need to remember that the framework we are now establishing should be good enough to cope with a level of income payment to superannuation that will provide adequate retirement incomes. As I have indicated, that would mean a trebling or quadrupling of the current 3 per cent objective that is now being looked at. Whilst I welcome the legislation in the sense that it creates a framework, I am concerned that it has not addressed these fundamental issues. All too often we talk about the crisis we are facing because the population is aging. In fact, the population is aging because we do not give birth to enough children-that is the reason. Nevertheless, the population is aging. When we talk about a crisis and say that governments will not be able to afford it, what do we mean by that? Are we to abandon the old people and say, `You did not make provision for yourselves.'? It is a problem that provides a challenge for us all. What we need to do is to develop systems under which as a nation we are able to spread our income over our working lives and our retirement years. That is not possible under the present tax system. This Government has failed to do anything effective about that. However, I hope that the small tentative step that the Government has taken will open up new horizons so that we reach a situation where retirement incomes are provided by individual Australians at a level that involves a guaranteed minimum, and that they are enabled to do so by generous and extensive tax relief being granted to them if they provide a guarantee that they will not fall back on to the government system and become dependent on a social security pension. So, there is that opportunity to move from the universalist approach of the social security pension-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(9.21) —I would like to reply to comments made in the second reading debate by thanking all honourable members for their contribution and expressing some regret that the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards) and the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) particularly allowed their attitude towards the trade union movement to colour completely any kind of balanced approach to what this legislation purports to do. This legislation was not brought before this Parliament as being a comprehensive, all-embracing package to deal with superannuation. The honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) was right when he described it basically as a first step and the honourable member for Richmond was right when he said that this legislation had already been through the House on one other occasion and it was only the time limitation which prevented it going through the Senate. Let me turn to the proposition which seems to be central to the position which has transfixed the Opposition, and that is that we should not be proceeding by way of regulation in respect of aspects of this legislation. The suggestion that was made by the honourable member for Richmond and, I think, the honourable member for Berowra-- Mr Connolly —Regulations on the principles. The principles are not in the Bill. Mr HOLDING —Yes, that is right. I will deal with that. The position taken by the honourable member for Richmond and the honourable member for Berowra that somehow or other what the Government was doing was putting at risk all those hundreds of thousands of people who were already in existing superannuation schemes is, of course, palpable nonsense. If they had looked at or taken the trouble to examine the statements that were made when this legislation was last before the Parliament in June of last year, when it was handled by the then Minister Assisting the Treasurer, the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford), they would have seen that he made it perfectly clear, at page 3834 of Hansard of 2 June 1987, that the legislation, which is in precisely the same form as it comes before the House now, had been the subject of extensive consultation and discussions with the Life Insurance Federation of Australia, the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia and the Institute of Actuaries of Australia. Let me inform the House that that consultation and those discussions are continuing. I am advised by officers of the Department that once this legislation has gone through it is not the end of the matter; there is more legislation in course of preparation and discussion are continuing with the industry on it. Let us now move to the substantive concerns of my colleague the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), who felt that what was really needed was basically a legislative set of provisions which set out, as it were, the principles under which these superannuation schemes would work. That was a position that was put to the Government and, on a range of advice, was rejected. The advice did not come from the Australian Council of Trade Unions or Mr Kelty-I suspect they had their own positions. It came from no less a person than the President of the Institute of Actuaries of Australia, Mr J. H. Pollard, who is also President of the School of Economics and Financial Studies at Macquarie University. Let me quote what seems to be-- Mr Connolly —Will you table the letter? Mr HOLDING —I am perfectly happy to table the letter. Let me quote the very basis of the position of this independent expert which blows out of the water all of the hysterics and histrionics of the honourable member for Richmond and perhaps at the same time blows out of the water the more restrained comments of the honourable member for Bradfield. The President of the Institute of Actuaries raises quite specifically why the use of regulations would be more satisfactory. He says: There are two main reasons for the Institute's belief that a regulatory approach is appropriate. Under the heading `Range of Plans Designs, Structures etc.' he says: The superannuation industry does not consist of relatively few plans, nor of plans of fairly standardised design. Rather there are at least 200,000 plans, established over many years, each against a background of the local needs, practice of the time, cost constraints, negotiations, etc., etc. The variety of plans in existence is therefore huge, and the task of drafting legislation to set out standards that will satisfactorily address that variety is commensurately large. There is no doubt that, even with the best advice possible from the industry, some plans that are reasonable per se in all respects, albeit unusual in design, will be subject to unintended effects of any legislated standards. While legislated changes could cope with such problems, clearly it will always be much more difficult to achieve necessary or desirable change in a timely fashion through this route, as opposed to changing regulations. Under the heading `Pace of Change' he says: In recent years the pace of change in the superannuation industry has been very high. Indeed, much of the impetus for the occupational superannuation standards stems from a need to ensure that those changes occur in ways that meet community expectations. The Institute expects that the pace of change will continue to be high for the next few years. The Institute itself has suggested further changes and we hope that these will occur, as the economy and practical realities allow. Other changes will no doubt become desirable reaction to particular events on the industrial front, and particularly in the Arbitration Commission. In many instances planned trustees are likely to find the terms of their deeds at odds with conditions imposed upon or accepted by plan sponsors, and which place trustees in an invidious position. While government announcements can indicate how such problems will eventually be solved e.g. by legislative change, this is no substitute for the clear, legal authority trustees need in order to meet changing circumstances. Ordering change by altering regulations is likely to be much more timely than what is possible by legislative change, and would therefore be welcome by most trustees. Therefore, from the Institute view it is much more appropriate that the proposed occupational superannuation standards be regulated rather than legislated. That is a clear, objective view of someone who I think commands the respect and authority of people both in the industry and, I would hope, in this House. On the basis of that information, would it have been responsible for the Government, realising the need to establish a structure, having involved itself in consultation with the industry, having received a great deal of advice, and having advice as strongly argued and as rational as that, to turn its back on it and say, `Although it is much more complicated we will legislate now and repent in the future if it creates too many problems.'? That is the thrust of a compelling argument. If any regulations are promulgated as a result of the rapid changes that take place in this industry and the particular problems that arise in the course of what is a fairly dynamic industry, and regulations are designed to meet that, and if members of the Opposition in another place feel constrained to raise objections to that, there is a process which can be followed. For those reasons there is no way in which we can accept the recommendations of the honourable member for Bradfield on behalf of the Opposition. I am certain that the honourable member for Bradfield, having been fully informed of the reasons for the Government's position and understanding that that position arises as a result of the kinds of expressions of opinion that have come from within the industry itself, he will feel constrained not to press these arguments, which I accept were put in good faith but he was not fully aware of the range of consultation and advice that the Government has had on this matter. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Connolly's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 47 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Baldwin, P. J. Johns, G. T.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Kerr, D. J. C.Blewett, N. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Bowen, Lionel Langmore, J. V.Brown, John Lavarach, M. H.Brumby, J. M. Lee, M. J.Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J.Charles, D. E. McHugh, J.Charlesworth, R. I. Martin, S. P.Chynoweth, R. L. Mildren, J. B.Cleeland, P. R. Milton, P.Courtice, B. W. Morris, PeterCrawford, M. C. Mountford, J. G.Cross, M. D. O'Keefe, N. P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) O'Neil, L. R. T.Darling, E. E. Price, L. R. S.Dubois, S. C. Punch, G. F.Duncan, P. Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Sciacca, C.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L.Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Gorman, R. N. J. Snowdon, W. E.Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Harvey, E. R. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W.Jakobsen, C. A. Young, M. J.Jenkins, H. A. 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.Cadman, A. G. Nehl, G. B. (Teller)Cameron, Donald Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ewen Porter, J. R.Cobb, M. R. Prosser, G. D.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. R.Fischer, Tim Shipton, R. F.Fisher, Peter Sinclair, I. McC.Hall, Steele Smith, W. L.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hewson, J. R. Wilson, I. B. C.Hunt, R. J. D. Woods, R. L.Jull, D. F. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Katter, R. C. Brown, Robert Macphee, I. M.Morris, Allan Spender, J. M.Hayden, W. G. Adermann, A. E.Duffy, M. J. Goodluck, B. J.Hollis, C. Moore, J. C.Keating, P. J. Cameron, Ian Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(9.42) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 3, page 3, at the end of the definition of ``superannuation fund'' add the following words and paragraph: ``, but does not include: (c) a fund established as a result of an employer or employers being threatened, intimidated or coerced by a trade union or trade unions.''. (2) Clause 3, page 4, line 1, omit ``1986'' from the definition of ``year of income'', substitute ``1987''. (3) Clause 4, page 4, omit ``1986'' (wherever occurring), substitute ``1987''. (4) Clause 4, page 4, lines 19-28, omit subclauses (3) and (4). (5) Clause 5, page 4, lines 40 and 41, omit ``regulations for the purposes of subsection 7 (1) prescribing''. (6) Clause 6, page 5, lines 41 and 42, omit ``regulations for the purposes of subsection 8 (1) prescribing''. (7) Clause 7, page 6, lines 9 and 10, omit subclause (1), substitute the following subclause. (1) Standards applicable to the operation of superannuation funds shall be such as are prescribed by this Act or any other Act.''. (8) Clause 7, page 6, line 11, omit ``may'', substitute `'shall''. (9) Clause 7, page 6, subclause (2), after paragraph (j) insert the following paragraph: ``(ja) the levels of administrative fees, commissions or other deductions which may be payable from amounts contributed to superannuation funds;''. (10) Clause 8, page 6, lines 38 and 39, omit subclause (1), substitute the following subclause: ``(1) Standards applicable to the operation of approved deposit funds shall be such as are prescribed by this Act or any other Act.''. (11) Clause 8, page 6, line 40, omit ``may'' substitute ``shall''. (12) Clause 16, page 13, line 25, omit ``21'', substitute ``60''. (13) Clause 16, page 13, lines 33-37, omit subclause (4), substitute the following subclause: ``(4) Where the Commissioner does not confirm, revoke or vary a decision before the expiration of the period of 60 days after the day on which the Commissioner received the request under subsection (1) to reconsider the decision, the Commissioner shall, upon the expiration of that period, be deemed to have revoked the decision under subsection (3).''. In view of the lateness of the hour, I shall not delay the Committee unduly, but I wish to make a number of points in relation to the amendments which I have moved and which have been circulated to honourable members. One of the strange elements of this legislation is the title, which, in many respects, is nothing less than a misnomer. We are told that it is a Bill for an Act to provide operating standards for superannuation funds and approved deposit funds. It does not provide operating standards for anything. In fact, part II of the Bill again uses the term `operating standards for superannuation funds'. Clause 7 (1) states that the regulations may prescribe standards applicable to the operation of superannuation funds; in other words, it is the regulations which this Act permits to be carried through in accordance with the provisions. However, the Bill does not provide anything except, as I said, the mechanism for the subsequent passage of regulations at some future date. The Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Holding), in his summing up of the second reading debate, referred to Professor Pollard, the head of the Institute of Actuaries of Australia. He is, of course, a man of substantial eminence and is no doubt respected by members on both sides of the chamber. The essence of our primary amendment was that we believed that the legislation should have contained the basic principles set out in the Press release of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) of 11 June 1986. A study of that document makes it quite clear that there are ample opportunities for the statement of a set of basic principles against which future regulations or legislative changes can be tested. The problem we have with the legislation in its present form is that no serious attempt was made to offer to the industry, the consumers or the Parliament a statement of clear intent. I made it clear in my speech during the second reading debate that too many opportunities have recently been taken by the Treasurer deliberately to avoid bringing legislation before the Parliament; rather, he has tried to build up his legislative program using regulations or, worse still, in this case no less than three Press releases as the basis for Government policy. Mr Donald Cameron —Through the newspapers. Mr CONNOLLY —Yes. Is it any wonder, therefore, that the Opposition asserts its right to be able to debate in this chamber precisely what the Government's policies are in relation to superannuation? Whether the advice comes from Professor Pollard, the National Mutual, the AMP Society, or anyone else, the fundamental fact is that as an Opposition it is our role and responsibility to protect the interests of a very wide range of groups in this community, including people who actually sell the policies, the agents on the ground, the actuarial companies and all of the other groups in this industry. A very large and complex body of people has access to enormous funds which in turn have a major impact on the social and economic future of Australia. Accordingly, we are seeking to make a fundamental amendment to clause 3 on page 3 of the Bill. This matter was brought forward by my good colleague the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron), who raised with us, I believe quite correctly, the question of freedom of choice. As the putative regulations stand as contained in the Minister's Press release, the fact of the matter is that many workers are effectively forced to join trade union managed or controlled superannuation funds. We believe that superannuation is too important for this to happen. We accept without reservation the basic principles which I presume the Government is accepting-namely, that one must have full vesting preservation of interests of individuals in a case such as this. However, there is an equally strong case to be made in a society such as Australia for workers to have the opportunity to join a union managed fund if they so wish, to join an employers managed fund if they so wish, or, as a third alternative, to join a 23 FB fund or take out any other arrangements they may so wish. In other words, the essential element has to be that we want maximum coverage of superannuation, but let it be on the basis of freedom of choice as to what mechanism the individual may wish to enter into because of his own particular circumstances. One can never expect that one will get from a socialist dominated government such as this a package of proposals which will do anything more than meet the requirements of those who have the loudest voices and, in this case, the biggest pockets. A whole range of trade unions are doing extremely well on the one per cent to 1 1/4 per cent commission that they are getting from the members who are joining the funds over which they have considerable control. I would like to refer to some of the other amendments that we have put forward. We take great exception to the fact that there is still reference in the Act to the financial year 1986-87. We have moved on from there now. We have moved to the next financial year. We are surprised that no attempt has been made to amend the Act to make it more up to date. If it remains as it is, there will be an element of retrospectivity in this legislation, which, as I explained in my speech during the second reading debate, opens up another set of very real problems in relating to the rights of fund managers to be able to operate under conditions similar to those contained in the taxation Act. Prior to the passage of this legislation, superannuation, insofar as accessibility to tax deductibility was concerned, was related to the taxation Act. One of the elements in this proposal is to take it out of that and place it under the control of the new Commissioner. Clearly, therefore, there is a case that one should have access on a similar basis to the taxation Act. Therefore, the concept of using 1986-87 as the basis for the legislation is basically wrong. It should be related to the date of the passage of the Act and not before. Many of my colleagues have spoken about legislation by Press release. I spoke about this as well during the second reading debate. We want legislation as the basis of policy, not regulations as the basis of policy. We do not believe that that is an unreasonable request to make as an Opposition. This Government is now too often using this as an excuse for not putting the full story before the Parliament. The realities of regulations in an area as complex as superannuation are simply this: if one cannot set one's principles out clearly in advance, no parliament, no chamber of a parliament and no members within it will be able to make a total judgment as to whether proposed regulations coming through are fully in accordance with the principles against which they must be tested. One of the old tricks of the trade in politics is to bring legislation through with no clarion calls and no beating of breasts or drums. All of a sudden the thing is through and the first one knows about it is when an industry starts complaining. We do not want that situation. We do not regard that as the basis of sound legislative practice. That is why we do not think that legislation by Press release or regulations in the first instance should be the principle against which this Government introduces legislation. There are a number of relatively minor amendments; nevertheless, they are of considerable significance. For example, there is evidence that some funds-again, regrettably, they are trade union funds-can exploit the power to seek administration fees which they may negotiate with the managers of the funds. We believe that regulations on that matter should be contained in the Act. The Minister said that that is not to be the case. However, I trust that in the next amending legislation attempts will be made to overcome that quite serious problem. Finally, I refer again to the question of regulation. People have the right to some degree of certainty in relation to the time within-- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Ruddock) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs, and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(9.52) —I have already covered the points made about regulations. I indicated that the Government was acting on advice. The further amendments suggested by the Opposition were canvassed on a previous occasion. I simply refer to the reasons advanced on that occasion as to why they would not be accepted by the Government. Amendments negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Holding)-by leave-read a third time. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Community Services and Health) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek your indulgence to add to answers given at Question Time. I have sought further responses. I promised honourable members that I would do that before the House rose. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) asked me at Question Time whether I would table a memorandum relating to the Australia Card prepared by Parliamentary Counsel for the legislation committee. However, the document concerned is a Cabinet document which quotes other Cabinet documents. As honourable members will know, it has been the practice of all governments not to divulge Cabinet papers and I do not propose to part from that practice. I regret that in my initial response to the honourable member's request I overlooked the fact that it was a Cabinet paper. However, having reread the memorandum by Parliamentary Counsel, I can confirm that there are not references in the document to the specific clauses or to the issue of proclamation versus regulation, which were the subjects of the question. In answer to a question asked earlier today by the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) I undertook to take up with my colleague Senator Ryan the question of whether any drafting instructions had been given to Parliamentary Counsel to redraft the Australia Card legislation to accommodate a number of amendments to the existing legislation. I have discussed this matter with Senator Ryan. As I indicated to the House, no drafting instructions have been issued to Parliamentary Counsel since the 11 July election in relation to amendments to the Australia Card Bill 1986. As announced by Senator Ryan and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), officials within the Department of Community Services and Health have been instructed to recommence discussions with private sector organisations and civil liberties groups and to advise on possible amendments for later consideration by the Government. In my answer to the Parliament today I was of course referring to this post-election process. It should be noted that in late February 1987 a number of amendments were suggested and I publicly announced that they were under consideration. They were referred to the Office of Parliamentary Counsel for drafting. This work ceased with the announcement in March this year that the Australia Card Bill would be reintroduced unamended. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek your indulgence to address this matter. Mr Young —Why? Mr HOWARD —That is not a matter for the Minister; it is a matter for the Chair. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! It would be appropriate for the Leader of the Opposition briefly to address the matter raised by the Minister. Mr HOWARD —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Opposition finds the explanation given by the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) utterly and completely unacceptable. The Minister quite plainly has broken an undertaking that he gave to this House. Not only has he handled this legislation with appalling incompetence but he has now broken an undertaking that he twice gave to the House. He had two opportunities to decide. Somebody who has been a Minister for 4 1/2 years and does not know that Parliamentary Counsel's advice is a Cabinet document ought not to be a Minister any longer. That is the whole basis of our complaint. We were promised this particular document twice by this Minister. The House and the Australian people may well ask what is in these documents that the Minister does not want to see the light of day. What is the Parliamentary Counsel's advice? What satisfaction do we have-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I think the Leader of the Opposition has addressed himself to the matters raised by the Minister. Mr HOWARD —Mr Deputy Speaker, with respect to your ruling, this issue is by far the most important political issue in this country at present. It goes to the very heart of the question of ministerial responsibility. It is the charge of the Opposition that this Minister-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister sought leave to add to answers that he gave earlier today, and he did so with indulgence. The leader of the Opposition sought to make some remarks on that matter and he was allowed to do so. If the Leader of the Opposition wishes to pursue the matter further-and I note that he said `that the charges laid by the Opposition'-the way to do that is by substantive motion, not by indulgence. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(9.59) —I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition moving: That this House censures the Minister for Community Services and Health for his failure to fulfil the undertaking given earlier today to table the memorandum relating to the Australia Card Bill prepared by the Parliamentary Counsel for the Australia Card legislation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Is the motion seconded? Mr Sinclair —I second the motion. Mr HOWARD —As I said a moment ago by indulgence, there is no more important issue in Australian politics at present than the lamentable display of incompetence by this Government over the identity card legislation. The Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett), who has just resumed his seat, the man who has had ministerial responsibility for this legislation for over 18 months has, over the last 48 hours, not only demonstrated his total ministerial incompetence in relation to this legislation but has failed the most elementary Westminster test of the competence and ability of a Minister. Moreover, he has today compounded that inability and failure of his ministerial duties by one of the most bumbling, inept performances at Question Time that this Parliament has seen in the lifetime of the Hawke Government. He could not get one answer right. He had to come back to correct just about every answer that he gave at Question Time today. I asked the Minister a simple question-whether he would table the advice of Parliamentary Counsel in relation to the indentity card legislation. Anybody who has been a Minister for six months, let alone somebody who has been a Minister for 4 1/2 years, ought to know what is the advice in the memorandum of a parliamentary counsel on a piece of legislation. It is a memorandum from Parliamentary Counsel addressed to the legislation committee of Cabinet which does a number of things. One of those things is to advise the legislation committee whether the legislation is in accordance with the Cabinet decision on which the legislation is based. I would have thought that it is a fairly fundamental thing-whether the Bill actually reflects the will of the Government as contained in the Cabinet decision. So it is a fairly important document. Secondly, the memorandum draws to the attention of the legislation committee any matters that Parliamentary Counsel properly believed ought to be drawn to the attention of Ministers who constitute the legislation committee. The Opposition's belief is that at least at one stage of the approval procedure within the ranks of the governing Party on this legislation there was quite intensive debate as to whether the commencement date, the relevant dates, ought to be the subject of regulation or of proclamation. It was only after the Minister had intervened and decided it should be by way of regulation that that is how it proceeded. On the basis of that, it is not surprising that a number of people on this side of the House believe that contained within the memorandum of Parliamentary Counsel is a comment from Parliamentary Counsel as to the significance of doing this by regulation. Mr Holding —You have been told that there was not. Mr HOWARD —With the track record of the Hawke Government we do not believe it. It is as simple as that. The only way that the Australian public will be satisfied that the Minister is not covering up the fact that he knew that the Bill was defective is for him to table all the relevant documents. The Australian people will go on believing that both he and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) knew that the Bill was defective until the Minister comes clean and tables all the relevant documents. The Minister had plenty of opportunity today to handle this matter in a different fashion. I asked him twice what he was going to do with the Parliamentary Counsel's memorandum and he freely said that he was going to table the document. Later, in answer to a question as to the timing of that tabling, he said that he would endeavour to do it today. I ask the Minister, the House, and the Australian people: what happened between those two affirmative answers and five past 10 tonight to change the Minister's mind? Did he go to have a look at the memorandum and find out that it contained some embarrassing material? Did he get heavied by the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) or the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young)? Did the court jester come along and say to him, `Hey, hang on, Neal, you shouldn't have done that-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will refer to members by their title. Mr HOWARD —Was he heavied by the Leader of the House (Mr Young), the Prime Minister or the Attorney-General? What happened between Question Time today and five past 10 tonight to change the minister's mind? He was perfectly happy to say to me that he would table it. He looked a bit tentative as he walked past the Prime Minister, but the Prime Minister's gaze was fixed on the ground. That is not surprising, the way his front bench has been performing over the last week. If I were in his position I would have my gaze fixed to the ground, too. The Minister is supposed to be a member of the most talented Ministry since Federation, of this tremendously talented Ministry. This Minister today has given the most pathetic performance of a senior Minister that this country has seen over the last 30 years. Not only has he embarrassed the Government and mortally wounded it on a fundamental piece of legislation, but also he is now engaged in a giant cover-up involving a Parliamentary Counsel memorandum. The Minister for Community Services and Health is into the politics of deception. He wanted to table the document; he did not have any worry about tabling it but no doubt he has gone back to his office and had a look at it. He has been in meetings ever since Question Time ended. It has not been possible to get the Minister's office on the telephone. Everyone has been tied up in this or that meeting. There is no doubt that they have looked at the documents and decided, `If we table this document, the Opposition will ask a whole lot more questions'. I say to the House: this Minister has embarrassed this Government as much as it has been embarrassed since the Leader of the House leaked national security information in a Canberra carpark. He had the honour of being the only Minister in the Hawke Government to have been condemned openly by a royal commissioner appointed by this Government, but since that embarrassment the worst embarrassment this Government has suffered has been as a result of the lamentable performance of this Minister over the identity card legislation. The Minister knows, and there are people on the back bench of the Labor Government who know, that the question of whether a regulation or proclamation should be used to determine the relevant dates under the legislation was debated within Government ranks when the legislation was being approved. Twenty or 30 members of the Labor Party know that and know that this issue was, or should have been, brought to the attention of the Minister. That only increases the suspicion on this side of the House and within the ranks of the public about this Minister who has refused to table the document. He promised twice this afternoon to table it, so what happened between 2 o'clock and 10 o'clock? What happened in that eight hours? Who leant on him? What did he see? What was contained in the document? What cover-up is he engaged in? What further inquiries would result from the documents being tabled? The reality is that this Minister has compounded the sin of ministerial incompetence with the sin of misleading this House. He has broken his word to the Parliament. He told us that he would table this document. Now, eight hours later, he comes in and says, `Oh, no, I cannot table it because it happens to be a Cabinet document'. Mr Chynoweth —That is right. Mr HOWARD —Honourable members on the other side say, `That is right'. I have news for all those on the other side who bellow: there are many precedents on both sides of the House for the tabling of Cabinet documents. There is no iron-clad rule of our parliamentary system that says a Cabinet document shall not be tabled. The only reason that this document is not being tabled, the only reason the Minister is breaking his word and will not come clean, the only reason he does not have the guts to observe the word he gave in Question Time is that he is engaged in a cover-up and he knows that the tabling of this document would further deepen the embarrassment of the Government on this issue. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(10.09) —I second the motion. Every Australian should know that no longer can anyone believe the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett). He came into the House today on two occasions and committed himself to producing not truly a Cabinet paper but the brief provided for the legislation committee of Cabinet. Unlike most other members of this place I have chaired a legislation committee of Cabinet, and I have done so for a good many years. Within the advice of Parliamentary Counsel there is always advice about the character and the nature of the legislation. Unless we suspend Standing Orders so that we can censure the Minister, the people of Australia will be misled into believing the Minister who twice now has denied the House the production of the legislation committee papers and then has the effrontery to come into the House and say that there was no reference to how the measures of that legislation would come into being. We just cannot believe him. The character of the Parliamentary Counsel's advice I would trust, but I would not trust that man. The point is that Parliamentary Counsel, like Mr Ewart Smith, is a man of propriety, a man of honour, a man of integrity and a man whose word we would believe. The Minister for Community Services and Health has come into this place tonight and said that there is no reference in the advice to the legislation committee of Cabinet as to how the legislation is to be brought into effect. I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker: Is the Government that incompetent; is it so naive as to think that we believe that a Bill brought in to the legislation committee of Cabinet has no advice to how it is to come into being? We do not have a bit of legislation that is automatically law-it goes through Parliament, it goes to the Governor-General and it is then introduced by a date that is included in the legislation, it is introduced by proclamation or it is introduced by regulation. We all know that within the left wing of the Australian Labor Party members such as the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent) have been concerned about this legislation. Does the Minister really expect us to believe that members such as the honourable member for Hotham did not ask him how and in what way this legislation is going to come into being? His story does not add up. It is impossible for anybody on this side of the House to believe the rhetoric that came from the Minister's lips this evening. The second question worries me just as much. In answer to my colleague the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), the Minister has said that there have been no drafting amendments issued to Parliamentary Counsel. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) earlier today quoted from the Press conference of the Special Minister of State (Senator Ryan). Honourable members will remember what she said. She said that extensive drafting has taken place to ensure that the privacy of individuals affected by the identity card will be protected. Either the Minister is misleading this House or Senator Susan Ryan is misleading not only the Parliament but the whole Australian electorate. Unless we suspend Standing Orders to censure the Minister, the people of Australia are in an impossible position. We believe that the Minister is misleading the House and the people of Australia on two fundamental issues. On the first we know that there have to be references in the legislation committee advice as to how the legislation comes into effect and, on the second, Senator Susan Ryan has already told us that those amendments have been drafted. It is not good enough. The Minister must go. The Government has finished up with a great deal of ignominy in this whole disgraceful affair. I suggest to the Minister that he now honestly accepts that the people of this place are not as gullible as apparently he expects us to be. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! I think it probably would suit the convenience of the debate if I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Young-Mr Deputy Speaker, I require the question to be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(10.14) —It is nice to see that members of the Opposition now have sufficient courage, after telling everybody at a quarter to two that they were going to censure the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett), to move to censure him. So 8 1/4 hours later, the great mentality of the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia have brought themselves-- Mr Tuckey —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. My point of order is that there is an obligation on Ministers to tell the truth. We censured the Minister in our amendment this morning. Now tell the truth and cut out your jokes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. Mr YOUNG —This motion has been brought on after 8 1/4 hours. The Liberal and National parties have such intellectual brilliance, such political courage, such parliamentary technique, that it took them 8 1/4 hours for that bit of fairy floss from Bennelong to be able to get up here and move the suspension of Standing Orders. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will refer to members by their title. Mr Tuckey —And you will withdraw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no need to withdraw. Mr Tuckey —I stand on the point of order. My point of order is that the Minister will withdraw. That is an unparliamentary statement. The words of the court jester are not acceptable. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor, in attempting to take a point of order, I think has negated his point of order. The Minister should refer to people by their titles and the honourable member for O'Connor should as well. I call the Minister. Mr Tuckey —I raise a further point of order. In using the words `court jester', Mr Deputy Speaker, I was drawing to your attention your previous ruling and a demand for withdrawal. I demand a withdrawal from the Minister. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If the honourable member for O'Connor had listened to what I said earlier, he would realise that I drew people's attention to the fact that they should refer-- Mr Tuckey —The Minister is not sitting down, and I am speaking on a point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. Honourable members should refer to people by their titles, and I ask the Minister to refer to people by their titles, and I understand he is going to. He has also withdrawn. Mr YOUNG —Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not mind withdrawing, and I am not offended by anything that the honourable member for O'Connor says. I think the Opposition has made the right decision in selecting the honourable member for O'Connor as the great defender against the ID card. No one could be more appropriate than the honourable member for O'Connor to fight against the ID card. Everybody knows about the honourable member for O'Connor and everybody knows how weak and spineless are the honourable member for Bennelong and the right honourable member for New England. We have had calls for parliamentary decency. Can honourable members imagine what would happen if we all dropped to the level of the right honourable member for New England? I am not offended. Mr Donald Cameron —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Mr Beale —Make him withdraw the `fairy floss' too. Mr Donald Cameron —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I think the Minister has withdrawn and swallowed the fairy floss, but the words `spineless' and `weak' are not parliamentary. You should put a bridle on his mouth. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. I call the Minister. Mr YOUNG —The honourable member for Moreton wants me to withdraw. No one has done better out of the parliamentary system than the honourable member for Moreton. Let met tell you about this-- Mr Tuckey —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Mr Porter —You can't take it. Mr YOUNG —I can't take it, that's right. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. The honourable members on my left will cease interjecting. Mr Tuckey —I rise on a point of order. The Minister is continuing to stand on his feet when points of order are being taken. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. Mr Tuckey —That has now been resolved. He has chosen to sit down. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for O'Connor, if he takes any more frivolous points of order-- Mr Tuckey —Mr Deputy Speaker- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Now this had better be a reasonable point of order. Just be careful. Mr TUCKEY —Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a further point of order to the effect that the Standing Orders of this Parliament require a speaker to resume his seat when a point of order is taken. When the honourable member for Moreton took his point of order the Minister remained standing. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. I call the Minister. Mr YOUNG —Mr Deputy Speaker, one has only to look at what the great friend of the right honourable member for New England, the Rt Hon. Doug Anthony, said when he was asked, by Mr Whitlam in 1978, the following about tabling certain documents: (1) Has Cabinet decided that questions on notice should, except in special cases, be answered within a month . . . (2) Why has he not answered my question which first appeared on the notice paper on 7 September 1977 . . . Mr Anthony replied: The answer to honourable member's question is as follows: (1) As the honourable member would know, it is not the Government's practice to comment on what has, or has not, been the subject of Cabinet discussion. What happened when requests were made to release documents that supported all the conclusions drawn up in the 1982 Budget, which the honourable member for Bennelong presented to this Parliament? Why did the Liberal and National parties fight so hard to see that none of those documents could ever be released to the public? Do honourable members know why? Because they were based on calling an early election, spending money the Government did not have and putting another quarter of a million people out of work. That is the reason that the honourable member for Bennelong, the then Treasurer of this country, decided that none of those documents could be released to the public. But he now gets up and complains about the Minister saying, in the honourable way in which he did, `I will give you an answer before the day is out. This is a Cabinet document. I cannot add to it. This is what Senator Ryan has said. None of these instructions have been given to counsel about the drafting of amendments'. Eight and a half hours after this, honourable members opposite sat in their dining room and asked themselves, `What will we do? We have lost another election; we have had the most monumental defeat the Liberal and National parties have ever had'. But honourable members opposite will keep the honourable member for Bennelong as their leader. Well, long live the honourable member for Bennelong. I would like to know why the honourable member for Bennelong sacked his former Deputy Leader. Why is he sitting up the back? It is because he has no heart. The honourable member for Bennelong would not stand up for him. He sacked him and put him on the back bench. His former Deputy Leader is one of the most talented people for the Liberal Party of Australia in this Parliament and the honourable member for Bennelong put him on the back bench. He should tell us about that. Why does he have all these phonies and cronies on his front bench? It is because he is weak. He is a weak person. He has always been a weak person and we hope, from this side of the House, that he stays as Leader forever-that is all right. Sinkers can handle him. The night the honourable member for Bennelong went on television and said, `I'll stick with Sinkers', Sinkers said, `That'll do me'. He got the cheque book out and said, `That'll do me, I'll stick with John Howard', because John Howard had committed himself to sticking with the right honourable member for New England. Mr Sinclair —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I take grave offence at the impudence-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! I am having difficulty hearing the Leader of the National Party. Mr Sinclair —I take grave offence at the statement by the Leader of the House and I request that he withdraw that remark. I think it belittles him and does little credit to this House. Mr YOUNG —Mr Deputy Speaker, if the right honourable member for New England takes any offence at what I said, I withdraw it. I meant no personal offence. What I am saying is that the right honourable member for New England is too smart, too old and too tough for the honourable member for Bennelong. Honourable members opposite can keep the honourable member for Bennelong, but let me make a prediction, as I look at the faces of those sitting on the back benches. I have got a feeling that early in 1988, as part of our bicentennial celebrations, the honourable member for Bennelong will be given the trip, and I think the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) is coming back. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The time for the debate has expired. Question put: That the motion (Mr Howard's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 68 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 21 —— 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.Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C.Cameron, Donald Nehl, G. B. (Teller)Cameron, Ewen Peacock, A. S.Cobb, M. R. Porter, J. R.Connolly, D. M. Prosser, G. D.Cowan, D. B. Reith, P. K.Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Shack, P. D.Fischer, Tim Sharp, J. R.Fisher, Peter Shipton, R. F.Hall, Steele Sinclair, I. McC.Halverson, R. G. Smith, W. L.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hewson, J. R. Webster, A. P.Howard, J. W. Wilson, I. B. C.Hunt, R. J. D. Woods, R. L.Jull, D. F. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Katter, R. C. Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A.Beddall, D. P. Johns, G. T.Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Kerr, D. J. C.Bowen, Lionel Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brown, John Langmore, J. V.Brumby, J. M. Lavarch, M. H.Campbell, G. Lee, M. J.Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J.Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J.Chynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P.Cleeland, P. R. Mildren, J. B.Courtice, B. W. Milton, P.Crawford, M. C. Morris, PeterCross, M. D. Mountford, J. G.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) O'Keefe, N. P.Darling, E. E. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dubois, S. C. Price, L. R. S.Duncan, P. Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Sciacca, C.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L.Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Gorman, R. N. J. Snowdon, W. E.Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Harvey, E. R. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W.Jakobsen, C. A. Young, M. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Consideration resumed from 18 September, on motion by Mr Holding: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Amendment (by Mr Connolly) negatived: Clause 6, page 3, line 3, omit ``7'', substitute ``5''. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Holding)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 18 September, on motion by Mr Holding: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Holding) read a third time. Motion (by Mr Holding) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(10.35) —Now that quietness has returned to the chamber and the adjournment debate is on, I will speak very briefly about the timber industry in Australia. Over the years there has been a developing concern as to the future of the industry particularly because of the environmentalists' objections to logging and the cutting of timber generally in many of the forests on private property and elsewhere throughout Australia. Over the years the timber industry in Australia has become most important, firstly, because we have the soil to grow it-both the hardwoods and softwoods-and, secondly, because it employs approximately 100,000 people. It has been a source of great exports for Australia and has supplied our sawn timber and pulp requirements. Timber is a crop, a renewable resource that we Australians have a great responsibility to care for. In recent times, particularly in the last 10 to 15 years, governments have been inclined to make off the cuff decisions about the use of Australia's timber resource. Naturally, it is the responsibility of the various States concerned but time and again States have appealed to the Commonwealth to intervene and decide what the timber should be used for or whether it should be touched at all. This is what I am concerned about. We have an important industry in Australia that has been subject to off the cuff decisions and it is time that the States, perhaps in conjunction with the Commonwealth, planned and integrated the development, preservation and conservation of this very important resource. As I come from an electorate that is very dependent upon the timber industry I appeal to the Minister for the Environment and the Arts (Senator Richardson), the Government and the Parliament to do something to bring together the people who are responsible for this industry in Australia. Of course pressure groups would like to tie up the forest resource, a resource which affects Australia's jobs and exports. In 1986-87 we imported more timber, certainly in value, than we did in 1982-83. Today we are exporting less than we did in 1982-83. It is time that we recognised the excellent work that is being done by the forestry departments within Australia, particularly in New South Wales where our forests are being cared for. Trees are being planted where others have been cut down, roads are being constructed and tourists and the general population are able to look at the beauty of the forests. Year by year lots of areas are declared national parks and placed on the World Heritage List and the public is unable to enter them. Mr Milton —That is not true. Mr COWAN —That is the case in many areas. When I was a member of the New South Wales Parliament, a Liberal-National Party team initiated the declaring of national parks in New South Wales. Tomorrow night I will go to a little place called Coopernook in my electorate where I will open a Church of England wild flower show. For 20 years I have opened the show and people will be waiting for me tomorrow night. There will be gorgeous bushes and flowers from the forests and private lands around that area. There is a beautiful native hardwood forest which has occasional patches of softwood rainforest. Here is an illustration of everyday Australians being able to come along to a flower show and enjoy something that we grow in the forests. Why should people not be able to go into the forests and why should they not be able, within limitations, to pick the flowers and enjoy the scenic beauty? This is so important. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(10.40) —Madam Speaker, I was so elated at being able to get the call in the adjournment debate the other day and also to be able to ask a question that I actually neglected to congratulate you on your election to your high office and I take this opportunity to do that. Madam SPEAKER —Thank you. Mr MILTON —I read with interest a recent speech by Senator Vallentine in the other place who was speaking about recent events in the Republic of Belau, more frequently known as the nation of Palau. Palau is situated some 2,500 kilometres north of Darwin and comprises roughly 200 islands inhabited by about 15,000 people. Palau is part of the United Nations Trust Territory of Micronesia which has been administered by the United States of America since 1947. It is necessary to read Senator Vallentine's speech of 17 September 1987 to obtain the historic background to the problems facing Palau and I will not go into those problems tonight. Suffice it to say that the United States of America is exerting all its influence to ensure that the Republic provides a military base for the United States in the South Pacific. The problem is a nuclear free constitution which includes this section: Harmful substances such as nuclear, chemical, gas or biological weapons intended for use on warfare, nuclear power plants and waste materials therefrom, shall not be used, tested, stored, or disposed of within the territorial jurisdiction of Palau without the express approval of not less than three-fourths of the votes cast in a referendum submitted on this specific question. This section was endorsed by a 92 per cent vote of the people in 1979. Since that time the United States has influenced the Palauan authorities to mount a series of referenda designed to change the constitution to allow the establishment of a United States base which could harbour nuclear warships. The obtrusive paternalism of the United States is not only abhorrent in itself but also has lately resulted in sinister events. In May 1983, International Power Systems Ltd (IPSECO), which is a British power firm, signed a contract with Palau to build a badly needed power plant and fuel farm in Palau. IPSECO's President,Gordon Mochrie, reportedly assured the Palauan National Congress that the project would pay for itself through sales of electricity and fuel. Instead, the Speaker of the House, Santos Olikong, said: IPSECO is breaking my heart. It was supposed to be self-paying, but instead it costs Palau 15 cents per second. As of September 1985 the cost of the project and interest payments have skyrocketed to over $35m. Funding for the IPSECO project was provided to Palau by the British Government and International Westminster Bank. The loans were guaranteed by a multinational consortium of banks. In April 1985, Palau defaulted on its foreign debt and in December the banking cartel sued Palau in a New York court for more than $35m. Some Palaun leaders have argued that the whole power plant fiasco is part of a plot to force Palau to enter into a compact of free association with the United States. The theory of the plot is based on the view that there will be a legal challenge to Palau's proposed $1.38 billion treaty with the United States. Mr Bedor, a Palaun lawyer, stated that his father was murdered a number of weeks ago, allegedly by supporters of the treaty. He said, `This has scared us all and we are very worried about being able to make this challenge'. The latest United States of America motivated plebiscite for a treaty with the United States was held on 21 August. But although more than half the people voted in favour it did not reach the necessary 75 per cent required by the constitution. The President has claimed that the majority vote is valid as the plebiscite has been approved by the Palaun Assembly and a majority of voters have been in favour. The problem with all this is that the sinister overtones that I talked about have now been realised in Palau and a number of anti-nuclear campaigners there have been threatened and their houses fire-bombed. I think it is time for the Australian authorities to speak up in the struggle by the Palaun people for a nuclear free and independent nation. The intimidation by the United States is indefensible and our Government should continue to support a nuclear free zone in the South Pacific. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(10.45) —I wish to raise the matter of the $9.6 billion deficit which the honourable member for Cowan (Ms Jakobsen) referred to in her speech during the Budget debate yesterday in this House. The Australian Labor Party, with its propaganda machine, has been peddling the myth that it was saddled with a $10 billion deficit when it came to power in March 1983. I will quote the words of the honourable member for Cowan so we can get the argument correct: . . . ad hoc policies which originally led to the outrageous Budget deficit of almost $10,000m which was inherited by the Labor Government when it came to office in 1983. This completely erroneous statement has been put forward by the Labor Party ever since that date. The position needs to be put clearly and truthfully. The facts are that the Budget Estimates were put forward on prospective bids in March 1983, on forward estimates of what revenue might be generated and what the costs might be in the next Budget. After the election in 1983 the drought broke, the world economy recovered and the wage pause instituted by the Fraser Government was an instrumental factor in turning around the economy at that time. During the next 12 months there was an economic growth rate of about 6 per cent. In 1982-83 the Budget deficit, about which the public is confused, was $4.4 billion and not the $9.6 billion which the Labor Party so often refers to in an attempt to confuse the public. During the 1983 year of victory for the Labor Party when it thought everything would be rosy in the garden not only did it end up with a total deficit of $7.9 billion but also in that deficit figure was $3 billion of extra expenditure. The present Treasurer (Mr Keating) does not even publish the figures because he does not regard them as being relevant or accurate. The four Hawke Budget deficits add up to $23 billion. The Budget deficit in 1983-84 was $7.9 billion. In 1984-85 it was $6.7 billion. In 1985-86 it was $5.7 billion. In the last year, 1986-87, it was $2.7 billion. That is a total of $23 billion. I note that the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) in his speech on the Budget referred to the cumulative deficit of the Keating Budgets. On this occasion the deficit is $27m. Speakers on this side of the House have clearly indicated that the true deficit figure is in the order of $2.5 billion. We have had a sale of assets, selling part of the farm, part of Australia. We have also had windfall gains from the Reserve Bank of Australia in the region of $2.7 billion. So much for the myth that this Government inherited a Budget deficit of $9.6 billion. The reality is that the Keating Budgets have had a cumulative deficit of $25 billion. Senator Walsh, in his recent famous remarks, indicated Australia's real position: we are on the Argentinean road because we have a national debt of $110 billion. This Government made a major contribution by way of its budgetary arrangements to produce this figure of $110 billion. So let us remove the myth that this Government came to office with a deficit of $9.6 billion. It came to office with everything going its way-with a booming economy and the breaking of the drought. Had it been a responsible government, it could have moved to a position of having a Budget surplus. It has managed to balance the current Budget only by selling off part of the farm. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Ms CRAWFORD(Forde)(10.50) —Madam Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to speak about a club of which I am a foundation member. That club is the Logan City Rugby League Football Club. It is known as the Scorpions and, let me tell you, it has plenty of bite. Indeed it is necessary for this club to have bite because it is situated in the most depressed area of Queensland. We have in that area the largest Commonwealth Employment Service (CES) office. Nine thousand unemployed people per month pass through that CES office. The Department of Social Security handles a mere 25,000 families. Indeed, our Government's family assistant package will have a great impact upon our area and the supporters of the Logan City Rugby League Football Club. This football club is particularly important to me and to the electors of Forde because in our very first year of existence, while only in the third grade, we achieved the mighty effort of reaching the semi-finals. In fact, we even went on to reach the grand final. It is important not so much that we lost the grand final, but that we played in it at all. In an area which is so depressed, the Logan City Football Club has given to the community a great sense of identity and a great sense of purpose. Let me mention a number of people who have worked tirelessly-and voluntarily, I might add-for our club. The Secretary of the club, Barry Smith, has worked without pay for the last six months. In fact, he has worked all hours of the day for the club. He has worked from his home in a situation which other people would not envy. He fought to gain from the Logan City Council a block of land and he also negotiated a loan from the bank for the clubhouse, which was opened in June. The clubhouse has provided for people a very much needed community centre in an area which was bereft of any such facility. Madam Speaker, let me tell you that this area has been a very real victim of circumstance. In the Queensland context it is unfortunate that it has a Labor State member of parliament, because that means it is outside those areas which the Queensland Government services. It has an independent local council, which means that it has no local government power or pressure group. However, Barry Smith and the club Chairman, Greg Sutherland, fought for and eventually were granted a block of land from the very same Logan City Council which initially rejected any notion that a rugby league football club could exist, let alone survive, in an area which it thought was not good for anything. The club was eventually granted a block of land at Meakin Park, upon which the clubhouse was built, and it was opened in June. The club, under the captainship of Greg Sutton and, of course, under the auspices of the coach, John Barber, who fought very hard and long for that club, went on to become part of the Brisbane rugby league group and participate in the third grade grand final. All of that hard work has been justified because in 1988 we, the Scorpions, will join the Brisbane first grade. We are seeking identity as a community. We will be able to identify as a group. We will also be able to work together as a community in a very real sense. Tonight I pay tribute to my very own club, the Logan City Rugby League Football Club, commonly know as the Scorpions. And let me tell honourable members, we have plenty of bite left in us for 1988. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(10.55) —The Australian Tourist Industry Association is currently holding its annual conference in Hobart. At present a tremendous amount of concern is being expressed by the delegates at that conference about the credibility of the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown). Those people are expressing that concern because of the broken promise that the Minister made to the tourist industry during the election campaign to continue the tourism overseas promotion scheme. This very important scheme has helped to promote the Australian tourist industry around the world and has helped to establish the infrastructure by which tourists are brought to this country. On 4 June, at the beginning of the election campaign, the Minister stated not only that this scheme would continue but that its funding would be very nearly doubled in the 1987-88 Budget. It was revealed in last week's Budget that not only would this scheme not continue, not only would the funding for the scheme not be increased, but the whole scheme would be axed at the earliest possible opportunity. Of course, this has made the Minister look very poor in the eyes of the people in the tourism industry. I attended the conference yesterday. Having heard the Minister try to explain away in answer to a question in the House the reasons why the Government felt that this promise could be broken, I say to the House that there is no excuse for breaking a promise of this type. Many people in the industry went ahead on the basis that the Minister had credibility. They committed themselves to overseas promotions of their sporting-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will be careful not to cast aspersions on any member of this House. Mr SHARP —Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Minister made this promise during the election campaign and because of that many people in the industry were prepared to go ahead and spend money on the basis that the tourism overseas promotion scheme would continue in the 1987-88 Budget. Unfortunately, this has not been the case and those people now find themselves in a very embarrassing financial position. Many people in the industry have already been in touch with me and expressed their concern and their upset. They have said that they really believe that they have been led up the garden path by the Minister. This is not the only issue that is causing concern at the conference. The Minister has also seen fit to reduce the special depreciation allowances for new projects for tourism facilities from 4 per cent to 2.5 per cent. This is going to have a serious impact on the industry. While a 1.5 per cent depreciation difference does not seem very much to many people, may I point out that 1.5 per cent makes a big difference in the tourist industry today. We are looking at developments that are in the $500m category and 1.5 per cent depreciation can make the difference between a project going ahead and not going ahead. Another thing causing concern in the industry at present is the Government's decision to introduce a new tax; it is called an entry tax or an immigration tax. From now on, for the very first time, Australians returning home will have to pay a tax. The Government will be imposing a $5 tax on every person who arrives at Australian airports from overseas. This tax will be levied on the airline industry, which will have to collect it and pay the Government. This tax is going to be an administrative nightmare. It is going to be almost impossible to collect. How can this tax be collected in the case of a person who, after paying for his ticket, changes his flights around the world and in the process returns to Australia with an airline different from the one from which he originally bought his ticket? I make this prediction to the House and to the Minister, who I see has come back into the House-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until Tuesday, 6 October 1987, at 2 p.m., unless Madam Speaker fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting, in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 24 September 1987: Quarantine Act-Determination fixing fees pursuant to section 86e, date 27th August 1987. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Ordinances-1987- No. 46-Child Welfare (Saving and Validation). No. 47-Building (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 48-City Area Leases (Amendment). No. 49-Lakes (Amendment). No. 50-Motor Traffic (Amendment). No. 51-Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages Amendment. No. 52-Unit Titles (Amendments). No. 53-Children's Services (Amendment) (No. 2). Regulation-1987-No. 11 (Building Ordinance). States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendment of the schedules to the subsidy schemes in relation to the States, dated 23 September 1987. The following answer to a question was circulated: (Question No. 10) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 15 September 1987: (1) How many disabled persons receive a Commonwealth pension or benefit in each (a) State and (b) category of disability. (2) How many persons receive a pension or benefit on behalf of a disabled person in each (a) State and (b) category of disability. (3) How many of these disabled persons participate in the workforce, and for each (a) State and (b) category of disability how many are employed (i) full time and (ii) part time. (4) What sum has been spent for employment assistance in each year since 1982. (5) How has this money and assistance been distributed in each (a) State and (b) category of disability. (6) Has his Department estimated the additional expense of employing disabled persons in both full and part-time employment; if so, what is the estimate for each (a) State and (b) category of disability. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (6) The nature of the information sought is not clear. My Department collects data on the number of invalid pensioners, sheltered employment allowance recipients and rehabilitation allowees, by State. These people are receiving entitlements in their own rights. In addition I am able to provide data on handicapped child's allowance recipients by State. These allowances are paid to a parent or guardian of a severely or substantially handicapped child. The data are as follows: AS AT 26 JUNE 1987 Invalid pensioners Sheltered employment allowees Rehabilitation allowees Handicapped child's allowance New South Wales (incl. ACT)... 100,364 3,888 972 10,709 Victoria... 79,232 2,296 563 7,215 Queensland... 41,689 1,827 519 3,937 South Australia... 29,610 940 291 3,086 Western Australia... 27,886 802 252 3,278 Tasmania... 8,284 489 255 1,027 Northern Territory... 2,095 11 35 234 Australia... 289,160 10,253 2,887 29,486 Information on categories of disability is not routinely collected for these groups of clients. Data on the major causes of invalidity and on impairments of invalid pensioners are available from a survey conducted in November 1979 by the Department of Social Security. That survey showed that the three most frequent causes of invalidity were mental retardation (13.1%), disorders of the back (9.3%) and neurotic and personality disorders (8.9%). In addition, data on the morbidity characteristics of children receiving handicapped child's allowance are available from a survey conducted in March 1982 by the Department of Social Security. The survey found that the five most frequent major diagnoses of children receiving the allowance were mental retardation (37.7%), paralysis of limbs (14.6%), deafness (10.8%), blindness and low vision (4.0%) and cystic fibrosis (3.6%). It should be noted, however, that the above information on the morbidity characteristics of invalid pensioners and handicapped children is now somewhat dated and may not reflect the range and prevalence of disabilities within the population of current clients. It is not possible to identify disabled people who might be in receipt of other Department of Social Security payments. For example, information is not available on those with a disability who are in receipt of unemployment benefit, sickness benefit, widow's pension, supporting parent's benefit, age pension etc. My Department does not collect data on the workforce participation of disabled people, on employment assistance provided to them or the costs of employing disabled people.