Wednesday, 28 October 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Motion (by Mr Humphreys)-by leave-agreed to: That Mr R. J. Brown be appointed a member of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. Madam SPEAKER —I have received advice from the Government Whip that he has nominated Mr Hollis to be a member of the Standing Committee on Infrastructure in place of Ms Jakobsen, and Mr Tickner to be a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs in place of Mr Hollis. I have also received advice from the National Party of Australia Whip that he has nominated Mr Katter to be a member of the Standing Committee on Community Affairs in place of Mr Cowan. Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. Debate resumed from 7 October, on motion by Mr Young: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(10.02) —The Migration Amendment Bill 1987 proposes four basic changes to the Migration Act. Firstly, it seeks to impose a fee for reconsideration of certain immigration decisions. Secondly, it sets about to ensure that a request for an entry permit or visa is valid only if the prescribed fee and form are lodged. Thirdly, it seeks to impose an immigration clearance fee on passengers on international flights seeking to enter Australia after 1 January 1988. Fourthly, it seeks to introduce an alternative penalty mechanism for breaches of section 11C of the principal Act-that is, where a master, owner, agent, charterer or operator of an aircraft or ship carries a passenger into Australia without the necessary visa. This Bill raises many concerns about the fundamental direction and administration of Government policy, in particular immigration administration. The Opposition generally supports the initiatives introduced in this Bill. We support the concept of on the spot fines for carriers of people entering Australia without the necessary visa and ensuring the validity of requests for entry permits and visas. We reject, however, the approach of this Government in increasing the level of regulation in the way in which it is doing this. We are disappointed that such an important measure as review rights on immigration matters will be effectively introduced through regulation of which this House has no knowledge and, apparently, will not get knowledge. We are supposed to fly blind on this regulatory approach and we reject that concept and that way of doing things. Whilst we cannot reject a Budget measure, the Government's imposition of a $5 immigration clearance fee must horrify all Australians who will find that they will now be charged to enter their own country when returning from overseas. It is a de facto tax on Australian citizens returning home fro abroad. Another minor measure in the legislation which the Opposition supports is the need for applications for entry to Australia to be submitted on the prescribed forms, with the fee paid before the date of consideration. I now turn to the fee for reconsideration of immigration decisions, which is a most significant area. The way in which the Government is seeking to impose this fee process concerns the Opposition. At the committee stage we will be moving amendments in regard to that matter. The Government proposes a fee of $240, which is the same level of fee that appellants before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal must pay to have their case heard before the Tribunal. The Opposition recognises that it is the Government's prerogative to establish a fee for this process, but we reject the administrative and legislative approach adopted by the Government. Policy decisions in immigration under Ministers West, Hurford and Young basically have been announced by Press release. We find in newspapers or in the Press releases which we pick up in Parliament House what changes are being made to immigration policy. As well as charging a $240 fee for reconsideration of immigration matters, the Government is intent on introducing half-baked legislation; Bills without details and the details to follow on by way of regulation, sight unseen. That is a most comprehensive and significant policy area which is being approved by this House without the details being known. I put it to honourable members that, on many occasions, they and their officers face people seeking redress of a grievance under the Migration Act. We have established a review process, but the Government is changing that process, or proposes to regulate for that process, and this Parliament and its members do not know what the Government's proposals are. We have no idea, except for a few brief mentions in the second reading speech of the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young), what the Government's intentions are. The legislation opens up a minefield of administrative law, or holds the prospect of doing that, is one if unaware of the Government's true intentions. Clause 9 of the Bill sets up the two criteria for reconsideration. Clause 9 (a) (ac) (ii) allows the Governor-General to charge fees for reconsideration. Clause 9 (a) (ac) (i) outlines the processes that are to be used for reconsideration. The legislation states-and this is all that we know-that the Governor-General will have the power to make provision for and in relation to: . . . the reconsideration of prescribed decisions under this Act- what are those prescribed decisions?- (including decisions relating to prescribed classes of visas)- we do not know what visas- on application made by prescribed persons- who is eligible?- in accordance with the regulations . . . What regulations? There are no regulations. So we have a piece of nonsense before the House. The Government is flying blind and expecting the Parliament to accept it. How unrealistic that approach is; how unfair it is to the community which has an interest in this matter, and how unfair it is to all Australians who are not familiar with what they will face. Everybody ought to have an opportunity of knowing the Government's intention in this important policy area. The Government has not detailed the types of decisions which will be able to be reconsidered. The Government has not detailed who will have standing to apply for reconsideration. The Government has not detailed the time limit in which such requests will have to be made. The Government has not detailed the limited circumstances in which the fee will be refundable. The Minister, in his second reading speech, gave some broad hints. Before previous elections we have had a hint that there will be no capital gains tax or no lump sum tax on superannuation, but a hint from the Minister in his second reading speech is not good enough. We need to see the facts. The Australian community needs to see the facts. The Minister said in his second reading speech that requests that will be eligible to be reconsidered will be refused migrant entry applications, with the exception of people applying to settle in Australia under refugee or special humanitarian programs; refused applications for permission to come for a temporary stay in Australia, apart from those in relation to persons coming to study; unsuccessful applications for the grant of resident status; and refused applications for extension of stay by persons in Australia on a temporary basis. The Minister has said, `That is the ambit bid. We are staking out our ground'. But he then says, `We are going to increase it, we are going to extend the capacity of people to appeal, but we do not know how, we do not know where or to whom'. The Minister has hinted at these things, but we have no detail of how the Minister or the Government proposes to carry out this process. The Minister's statement extends the program in an area which is already bogged down with extensive delays, huge delays, in a way that we do not know and cannot comprehend. We believe that these details should have been available for scrutiny by this House. It is a policy matter. We believe that the legislative technique being used is wrong. The Government should, in fact, be writing these matters into the legislation. Let us have some of the details up front, in the Bill, where they can be seen to be proper and effective. I know that it will not be possible to legislate in regard to all the detail of what the Government is proposing. It probably would not be desirable to do so, but there must be a satisfactory legislative approach. The Bill must contain some of the details of this reconsideration process. I remind the House that this is a process which, under review, has been significantly criticised in terms of delay, effectiveness and consistency. We are dealing with a matter of real contention. People who feel aggrieved have to wait for an endless period to have the matter settled. Many of them are living in Australia while that process is going on for months and months, stretching into years. There are thousands of people living in Australia, seeking to stay here or have their case changed, reconsidered or dealt with by a panel. That is the delay process. But is it effective? There seem to be increasing numbers of appeals to courts. That seems to indicate that the legislation is not drafted in a way that would confine the appeal process and the court procedures to sensible areas, where humanitarian and compassionate matters can be considered. Having the broad gamut of merit and human rights automatically taken to court and dealt with by lawyers is not the sort of immigration program that we want. Australia does not need an immigration program that allows people, under any circumstances, to appeal against any decision. That is the extension of the situation that is starting to occur. Is the Government going to exacerbate that situation by legalising the process, by having a process which is at arm's length from the Minister? We do not know how the Government will cope with this problem-nobody has told the Opposition; nobody has told the Australian community. The Opposition intends to reject at the committee stage the sub-clause which will allow the Government to establish the regulatory process for the review of immigration decisions until the legislation is in proper form. We need to have the legislation in proper form before it goes to the Senate. Then we can decide, then we will know and then the Australian community will be aware of the facts. Let me detail some of the concerns of the Opposition as to why this matter should be legislated for effectively. There is concern in the Australian community. Most legal challenges are based on the fact that the immigration review panels which were instigated by the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) are not at arm's length from the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. That is a debatable matter. If the Government is seeking to remove the bond or the perceived link between the immigration review panels and the Department, we need to know how that will happen. Will the Minister exercise discretionary powers? What are the Minister's discretionary powers? They have not been changed in the legislation. What do the regulations say? We need to know whether this is a move to restructure the immigration review process. The panels which consider the appeals of people wanting to stay in Australia or wanting to have their case reconsidered were established by the honourable member for Goldstein. Citizens of Australia, sitting in groups of three, assist the Minister by looking at the cases, looking at the hard decisions. They give advice to the Minister on whether a person or a family should be allowed to stay, whether their migration applications should continue. And to a greater or lesser extent the process has worked with some success. But there is a change in prospect in this legislation. We will certainly have the chance of increased litigation unless these regulations, or the legislation, are drafted effectively. Are we going to hand this over to the barristers and lawyers, to the courts of Australia, to tell us who can come into Australia, or is this Government, the Minister, the Parliament, going to retain those rights, those privileges and that responsibility? In what direction is the Government moving? The Australian community needs to know. Is the immigration review process going to be the field of only the wealthy, those who can afford the barristers and the days in court, or is it going to remain in this sphere of those who seek to have a grievance redressed? We do not know. I guess the Government understands that it is moving into a mine-field of administrative law. If there is a growth area in Australia today for legal fees it is in administrative law. It is a growth area that needs serious consideration by this Parliament. I am told that when a review process was commenced in the Department of Veterans' Affairs, effectively starting up an administrative law industry, the costs involved in the first year of that process were $12m. The estimates by the Department of the cost to government of a full legalised system ranged between $6m and $20m a year. That is the Department's estimate, but will it be realistically held to that level? Already the review process is costing this year $4.8m. The problems of administrative law, the processes being adopted consistently over time by the governments and parliaments of Australia and the dichotomy of responsibility between the Minister and the courts are spelt out very clearly in the introduction of a report prepared by the Administrative Review Council in its review of immigration decisions. In its final paragraph of introduction-and this shows the dilemma-the Administrative Review Council said two things: In summary, the Council concludes that the existing means of review of migration decisions are inadequate since they fail to provide for effective review on the merits in respect of a wide range of migration decisions which are suited to review. The Administrative Review Council says that it is not happy with the review process. It says that administrative law is not being followed through effectively. In the last sentence the Council says: Finally, the Council considers that, notwithstanding that many classes of migration decisions ought in principle to be subject to merits review, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs should be empowered to certify to the Parliament that the Minister believes on specified grounds that it is in the public interest that final responsibility for a particular migration decision should remain with government and not be reviewed on the merits by an external tribunal. So there is the problem. Has the Minister the power? Should he retain that power; or should it be handed over to the courts to give increasing emphasis to a brand new industry of immigration review, the administrative law processes of the Migration Act? The Administrative Review Council has expressed those concerns. Has the Minister considered, in the regulations we have not yet seen, whether the decisions from the panels will be determinative or recommendatory? We do not know. Are the panels going to say, `Yes, we will decide' or will they make a recommendation to the Minister? We do not know. It is worth referring to comments by a noted barrister, Geoffrey Flick, barrister-at-law in Melbourne, who, in a very fine expose on administrative law in the immigration area says-I only quote in part: No area of law can remain static and free from constant reform and development, but for present purposes the initial question remains: Do the existing means of review, particularly the involvement of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Federal Court, reflect an adequate means whereby the rights of citizens and non-citizens alike are protected, or does the destination of this area of the law lie somewhere ahead in either increased means of review and realistic access to those means of review or, alternatively, in a complete re-writing of the Migration Act with emphasis being placed upon the structuring and confining of the discretions involved. There is the conundrum, there is the difficulty. But the Government has charged into this matter without debating the report of the Administrative Review Council, a specific report on this area. It has charged in because it wants to impose a fee and thinks that, at the same time, it will give the review panels a flick, giving the matter a legislative base. But we do not know what legislative base it will get. Is it going to be merits, fact or reconsideration on determinative or recommendatory grounds? Is it to be run by the courts or by the Government? I wish to comment that part of the review problem is that the primary decision-making process has to be revitalised with the professionalism that I know is within the Department; so that the person who conducts the original interview-and I know this is happening, but even more emphasis should be given to the clarity with which a person can make that original decision-is an experienced and well-trained officer who decides the matter in the first place so that this does not then give rise to questions about whether there was a realistic attitude in that first decision. These are the facts of what is happening in the review area. The immigration review panels around Australia, from 1982 to June 1986-four years-had received 16,322 requests for review and 12,634 had been resolved. In June last year 3,688 applications were waiting to be considered. Twelve months later, in June 1987, 10,866 cases had not yet been finalised-a three-fold increase in one year. No wonder the Government is pouring additional resources into this area. We have been calling for that to happen for two years. Not only has the Government poured in additional resources, but also, in some undefined way, the Government is regulating and extending the area for review. We do not know how the Government intends to do that. What are the chances of exacerbating this dreadful situation where people wait for 12 or 18 months to have their immigration decision finalised? In fact, those figures show that there are nearly as many cases currently not finalised as were decided between 1982 and 1986. As many cases before the panels have not yet been finalised as were finalised in those four years. We are looking at alarming circumstances. I will illustrate to the House some of the problems that the review process can create. Let me give an example which is based on fact. A visitor arrived in Australia and married an Australian citizen. Before his visa expired he sought change of status. There was some doubt about whether it was a marriage of convenience. It was decided that because of factors in the case the person would not be accepted as a resident of Australia. That person was then able to say, `Well, the marriage has broken up, I admit that, but I have formed a de facto relationship in the last few months. That is the ground on which I am now seeking to stay in Australia'. That application was reviewable and was rejected 18 months later. We are chalking up the months and years as this goes on. At this point this person had been staying in Australia for roughly two years. That individual then said, `You have rejected me from the review process, but a couple of children have arrived since. I claim, on humanitarian grounds, that I have a right to remain in Australia and I appeal to the Minister'. It may be six months-probably not that long-before the matter goes to the courts. With legal aid it is sometimes four years before decisions are made effectively. It is not right. We have got to be compassionate and humane, but we need to weed out of the system those who seek to abuse it. There are people abusing it and everybody knows that. We want quick, effective review processes, but the Government will not tell us how that will be brought about. It is not good enough. The Government must legislate. Another matter within the Bill which I will refer to briefly is that the application form and the fee are to be in a prescribed form. I note here that the Minister said in his second reading speech that he will not be accepting applications from senators and members unless the form and fee have been properly presented. I foresee a very few cases where the Minister should leave his door open. I understand that people will seek to avoid the $240 fee if it becomes known that the Minister is consciously pursuing a process of ministerial discretion and exercising the right that he has. He has made the statement. I understand the reason for the statement, but I believe senators and members ought to have access. The final matter that I wish to deal with is the immigration clearance fee for people coming back to Australia. It is the first tax of this type that any government has imposed. It is another tax on the Australian community. The world's worst Treasurer (Mr Keating) said that there would be no new taxes when he announced the Budget, and that was the campaign policy of the Australian Labor Party. Here is one. There are few things left for the Government to tax. Will it put an agency of the Taxation Office outside every polling booth or charge for ballot papers? That is one of the few things left for it to tax. Perhaps those people with the right of assembly outside the front of Parliament House or in the civic squares around Australia should be charged a fee, because there is little else left that the Government can tax. Now the Government is going to tax Aussie citizens coming back to Australia. I admit that it will tax everybody, but what right exists within the Immigration Act for this? The absolute, automatic basic right of Australians to return to their country will be charged. That is really on the nose. The Government has many mechanisms through which it can raise money. The departure tax is one such mechanism. I can imagine the disruption if this charge were to be collected from passengers individually. In fact, it will be charged against airlines, but nobody can tell me that it is a fee on airlines. It is a fee on each person entering Australia; the airlines will just collect it. They will put it on tickets, but how are they going to do that? That is interesting. Say somebody leaves London heading for Singapore with a stopover and then decides, after travelling by British Airways, to come into Australia on Qantas. Which airline will pay the charge? How do they notify each other who is travelling and what is the ultimate destination? Who picks it up on behalf of the Government? What about the exchange rate on a daily basis? Who says whether that is right or wrong? I guess that the airlines will be lobbed with the problem, but I suggest that there are plenty of easier mechanisms that the Government could use. The Opposition intends to move an in-principle amendment to the second reading motion because we just think that it is obnoxious that Australians be asked to pay to return to their own country. This charge will raise $17m in a full year in revenue and is a Budget measure. I move: That all words after ``That'' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ``whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that the imposition of a fee of $5 on Australian citizens returning to their own country by international air travel is an obnoxious attack on the fundamental right of Australians to enter their own country''. This Government has few things left that it can tax. It will be taxing ballot papers and the right of assembly before it finishes, and it will be beating its own record of being the highest taxing, biggest spending government that this nation has seen. Madam SPEAKER —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Ruddock —I second the amendment. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(10.33) —In a year in which we are facing probably the most tremendous examination of the immigration policies of this country, in which we shall be looking at the impact and implications of the Commission to Advise on Australia's Immigration Policy, and in which we shall be determining the future directions of immigration in this country, we have had the most small-minded speech from the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), that one could conceive. I cannot believe that in a speech designed to deal with general changes to the Migration Act, we have not had one reference to the FitzGerald inquiry-the biggest and most important thing that has happened in regard to immigration strategy for a long time, even since the war. Mr Ruddock —It would be totally irrelevant. Dr THEOPHANOUS —It is not totally irrelevant. The shadow Minister referred to the issues that will be examined by the FitzGerald inquiry, so what is he talking about? The fact of the matter is that we have had a mean and small-minded speech from the shadow Minister, in which he made several points to which I shall reply. I begin by congratulating the Government for the establishment of the FitzGerald inquiry into the entire immigration program-including its relationship to the economy and to population policy. As I have said, this review will be historic in its impact and will help to determine the future directions of this nation. That is how important the review will be. Immigration policy and immigration strategy clearly are extremely important to the determination of Australia's future. As I said, for the shadow Minister not to have referred to the review is amazing since this is his first major opportunity to speak on this matter. Having said that, let me now refer to some of the important things that the FitzGerald review will be looking at because some of those things are relevant-- Mr Ruddock —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. While I have no objection to the honourable member undertaking a wide-ranging debate I simply make the point that the shadow Minister addressed the Bill and its terms. If the honourable member insists on attacking the shadow Minister's speech as not addressing the terms of the Bill I will argue very strongly that the honourable member is exceeding relevance, so far as this Bill is concerned, by addressing the FitzGerald inquiry. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —There is no point of order. Dr THEOPHANOUS —Mr Deputy Speaker, just on the supposed point of order, the shadow Minister raised a number of points that will be examined by the FitzGerald inquiry. How can the honourable member say that that is not relevant to the Bill? That is rubbish. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Calwell will not debate the fact that there is no point of order. Dr THEOPHANOUS —I will turn now to the sorts of things that will be looked at by the FitzGerald inquiry which are relevant, in fact, to the considerations of the Bill. One of those things, which the shadow Minister spent a long time talking about, concerns the review process. The Bill is not about changes to the review process as the shadow Minister said. The Bill does not talk about changing the review process at all. In fact, what it does is speed up the review process. The examination of the review process which honourable members opposite have said the Bill is concerned with, is no concern of the Bill at all. That question will be examined by the FitzGerald inquiry. Honourable members opposite can talk about the need for a review of the review process but we are not allowed to talk about the FitzGerald inquiry which is to look at that matter as one of its central aspects. I suggest that honourable members opposite do some homework in terms of how they should be approaching these matters in the House. Having said that, I will now address my remarks to the central question of the review process in terms of the impact of the fee. The shadow Minister has taken exception to some clauses in the Bill about which he claims not enough information has been provided in relation to the regulations to be put in place. He said on several occasions that no details had been provided by the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young). It is true that the actual regulations have not been promulgated. We are in the process of doing that. But that is not the same as saying that the Government has not released any details. I refer the shadow Minister to this pamphlet, 30,000 copies of which have been distributed throughout Australia. Obviously he does not have a copy of the pamphlet because if he did he would know that details are provided in that pamphlet about what will happen to the rights of people in respect of the $240 fee. For the shadow Minister to come in here and say that the Minister has said nothing about it really is absurd when we consider that a pamphlet has been printed giving people all kinds of information about that. Rather than going through that pamphlet and wasting the time of the House, I urge the shadow Minister to get a copy of it. He will find that not only has the Minister provided information but also he has provided 30,000 copies to be distributed throughout Australia to provide details to people about the sorts of things which will be put in the official regulations. So for the shadow Minister to stand up here and wax lyrical and say `We don't know what will be in the regulations' is wrong. Of course we do. I ask the shadow Minister to read the pamphlet. We are giving general information in the pamphlet and stating-- Mr Carlton —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Would it be in order for us to ask the honourable member to table the pamphlet? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —What the honourable member does with his pamphlet is his business. Dr THEOPHANOUS —Mr Deputy Speaker, in the interests of the illumination of honourable members opposite, I would be very happy to table the pamphlet at the end of my speech. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is the honourable member for Calwell seeking leave to table the pamphlet? Dr THEOPHANOUS —I seek leave to table the pamphlet. Leave granted. Dr THEOPHANOUS —The pamphlet is clearly designed to give people an indication of the sort of situation in which a visa application can be refused and-the very key point-under what circumstances one can apply for a review of a particular refusal. In fact, it even states the time limit which is available for one to make an application, which varies in accordance with the particular application. For the honourable member opposite to say that we have not provided any information about this matter is an incredible claim. He has said on several occasions, and it is recorded in Hansard, that no details were given. He has made the point that the official regulations have not yet been promulgated. So what? That has happened in the past. The Bill has not yet been passed. Once the Bill is passed the regulations will be promulgated. That is not a problem; that has happened in other situations in relation to many aspects of legislation coming before this House. The general accusation that the Government is somehow not revealing the details of what is going on is a nonsense, as the honourable member knows. In relation to the general point that was raised by the shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs on the review process, of course we have had representations about the problem in the review process. It is precisely because we have had representations about that that we decided to increase the number of review panels. It is precisely because we wanted to ensure that the review process is speeded up that we introduced the fee. I notice that the shadow Minister did not quarrel with the introduction of the fee; he just quarrelled about the regulations. He made the point that there is now a backlog of 10,000 in the review process. Indeed there is, and that is precisely why the Government has increased the membership of the immigration review panels from 32 to 160-so as to deal with the backlog, so as to deal with the very problem which the honourable member has talked about. Indeed, there will now be immigration review panels in every mainland State of Australia. There will be a decentralisation of the review process to the regional offices. Staff allocated to the review function will more than double to 150. So we are attacking this problem but, as honourable members know, in the last year there has been a very heavy increase in the number of people applying for reviews: sometimes they are encouraged to apply for reviews when they have no hope whatsoever. That has been one of the reasons for the introduction of the fee, to discourage the absolutely hopeless cases. In addition, it will help us to pay for the increases which are occurring in the review process. Most people are happy with the idea of speeding up the review process through the introduction of the fee. I do not think there is any substance to the claim that the honourable member has made in relation to the whole of this section of the Bill concerning the review process and concerning the policy decisions that will be made in the future. He suggested that the review process ought to be reconsidered. The Government held an inquiry into the review process and there was a report on the review process. But these matters have been held in abeyance pending the outcome of the recommendations of the FitzGerald inquiry, which is relevant to this Bill and to what will happen to immigration and the whole immigration process in the future. The outcome of the inquiry is relevant. The honourable member did not mention FitzGerald, but he referred to the matter of taking care to ensure that the original immigration decisions were correct and based on objective processes and not easily appealed against by people feeling aggrieved or that a mistake had been made. This is one of the key things that FitzGerald will look at. He will be looking at the points system, the criteria involved and at the whole process that takes place, so that we can try to ensure that the original decisions made in relation to people coming to Australia are sufficiently accurate and objective and so that people do not feel aggrieved; thus we can avoid this huge backlog of people appealing to immigration review panels. Therefore, the matter with which we are dealing here is very important in terms of the FitzGerald review. Let me outline what I consider to be the important things that FitzGerald will be looking at. First, the FitzGerald inquiry will consider the matter of the relationship between economic and population criteria and the levels of immigration into this country and the composition of that immigration. These are key and important questions. I appeal to the Opposition and to the wide range of community groups involved to make submissions to the FitzGerald inquiry. It must be broad and take into account all views on immigration. We want to avoid the situation that has occurred, with some newspapers in this country publishing racist comments about our immigration program, and disgracefully pandering to some racists. In this context, I refer particularly to the Australian newspaper. It has been running a long-standing campaign on behalf of racists in this country attacking the immigration program. However, we ought to be dealing with this in a rational way. All points of view should be put to the FitzGerald inquiry. However, at the moment, disgracefully, the Australian and some radio stations are pandering to a racist view on immigration-a view that has been rejected on both sides of this House for a long time. The FitzGerald inquiry will be looking at submissions from all groups, including those who are putting forward racist views. It will ultimately develop an approach to immigration which I am sure will do great justice to this country. I am looking forward to that report and to the building for the future of the immigration program in this crucial year. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(10.49) —I am pleased to have this opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Migration Amendment Bill. First, I want to explain what this Bill is about. One could be forgiven for forgetting which Bill it is that we are discussing, in view of the speech just given by the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous). Principally, this Bill is about taxation changes to expand the resources of the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs in undertaking its statutory obligations, particularly those under the Migration Act. But in introducing those taxing changes, because that is what they are, the Government, of course, has moved in advance of the FitzGerald Committee to Advise on Australia's Immigration Policies to make certain changes in the law. It has done so, as the honourable member for Calwell has told us, by statements and pamphlets. The Government is seeking now, by expanding the regulation making power, to justify whatever statements have been made and whatever pamphlets have been printed. It is seeking to pass regulations which will vindicate those statements. The fact of the matter is that we are in a country where the rule of law has some relevance. We are in a country in which this Parliament has a role to play and it plays that role when it amends Acts of Parliament and when it supervises the regulation making power. It does not do so by permitting laws to be made by pamphlet, by allowing decisions to be given effect by pamphlets-and it does not matter how widely they are distributed. This should not be the basis upon which the people ought to understand their rights. Of course, the Parliament has a role to play. Let me say very clearly to the honourable member for Calwell that if this Parliament fails to pass this legislation, as the Government seeks-and the Senate has a role to play in this-and if the regulations that are provided for in the legislation are inconsistent with what is set out in the pamphlet, the pamphlet will be shredded. It will be totally irrelevant. I think that this needs to be understood clearly and succinctly, and not only by the honourable member who deludes our good friends in the Public Service if he encourages them to believe that decisions can be made in advance of the Parliament performing its role. That is what we are talking about in relation to this legislation. That is why I want to address the Bill and not primarily what the FitzGerald inquiry is about, although at the conclusion of my remarks I will offer, incidentally to my speech on the Bill, some comments about that report. Let me make it clear that the Bill is about imposing taxes. The Government uses another word for it-the word `fees'. Mr McGauran —They are taxes all right. Mr RUDDOCK —I understand that, and so does the honourable member. The Bill provides for fees, firstly, for reconsideration of decisions by the Immigration Review Panel. Secondly, it provides for an immigration clearance fee to pay for procedures that people have to undergo when they enter the country. We were told that it was not really a 25 per cent increase in the departure tax when my colleague the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) asked a question on this matter. We were told that it was going to be in some way different. It was suggested that it was to be imposed only on those people entering Australia who require visas. It is certainly clear that that is not the case. It is a fee which relates to the immigration clearance for all people entering Australia. That needs to be clearly understood. It is quite clear that the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown) did not understand that when he answered a question in the House the day before yesterday. I will leave my colleague to elaborate on that matter because I do not want to steal her thunder. Finally, fees are to be imposed for requests for entry permits and visas. Then we have a novel procedure for carriers who bring passengers to Australia without the necessary visas. A new on the spot fine mechanism has been established. The term `alternative penalty mechanism' is used for breaches of section 11c. But essentially there will be on the spot fines for shippers and carriers of people by aircraft to Australia. In the area of reconsideration of decisions where a fee is to be imposed, the outline statement puts it very nicely and succinctly to us when it says: Sub-clause 9(a) provides that a fee will be able to be prescribed for appeals against certain prescribed decisions taken under the Migration Act. The fee will be refundable in certain circumstances. The provision, and the first regulations made under the provision, are expressed (by clause 2) to come into effect on 16 September 1987. So presumably those people who have regulated by pamphlet are already imposing fees under regulations which are yet to be prescribed. The outline statement also states: The matters which the provision enables to be dealt with by regulation include- the level of the fee- something about which we do not complain- the categories of reconsiderable decisions; the standing requirements to make an application for reconsideration; In other words, the regulations will deal with the question of who will be able to make an application-that is what the word `standing' is all about-and the categories of decisions. If one reads the Bill and the explanatory memorandum-documents which give us real guidance as to what laws we are making today-one would not have any idea about what we are intending to do. But we find that there is some elaboration in the second reading speech of the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young). The Minister said that, following a request by an eligible appellant, the number of people who will be able to seek review will be enlarged. The Minister stated: Among the decisions that will be prescribed as reviewable, following a request by an eligible appellant, will be: Refused migrant entry applications, with the exception of people applying to settle in Australia under the refugee or special humanitarian programs; refused applications for permission to come for a temporary stay in Australia, apart from those in relation to persons coming to study; unsuccessful applications for the grant of resident status; and refused applications for extension of stay by persons in Australia on a temporary basis. The Minister also said: The fee that has now been introduced is refundable to appellants where the decision-maker on appeal is of the view that, on the basis of the information available to the earlier decision-maker, a favourable decision should have been made by the earlier decision-maker. Mr McGauran —Wouldn't that include every decision? Mr RUDDOCK —I suspect not. People may in fact introduce new compelling and compassionate circumstances, which were not available to the earlier decision-maker, which a panel might take into account. So I suppose one needs that element of discretion. I make the point that if one reads the Minister's second reading speech one has some idea of the way in which these regulations may proceed. Perhaps if one had read the pamphlets, one would have some idea of what the Government has in mind. But, in my judgment, that is not the way in which laws ought to be made in this nation. I believe that very strongly and very passionately and I have as much passion in these matters as does the honourable member for Calwell. I want to deal with this question in a little more detail. Of course, the Opposition's approach to this matter is that when we reach the committee stage we will be moving to delete proposed new paragraph (ac)(i) of section 67 as set out in clause 9(a) of the Bill. We are of the view that the Government ought to make it clear to the Parliament what it intends to do in relation to appeals. We want to know what the Government intends to do about the regulatory framework that is to be established, which is the very basis upon which different classes of people will be able to apply to the panels. It is the very basis upon which decisions themselves are reviewable. If the Government intends to lay down a basis upon which the actual review or decision process will be made, that ought to be clearly understood as well. If the Government intends to proceed on the basis of discretion, that too ought to be understood. These are matters that cannot be passed over. They ought not to be left to be coloured in like a picture book at a later point in time. If the Government has clearly in mind what it intends to do in this area, it ought to be able to inform the Parliament now and it ought to be able to put down in black and white what the situation will be, so that people can exercise their rights with certainty and clarity. We all know the nature of the problem that the Government faces in this area. When the Senate undertook its Estimates inquiry, it was clear that a large number of decisions are sought to be reviewed. Senator Sheil, a colleague of honourable members on this side of the House, asked a question at a Senate Estimates committee meeting about the backlog of review cases under the present process, without the expansion that the Government intends. He was told that there were 10,866 and, in addition, 14,500 requests for review. We are talking about delays of over two years. As Senator Sheil observed, over 25,000 cases are now before the panels. It will take an enormous amount of time, even with the expansion of the review panels that is being undertaken, for those backlogs to be addressed. Mr Simington told the Senate Estimates committee that in June 1985 there was a backlog of 1,900 cases; in June 1986, 4,000; and in June 1987, 11,000 cases. That is the order of the number of cases that have to be dealt with. I ask the Minister and the Government what they have in mind, and it is in that context that I shall address the question of the FitzGerald inquiry. While the Minister made it clear that certain changes in the law are taking place now and the number of cases that can be reviewable under these processes has been expanded, he made the observation, I suppose somewhat tongue in cheek: These changes are not meant to affect the recommendations about the review process made in 1985 by the Administrative Review Council. Those recommendations will be considered afresh following the report of the Committee to Advise on Australia's Immigration Policies. In that context I wish to make some comments, albeit briefly, because I think it needs to be understood that there is a growing complexity and the decision-making processes are being taken over by the legal profession. The role of the Parliament and of the Minister are being usurped. We are going down the same track as we did in the family law area, where decisions about the way in which people's rights should be dealt with are made not by elected people representing the community but by judicial officers. Important decisions about custody are determined ultimately not by the guide-posts set by this Parliament but by the courts. Judicial officers, unelected people, are exercising discretions. And we wonder why we have problems in the family law area. Regarding maintenance and the way in which property is divided, the Parliament has set up only the vaguest guidelines and the courts have moved in, full steam ahead, to decide the way in which people's rights will be determined. That is what is happening in the immigration area. We have seen a tremendous growth in administrative law. Let me say, as a lawyer with a current practising certificate, that if I ever lack a place in this Parliament, there will be a very considerable and expanded area of practice for me in public law if this Government continues down that route. The costs for the community will be large and, of course, the costs for government will be even greater. The growth of review of decisions now taking place under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act is of such an order that decisions that have been made and which are spoken of in the financial statement in the explanatory memorandum to the Bill will pale into insignificance in terms of the cost to the Department of continuing to fight every decision at almost every step of the way before one of these administrative appeals bodies or before the courts. Yet that is what is emerging. It is one of the growth areas. Our universities are expanding to produce qualified graduates capable of acting for clients in this area. The honourable member for Calwell thinks that the FitzGerald inquiry will have some relevance in this respect. However, the terms of reference deal with the very early processes and not the later review processes. The Bill before us outlines a new approach and expands the appeals processes. The way in which the courts will usurp the function of this Parliament in dealing with appeals makes the consideration of the FitzGerald inquiry irrelevant and the comments of the honourable member for Calwell equally irrelevant. What we need is a clear and succinct statement by the Government that the role of the Parliament and the discretion of the Department and the Minister will be pre-eminent. My colleague the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) drew upon the reports of the Administrative Review Council and made it very clear that two routes can be taken-one whereby the legal profession will be much more involved and where members of Parliament and the Parliament will be irrelevant or, alternatively, one whereby this area is kept for the Parliament itself to make the determination as to the shape of our immigration program and the composition of the population of Australia. The extent to which I address the FitzGerald inquiry is to make that point more forcefully. I am of the view that in the context of the discussion which is going on in the Australian community today, this Parliament needs to provide leadership. I do not think that it is a matter for inquiries; I do not think that it is a matter for parties making submissions to the FitzGerald inquiry. I think that it is more a matter for the Minister to be making statements about the shape of our program that he thinks ought to be undertaken by the Government and on which the Opposition is in a position to comment, and I would say, supportively, if it continues the approach of the recent past, if we are to continue handing the matter over to inquiry, thereby allowing the debate to be taken over by some of those alluded to by the honourable member for Calwell, Parliament will lose any constructive role that it has. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Ms JAKOBSEN(Cowan)(11.09) —It is a pleasure to be able to speak to the Migration Amendment Bill for a number of reasons, but primarily because it heralds the expansion of an extremely important service for migrants who have sponsored relatives from overseas and who are not satisfied with the outcome of that sponsorship. For many years Australian governments have properly given priority to the reunion of Australian residents with their close family on the assumption that the emotional well-being of the Australian resident is enhanced by such reunion. Such people will now be able to have access to a faster and more efficient appeals system than was previously available to them. Honourable members will recall that the Immigration Review Panel was set up in 1982. I remember that at that time there was some concern that the Minister was being bogged down by the large number of appeals that were crossing his desk. Its independence from the Department makes it an important avenue for an objective appeal of immigration decisions, particularly as it can consider cases without necessarily being restricted by the requirements of the Migration Act. It is my firm belief and, I hope, that of the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young), that there will be no subjugation of the Review Panel to the Department in future. As a consequence of the Budget decision and as part of this Bill, membership of the Immigration Review Panel has been increased from 32 to 157. The panels will now meet in six capital cities, since the recent establishment of the panels in Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth. As a Western Australian, I am, naturally, very pleased to see a panel being established in Perth. Also, to provide an improved service and to overcome, or at least reduce, the present backlog of cases, departmental resources allocated to the review task have been increased. However, this welcome expansion of services and the improved response times necessitate additional funding. For instance, the estimated cost of providing the review mechanism in 1987-88 is $5.9m. It is the Government's belief that the cost of providing these services should be borne by the user and not by the community as a whole. I would have thought that some members of the Opposition would consider that a principle worth supporting. Accordingly, it has been decided that some existing fees will be increased and some new fees will be introduced to help to pay for these additional and improved services. It will now cost $240 to apply for reconsideration of some decisions taken under the Migration Act. Incidentally, this amount is the same as the fee for lodgment of appeals with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I put it to honourable members that the two processes are not all that different. The estimated revenue from this fee is $1.44m in 1987-88 and $1.92m in a full year. Contrary to the claims of the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), the Minister's second reading speech does cover the changes to and the broadening of the review process. Reviewable decisions will now include most refused migrant entry applications, refused applications for permission to visit Australia on a temporary basis, that is, apart from students, unsuccessful applications for the grant of resident status, and refused applications for extension of stay by persons temporarily in Australia. Those represent most of the decisions that the Review Panel currently seeks to cover. It is important to note that the fee will be refundable in circumstances where the appeal is successful on the basis of information which was available to the original decision-maker and which therefore should have led to a favourable determination at that time. I put it to honourable members that, as a consequence of their ability to plead a case with the Minister or with the Review Panel, on existing information, there will be many such circumstances in which the fee will be refunded. I am sure that constituents in my electorate who are seeking a review of an Immigration Department decision, especially one which involves sponsorship of a close family member, would rather pay $240 and obtain a speedy decision than not have to pay anything but wait for a year or more for a substantive answer to their request. Given that they may have already waited for a few years to get the original decision, they may feel that it is very difficult to have to wait longer to have that decision reviewed. I, like most members, know of instances in which the delay in obtaining a review decision has caused a family particular distress and hardship. For instance, some families have had the misfortune to have their sponsored parent die whilst awaiting the outcome of an appeal via the Review Panel. Others have had the agony of knowing that their relatives are living in abject poverty for months longer than may otherwise have been necessary. While I acknowledge that the delay of the Review Panel consideration does not cause these problems, it does considerably exacerbate the distress of the sponsor under such circumstances. For these reasons, and on behalf of many of my constituents, I welcome the expansion of the Review Panel membership and applaud the Government's endeavours to expedite the whole process of appeal within the migration system. In the last 40 years Australia has accepted-indeed, welcomed-more than four million immigrants from over 120 countries. Most Australians recognise the contribution that they have made to our national character and to our way of life. As a consequence of immigration, Australia has become a more interesting, adaptable and culturally diverse society. In fact, in Australia today, immigrants are generally admired for being hard working, having strong family values and possessing a spirit of mutual support and co-operation, from which many of us could learn. Precisely because of our multicultural nature, governments in Australia have held regular reviews of immigration processes and the consequences of immigration. In 1986, a survey of community attitudes to immigration, which was commissioned by the Department, found that people perceived that attitudes towards immigrants had changed over time and that Australians had become more tolerant. We would all understand, though, that the latest wave of immigrants is generally the one that cops the flak, so to speak. Also in 1986, the Review of Migrant and Multicultural Programs and Services was established to advise on the Commonwealth Government's role in assisting overseas born residents to achieve their equitable participation in Australian society. The Jupp report, which arose from this Review, recommended that the Commonwealth Government adopt principles that would ensure equitable treatment for all members of the Australian community. I hasten to add that, even without that report, I am sure that that is what the Government would have intended to do, but the report assists the Government in trying to achieve those ends. There have also been a number of reviews of the Migration Act, the latest of which was a report by the Administrative Review Council in 1985, which examined the question of an appropriate system of external review of decisions taken under the Act. Most recently, and most importantly, the Government has taken the prai- seworthy step of establishing the Committee to Advise on Australia's Immigration Policies. This Committee is being chaired by Dr Stephen FitzGerald and is currently traversing Australia, seeking the views of migrant groupings and Australians in general on the question of immigration. The Committee's terms of reference require it to look at the relationship between immigration and the social, cultural and economic development of Australia. It is due to report to the Minister in March next year and will be an important contribution to understanding our national attitudes in our bicentennial year. As most honourable members would appreciate, multiculturalism is not necessarily a bipartisan position. Mr Nehl —Nor should it be. It is a disgrace. Ms JAKOBSEN —Really? That is interesting. I thank the honourable member for Cowper for that comment. Obviously, the work of the advisory committee will greatly assist the Government in obtaining and considering the views of the whole Australian community regarding the direction of our immigration policy in the future. It is not an attempt by the Government to avoid its responsibilities. I disagree with the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) on that point. The changes contained in this Bill are not meant to affect the recommendations about the review process made in 1985 by the Administrative Review Council. As the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) quite rightly pointed out, those recommendations will be reconsidered following the FitzGerald Committee's report. That is the way in which things should occur. This Bill also establishes a mechanism for the collection of a new immigration clearance fee for service and its payment to the Commonwealth. At present, the full cost of undertaking immigration clearance services at ports of entry is borne by the Australian taxpayer. To recover a part of this cost, from 1 January 1988, a fee of $5 will be paid by all passengers over 12 years of age who arrive in Australia on international flights and who require immigration clearance on arrival. The fee is to be collected by international airline operators who bring passengers to Australia. It is expected that about $17m will be generated via this fee in a full year. That fee will be used to offset numerous costs which are associated with the checking of passengers and the cost of facilities. The Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, in his second reading speech, assured us that consultation with the airline operators is taking place to ensure that the legislation and the mechanisms to impose this charge will place as small an administrative burden as possible on the airlines. The Bill also foreshadows a system of on the spot penalties for those airlines and shipping companies which bring foreign nationals to Australia without proper immigration documents. Under existing legislation, carrier companies which commit an offence under the Act are liable to a maximum penalty of $2,000 in respect of each foreign national they bring to Australia without proper immigration documentation, but only if they are found guilty by the courts. While clause 6(b) provides that the maximum penalty imposed via a court will be increased to $3,000, clause 9(c) introduces an alternative to legal proceedings. For example, the Department will be able to serve a notice on an infringing carrier indicating that it is in breach of the Act and requiring it to pay the prescribed amount as a penalty. This system is to operate from 1 January 1988. It will provide that the maximum penalty will not exceed $1,500. The initial penalty will probably be $1,000. Naturally, the Department will still be able to institute proceedings through the courts if that is considered more appropriate. As some honourable members will appreciate, the system of instituting prosecutions is both time consuming and expensive, even though the issues involved are relatively straight forward. Overseas experience indicates that a system of on-the-spot fines acts as a powerful incentive for international carriers to check more adequately and more properly their passengers' documentation prior to boarding, thereby reducing the number of inadequately documented passengers arriving at our borders. Amendments are also to be made in this Bill to the provisions in the Act dealing with requests for entry permits and visas. In order for a valid request to be made, it will be necessary for any prescribed fee to be paid, and the request to be made in writing in accordance with the relevant form approved by the Minister. This change is presumed to have come into operation on and from 16 September 1987 pending the passage of this Bill. These amendments will clear up an anomaly which has been identified in a recent court case which casts doubts on the requirement that the prescribed fee actually was payable. I am pleased to support this Bill, particularly in the context of its contribution to the speed and efficiency of the migration review process. While I have some sympathy with some of the comments made by the honourable member for Dundas regarding the danger of reducing the involvement of members of parliament in the migration process, I cannot accept the Opposition's amendment. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(11.22) —I wish to contribute to the debate this morning on the Migration Amendment Bill because I believe a significant component of this legislation will affect the tourist industry. As the shadow Minister for tourism and sport I feel it is my duty to express some of the Opposition's concerns about new charges that are to be imposed by the Government that will affect that industry. I speak primarily of the new entry tax. I know that the Government has gone to considerable trouble to try to cast this new entry tax in a different language. It has described it as an immigration service fee. The Government can call it whatever it likes, but the reality is that it is an entry tax. We have a departure tax and in the past we have been honest enough to call it a departure tax. We should be honest enough to call this new fee an entry tax. Mr McGauran —They certainly are out in the community. Mr SHARP —They certainly are, as the honourable member for Gippsland says. Australians are horrified at the principle and the precedent that this Government is establishing. This Government is establishing a precedent which means that Australians, before returning to their homeland, will have to pay a tax. That is the precedent that will be established in the legislation. I believe that every Australian, as the honourable member for Gippsland has pointed out, is aware that this is a tax. I would think that every one of them would be opposed to the concept and the precedent that this Government is establishing. It was a surprise for everybody, not only for those in the Parliament but also for people in the airline industry who will have to levy and collect this tax, when on Budget night the Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced the establishment of this new tax. I have received a number of representations from airline operators throughout Australia who are concerned about the way this tax is to be collected. I am told that there was no consultation with the industry prior to the Government's decision and that since Budget night the industry has been consulted by the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, which is now busily engaged in trying to work out a workable formula by which this tax can be collected by the airlines. I can tell you now, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the airline industry is having a fit because it can see that it will end up footing a large percentage of this bill. It will be very difficult for the industry to collect the money under the present arrangements. As an example, the Government intends that the airlines will collect the $5 entry tax and add it to the cost of the ticket that a consumer will buy to ride with an airline. A person can start a return journey to Australia with one airline and end up coming into the country on another. For example, a person could be somewhere in Europe and buy a ticket on callithumpian airways which flies that person wherever he is in Europe to Singapore, and from Singapore takes a Qantas flight to Australia. Somewhere in Europe that person pays the $5 entry tax to the callithumpian airways. Having paid it to that airline, Qantas, which is the final leg carrier, has to pay the $5 entry tax to the Government and has to try to collect that $5 which callithumpian airways originally collected. A number of countries have a policy not to collect other countries' taxes. I suggest to the House that if callithumpian airways has that $5 it will keep it and will not give it to Qantas or whichever airline happens to be the final leg carrier into Australia. So airlines such as Qantas will find themselves in the end having to pay that $5 out of their own revenue. As the honourable member for Cowan (Ms Jakobsen) stated, this is likely to raise about $17m in one full financial year. The airlines will end up paying a great deal of that $17m. Even if all of the money is collected from airlines such as callithumpian airways, it will still cost those Australian-bound airways a great deal just to collect the tax. There will be a hefty administrative cost for the airways in collecting this tax. The airways are very concerned. They are looking to the Department to provide a minimal cost, or no cost, for raising this revenue. Honourable members on this side of the House would agree that Australians are looking to this Government to drop this tax altogether. An Australian returning home may refuse to pay the $5 entry tax. If Qantas says, `You have to pay $5 extra on top of your normal air fare', and the Australian citizen refuses to pay it, what will happen? Will Qantas refuse to carry that passenger into Australia? Will the Government deny that Australian citizen the right to come into this country? Or if the passenger says he will not pay it, will the Government say, `You don't want to pay it? That's fine; come home anyway.'? The whole legislation has so many problems associated with it that I believe it is unworkable. If somebody decides to take a stand and refuses to pay the tax because he is an Australian citizen who pays his taxes in the normal way every year, we will find an unholy mess. The sort of precedent that this Government is establishing is one which we could apply to the police force. If, for example, when a man is mugged in the street and the police come to his aid, I can see governments in the future-following this precedent-being able to send that victim a bill for services provided by the police force. Of course, we would think that was horrible. I am sure that all members on this side of the House would agree. It is horrifying because that victim is a taxpayer and by rights he deserves to receive certain services free of charge from governments. I suggest that returning to Australia free of charge is one of those services that Australian citizens deserve to have because they are all taxpayers at some stage in their careers. They are not only taxpayers but also Australian citizens and they have a right to return to their homeland. I take this opportunity to highlight the full amount of revenue that is likely to be raised by this legislation and by other means within the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. For the first time, the cost of passports is linked to the consumer price index (CPI). So if the inflation rate is 10 per cent the cost of a passport will go up 10 per cent. Regardless of whether it costs more or less to provide that citizen with a passport, the cost of a passport will continue to go up each and every year according to the CPI. In the last two financial years under this Government we have seen the cost of a passport more than double. In the 1985-86 financial year, the cost of a passport to an Australian citizen was $30. This coming year it will be $66. Let us take that CPI figure and extrapolate it through the course of the years. I will tell honourable members how much it will cost to buy a passport from a Labor government in the year 2050. Mr Cadman —They won't be in office then. Mr SHARP —Labor will not be in office, as the honourable member for Mitchell points out. But let us take the hypothetical situation that it is in office. If it follows the precedent of tying the cost of a passport to the CPI, a passport in 2050 will cost $8,419-if a Labor government continues to pursue the precedent established in this legislation. If that principle is applied not just to the cost of a passport but also to the cost of the entry tax and the departure tax, instead of it costing just $8,400 to get a passport to take a trip overseas, including paying a departure tax and an entry tax, it will cost $12,245 to get all those things. I dare say that the way international air fares are moving, it will probably cost more to buy a passport and pay the departure and entry tax than it will cost to buy the airline ticket for the overseas trip. These are the sorts of precedents this Government is establishing. I suggest to those opposite that they have to look very seriously to the future if they do not want to turn the whole exercise of travelling overseas into a revenue-raising exercise for the Government. I also want to state to the House that there is tremendous potential to be gained out of the tourist industry. Whilst I speak of the tourist industry, I remind the House that tourism is vitally connected to this legislation, because tourism, the cost of passports, entry taxes and all these things, go hand in hand. The tourist industry is the shining light in our economy. It has the ability to remove our balance of payments deficit, reduce our unemployment level to an acceptable level-which this Government has not been able to achieve during its 4 1/2 years-and improve our standard of living. But the point of saying all those things is to remind the House that this Government is turning the whole business of tourism and travel into a cynical exercise of raising revenue for governments. If we do not watch out, instead of improving our standard of living, reducing unemployment, getting the full potential out of our tourist industry and reducing our balance of payments deficit, this Government, by this type of legislation-this type of cynical exercise-will kill the goose that laid Australia's golden egg. I suggest that tourism is that golden egg and this Government is the murderer of that goose. Mr KENT(Hotham)(11.33) —The honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) who preceded me used this debate on the Migration Amendment Bill to debate tourism. He considers that much more important than building the Australian nation. I tell the honourable member that tourism is in very good hands with the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown). The industry is prospering since the Hawke Government came to office. The Bill we are discussing today will amend the Migration Act to enable the Government to recoup some of the increased administrative costs of providing improved services to Australia's ethnic communities and many other beneficiaries of services provided by the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. The amendment before the House will enable the introduction of a fee of $240 for a request for review. The Government has endeavoured in many ways to improve the services it provides. The decision to increase the number of members of the Immigration Review Panel from 32 to 157 was made in this way. The imposition of that fee for service is regrettable. However, we have to remember that the fee is also payable upon lodgment of an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). It is true that appeals to the AAT concerning the departments of Social Security and Veterans' Affairs are exempt from the fee-and quite rightly so. I wish to draw the attention of the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young) to this fact in the hope that he will give serious consideration to removing the present anomaly and giving exemption to low income earners, not requiring them to pay the $240 fee when making requests for review. An important question which precedes the discussion of fees and exemptions is why there are so many applications for migration to Australia. What has happened in the last few years since the Australian Labor Party came to government to encourage so many people to apply for migration? At any time there are a million people all around the world who would like nothing better than to join their families, or even friends, in Australia. Of course, it is not possible for us to accept, and certainly not at once, all those who wish to migrate. That is why so many people are refused and why so many concerned relatives are disappointed. Since we were elected to government in 1983 we have created the economic conditions necessary for settlement. Amongst other things, we have created nearly 800,000 new jobs and have reduced unemployment, which certainly has attracted the attention of intending migrants. All those people who were putting off their decision to migrate to Australia, because of bad economic conditions during the Howard-Fraser years, came forward quickly with their applications as soon as the Hawke Labor Government came to office. To put it in simple terms-- Mr Nehl —That is a joke. Mr KENT —It is not a joke. There have been a million applications. Since we became the Government, we have created the good economic conditions for settlement and migration. We gave jobs to migrants to help them maintain their families. To put it in simple terms, so that even the National Party of Australia member who interjects can understand it, we have made Australia a much better place to live in and in which to bring up one's family than was the case during the rule of Howard and Fraser. In a way, because we have been successful in turning the economy around from the brink to which the conservatives led us, we are now facing, on an unprecedented scale, the difficulties entailed in the process of migrant selection. Since we are unable to respond to the demands of so many people wanting to come to live in Australia, regretfully we disappoint those who fail to pass the points system on which our migrant selection is based. Of course, the current points system encourages family reunion-and quite rightly so. I know from personal experience that people who have relatives who have already settled here make the best migrants. But besides this, I wish to point out that it is both right and proper to give priority-all else being equal-to people who have settled here successfully and encourage them to nominate members of their close family who are still overseas. There is general agreement right across the various ethnic communities, as well as in the general community, for a migration program based on family reunion. The only person in this place who is not happy with the priority given to family reunion is the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman). He is the Opposition spokesman for immigration and ethnic affairs. I heard the honourable member for Mitchell, when speaking recently in the House on the Appropriation Bills for the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, attack the concept of family reunion. He lamented that the family reunion component of our immigration program is increasing. Was he voicing a personal opinion and does he still consider migrants-- Mr Cadman —I take a point of order. That is a gross inaccuracy of what I said. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —If the honourable member for Mitchell has a personal explanation to make, I suggest he wait. Mr Cadman —I would like the honourable member to withdraw those remarks because it is offensive to me that he should present what I said in that way. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There have been no offensive statements made. Mr Cadman —I find it offensive. It is not what I said. I said that, if we want to continue family migration, we need an expanded program. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! If the honourable member for Hotham is not quoting the remarks of the honourable member for Mitchell recorded in the Hansard, I suggest that he withdraw those remarks. Mr KENT —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your ruling. Mr Cadman —Withdraw. Mr KENT —I will not. If I was misrepresenting the honourable member he can make a personal explanation. Mr McGauran —Withdraw. Mr KENT —I will not. I will quote him. I am quoting the Hansard. These are his words. I am quoting from the Hansard and I have the right to do it. Mr Tim Fischer —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order-- Mr KENT —I think there are too many flippant points of order in this debate. The Opposition feels-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Hotham will resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Farrer on a point of order. Mr Tim Fischer —Mr Deputy Speaker, I submit that you gave a wise ruling in respect of this matter. The honourable member for Hotham then resumed his speech, said that he would not withdraw and continued with some other remarks. I believe you should now follow through on your ruling and ask him to withdraw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Mitchell drew attention to statements that he said were not true. If those statements had not been recorded in Hansard or, indeed, if the honourable member for Hotham thought they were untrue, he should withdraw. The Chair is not in a position to be able to determine whether the honourable member for Hotham is quoting what the honourable member for Mitchell has said. If it is in Hansard it is quite clear, but if it is a statement made outside this House the Chair is not in a position to rule on it. If the honourable member for Mitchell feels offended, after the honourable member for Hotham has resumed his seat, he can make a statement clarifying the situation if he feels he has been misrepresented, but the Chair is not in a position to be able to rule whether the honourable member for Hotham is, in fact, quoting what the honourable member for Mitchell has said. No terms have been used by the honourable member for Hotham that are unparliamentary. I call the honourable member for Hotham. Mr KENT —To refresh the honourable member's memory, I will quote a sentence from the Hansard. The honourable member for Mitchell said in the debate on the Appropriation Bills: If one examines the proposals for the current year, one notices that family migration is up but that the skilled labour, business, independent and concessional program is down as a percentage of the total program. He lamented that family migration is up. Mr McGauran —What is wrong with that? Mr KENT —There is nothing wrong. He took offence. He wants more people who have no family connection in Australia whatsoever to come out and fewer people with family connections. This matter-- Mr Cadman —Mr Deputy Speaker, I objected to the interpretation. He has read the right words now. Mr KENT —I think the forms of the House are well known to the member. He should not take flippant points of order. Mr Cadman —I object to the interpretation. Mr KENT —The honourable member can object when he is called. This brings me to the second point that I wanted to make in this debate; that is, not only did the Labor Government create the good economic conditions necessary for settlement, but also Labor's humane and non-discriminatory attitude towards immigration attracts many more migrants than we are able to accept. Of course, our attitude has its historical precedent in the actions of the late Arthur Calwell, a great Labor leader who initiated Australia's post-war mass migration program. It was his concept, his vision, that enabled so many to come here from the post-war ruins of Europe, settle here, and contribute so much to the development of Australia. I am a product of that post-war migration and I am proud to have been given the opportunity to contribute in a small way to the vision of the great Arthur Calwell. And while it took one Labor Minister to initiate a migration program-a singularly successful program-it took another great Labor Prime Minister, Mr Gough Whitlam, to recognise the human needs of the new settlers and introduce human services for migrants. The years in between saw the arrival of hundreds of thousands of migrants who were left to their own devices as far as settlement and welfare needs were concerned. The Cadmans of the past regarded us as little more than factory fodder, consigned us to the dirtiest and hardest jobs on the factory floor for ever and demanded that we assimilate. They wanted us to learn English overnight, to start to speak a language with which we were not familiar fluently and without an accent. They wanted us to renounce our heritage, our culture, our customs and become Anglo-Saxons overnight. The Cadmans of yesteryear looked on us as modern day slaves and urged us to be grateful to our masters and consider ourselves lucky to be here. My answer to types such as the shadow spokesman for immigration and ethnic affairs is that I am happy to be here, but Australia is also lucky to have me. Since time immemorial women and men have migrated in search of sustenance. Australia is a land of immigration. The first human beings came here some 40,000 to 50,000 years ago. Some arrived much more recently, about 200 years ago, but migration as a process is still going on. People are still arriving on our shores and we are still accepting those people. The duty of this Parliament and the duty of its members-I hope I am raising a bipartisan matter-is that, in accepting those migrants, we should do our best to ease their settlement problems. It is quite traumatic to come into a country without knowledge of language and without a trade which is acceptable here, without practically anything but the support of family members who arrived before. That is the important part. There should be some family connection, some family who are living in this land. We should not lament that family immigration is going up and the net component of other people who arrive is going down. Our immigration policies were not always based on the concept of multiculturalism. The platform of my own Party, the Australian Labor Party, of 1905, stated that the `aim of our immigration policy is to maintain racial purity'. It went through a process of changes where we had a mixture of 60 per cent British and 40 per cent non-British. Then we had the white Australia policy. In the late 1960s, after a decade of struggle by people such as Tom Uren, Jim Cairns, Gough Whitlam, Bill Hayden and others, including me, we managed to remove all racist expression from our party platform. However, while the platforms of both major parties are today purged of any racist expression, our selection methods and immigration practices ensure an easier entry to Anglo-Celtics and west Europeans, be they from South Africa, Europe or North America, than to the rest of the human race. Notwithstanding that, as I said, our immigration program was singularly successful. No-one seriously questions the goal of multiculturalism. Besides some hillbillies and rednecks such as Bruce Ruxton and Bob Birrell, the only dissenting voice with some previous good repute was Geoffrey Blainey. I say this more in sorrow than disgust as it is unfortunate that the good professor allows his racist sentiments to cloud his judgment. Three years ago our noted historian came to the sudden conclusion that the limit to the tolerance of the Australian people to a small percentage of Asian immigration had been reached. As a matter of fact, he did not make it quite clear whether he was including migrants from Turkey, Israel, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, India, Lebanon, Hong Kong and the other countries that make up the geographical area of Asia. Or does he want us to think that only migrants from former Indo-China are Asian and therefore unacceptable? As the debate went on it became clear that Blainey's objection concerned only migrants from Indo-China, a small number of our migrant intake, people who, after so much suffering, tragedy and misfortune, found peace and happiness in Australia. In 1984 Professor Blainey said that South East Asia had become the `favoured majority' in Australia's immigration program. He proclaimed that the migration of people from Asia was `well ahead of public opinion', and he forecast the `explosion' of tolerance of Anglo-Australians if migrants from Indo-China continued to make Australia their home. At the time he made these assertions, Professor Blainey was the Dean of Faculty of Arts at Melbourne University. Because of the public opinion that he so misquoted he is no more the Dean. Mr McGauran —Are you proud of that? Mr KENT —Yes, I am proud of it. We should not give honourable positions to dishonourable men. We should not have racists in positions where they can do maximum damage to our immigration program. Our nation and our future depend on it. Intolerance does not help and the intolerance of the National Party member who is interjecting does not help either. Of course, he is anti-migrant and a racist himself. I withdraw that last remark. I got carried away. Mr Tim Fischer —Now he is laughing about it. Mr KENT —This is not a laughing matter. We are talking about the success of our immigration program, which is very important. When Blainey came in here, some members, such as the honourable member for Mitchell and the former member for Denison, wanted to introduce some of his ideas into this House and give them political respectability. I was so shocked-- Mr Cadman —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think you know why I am up this time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. If the honourable member feels offended by what has been said, he can raise the matter later. It is not an unparliamentary term. Mr KENT —When that happened I was so shocked by the racist comments from honourable members opposite that I took an unprecedented step or, rather, leap, across the front bench, intending to settle the argument with my fists. In response to a previous interjection, I can say that I thought then, and I still think today, that those who want to wreck our hitherto successful immigration program do not deserve any better. The debate that Blainey started, supported by the rednecks-the Ruxtons, the Birrells and a few others-was not something that was desired here. However, I will welcome a debate any time because a debate will prove how isolated the racists in our community are, and put them back in the place where they belong-in obscurity. Recently, we had a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs to re-open a migrant hostel in my electorate. I knew that some people might not be happy about that decision, for various reasons, but I received only one letter in opposition. One gentleman wrote to me saying that he was against it not because he is a racist but because he does not like Asians. He wanted the migrant hostel to remain closed, to the detriment of that area. That was one letter in an electorate of 100,000 people. That proves to me that the Blaineys, the Hodgmans and the Cadmans have no place in our community. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(11.52) —I for one, together with, I suspect, a number of other members on both sides of the House, am sick and tired of the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent) coming into this chamber, wrapping himself in a cloak of self-righteousness and throwing around abuse like confetti at a wedding. He says that he wants a debate on immigration. We also want a debate, but he wants one on his own terms. He talks about bipartisanship in this debate and then serves a number of gratuitous insults on people both inside and outside the chamber who hold quite legitimate views-for instance, Professor Blainey, whom the honourable member for Hotham time and again in his speech described as racist. He took pride in the fact that Professor Blainey has been stripped of his office as Dean of the Faculty of Arts at Melbourne University. Has the honourable member for Hotham heard about academic freedom? Does he believe in tolerance of views? Professor Blainey is not a racist. He is a man who has put forward a different point of view to that held by the honourable member for Hotham. I am not going to sacrifice my views on this so-called altar of bipartisanship, because it is all bipartisanship on the Government's terms. The honourable member for Hotham, for instance, listed all those wonderful contributors in the Australian Labor Party from days past, such as Whitlam, but mentioned nobody on this side of the House. When he wants a bipartisan debate, it is only to extol the supposed virtues of those on his side of politics. This matter of family reunion has to be debated. Why is it that when anybody wants to discuss migration in this country, or, more particularly, in the chamber, one is immediately accused of being a racist? The mere fact that the Government has introduced legislation today which, it alleges, will make the process of the Immigration Review Panel more speedy and efficient, is evidence alone of the burgeoning cost and the avalanche of applications. Why do we not ask why we have to treble the number of participants on the Review Panel? Why does such a high fee have to be imposed? It is simply because of the explosion in family reunions. We ought to be asking ourselves, in this place made up of elected representatives, whether that is a good thing. The question has to be faced up to. Let us not hide behind it. I want to address it here and now. Mr Kent —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I thought that I had just explained to the honourable member why so many people wanted to come here. I thought that the Minister had also tried to explain it to him, but now he is misrepresenting me. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. There is no point of order. Mr McGAURAN —A debate on family reunion, because of all the sensitivities, has to be discussed in measured tones, not in the fashion of Ron Casey, the Sydney broadcaster. I notice that, on resuming air, he said that he would have to be careful about speaking his mind because: Instead of calling them `slopes' I'll have to say something like `our ever expanding Asian friends'. I dismiss the Ron Caseys of this world. Mr Cadman —It is a Labour Council station. Mr McGAURAN —Yes, it is a Labour Council-owned station, so the honourable member for Hotham ought to put his own house in order first. That is not the way in which I want to address this problem. Instead, I want to address it honestly. Therefore, I welcome the inquiry of Dr Stephen FitzGerald, the Commission to Advise on Australia's Immigration Policies, whose report will be published by March next year and will deal with a whole mass of immigration policies. It will be a helpful contribution to the debate. However, there are people in public life who will try to exploit the matter of immigration for their own racist policies and political reasons. The League of Rights is the most obvious exponent of the art of racism, and everybody on this side of the chamber rejects it out of hand. However, we cannot absorb family reunion at the present level with the state of our economy. We need an increase in skilled immigrants. There has been an increase in family reunions, and a proportionate fall in the number of skilled immigrants. We have to be realistic. Believe me, the view expounded by the honourable member for Hotham and other members of the Government is far more dangerous than any other could possibly be out in the community, because it is far more likely to lead to racism or a backlash in the community than a reasoned and sensible debate. Bipartisanship is a two-way street, but the honourable member for Hotham and others simply want it only on their own terms. This sort of self-righteous, even smug, attitude destroys any hope of a sensible debate on this. We have to ask ourselves the fundamental question of just what we want this country to be in the future. In America, for instance, if one meets an Italian American, a Greek American or a Japanese American, they always describe themselves as such. Always, there is the country of origin tag to `America'. Here in Australia, we talk about Italians, Greeks or Vietnamese, never `Italian Australians' or `Greek Australians'. In America, they would be horrified if one described them as ethnics. Yet in this country, we talk about ethnics instead of Australians. We are one people, and we are a very free and largely tolerant society-although obviously not perfect. We put at risk the freedoms in this country because we seem to be setting up or encouraging groups separated from other groups in this community. I worry about the whole direction of multiculturalism in this country and, more than anything else, that nobody on the Government side seems to have the courage to address the matter. For that reason, there is much cause for concern in the Migration Amendment Bill. As other members have said, a fee would be set initially at $240 for reconsideration of some of the decisions taken under the Migration Act, although we do not know how long the fee will stay at that level. Membership of the Immigration Review Panel has been increased from 32 to an extraordinary 157, and it can now meet in all mainland State capitals. The Review Panel was established in 1982 and is, of course, independent of the Immigration Department. It recommends to the Minister whether decisions should be maintained or changed. I can understand the imposition of a fee of $240 for that purpose because, to me, that seems to fit into the category of user pays. However, to impose in the same legislation a $5 re-entry fee for Australians returning to Australia is a tax. That is the difference. The tax one pays when one returns does not relate to any specific service. In the Minister's own words, in his second reading speech, the $5 will go towards `the cost of immigration inspection of passengers at airports; the costs relating to passengers who are refused entry; the cost of facilities to detect fraudulent immigration documentation; the cost of issue of visas; the salaries and other costs of airport staff; and general administrative overheads'. The incoming traveller is paying $5 into a pool; it does not relate to any specific service being received. It is a tax. If honourable members opposite were honest they would admit that. That fee is based on the same principle on which we apply other taxes; it goes towards Consolidated Revenue and is farmed out from there-on in. The Government might as well extend that policy further and impose toll stations on roads, because that also is a tax measure. Where do we stop in regard to the imposition of taxation? If honourable members opposite never had any doubt that this fee is based on a user pays objective then they are fraudulently wrong. The legislation is of concern. It is yet another example of this Government's desperate efforts to raise taxation. Some weeks ago now I first raised in this Parliament my concerns regarding Japanese investment in the country. At that time I explained the billions of dollars that had been invested in recent years on the Gold Coast, specifically, but also in Sydney and in Victoria; investments in the central business districts as well as in residential areas and in farms. The more I think about the matter the more I realise that nothing can be done except-this is the only solution-to make Australians more competitive. Therefore, my purpose in addressing the matter again today is to make Australians aware of the difficulties that we face in regard to Japanese investment. I have to stress for the benefit of a number of honourable members opposite that this is not a matter of racism: it is simply a matter of trying to protect our national sovereignty. I think that the crash of the stock markets in the last few days has brought home to all Australians better than anything else the fragile state of our economy. I think that Australians now understand the position in which they find themselves. Mr Sciacca —And the world economy at large. Mr McGAURAN —And the world economy at large, as the honourable member said. There is no doubt about that. However, we seem to be in a far more fragile position and more vulnerable to the after-effects of such a crash than any economy I know of. It is quite fascinating to see the difference in approach between the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). The Treasurer is always talking up the economy and always saying that there is nothing wrong and that it involves a simple readjustment. The Prime Minister's remarks are much more measured. He frankly admits that he is not quite sure what effects it will have on our economy and just how we can cope with it. The bottom line is that the Treasurer's approach is the far more irresponsible one. It may well be that he is luring people back into the stock market to their detriment. I make that point because Australia is easy picking for a very strong economy such as Japan. Foreign investment levels in Australia in the last few years really have been quite extraordinary. The reasons are quite obvious to everybody. Of course, there has been deregulation and the collapse of the Australian exchange rate is parallel, at least up until now, with the high United States dollar. The changes in the Foreign Investment Review Board's regulations have made it very easy to invest now, almost at will. Moreover, there is the very strong yen. Foreign investment is shown to be of an equity or capital nature. I am led to understand that 80 per cent of such investment has been in the non-manufacturing sector. The overall extent of investment in Australia at present is probably about $17 billion of which some $8 billion has been invested in the last couple of years. In a recent speech, Dr Bungo Ishizaki, the Managing Director of EIE Regent, the holding company for Sydney's Regent Hotel, made some remarkable comments. An article concerning that speech states: He did not want to make the Japanese sound arrogant but spending $140 million on an office tower was `peanuts' to these men. When there is $3.4 trillion of Japanese investment funds travelling the world looking for a home . . . An amount of $140m is almost inconsequential to such investors. The article continues: . . . `but the consequences of this investment should be taken into consideration'. He said: `I have no answer to this whole crazy real estate system that is based on continually spiralling valuations. But one has to ask how it will affect the average . . . Australian eventually pushed right out of the marketplace'. At present Japanese investments account for 46 per cent of downtown commercial real estate in Los Angeles, compared with Houston's 39 per cent and Manhattan's 21 per cent. The Japanese have an estimated $3 billion stake in the Gold Coast. I reiterate that I raise these issues simply so as to point out that Australians do not seem to be able to compete with the major Japanese investment houses. We have to ask ourselves why it is that our economy is so weak that it cannot withstand investment of this magnitude. What are the consequences? To some extent the consequences are a weakening of our national sovereignty. Japanese institutions have a very substantial equity in the United States. Figures show that approximately $600m was invested in the United States in 1984, $1.2 billion in 1985, and $4.2 billion in 1986; and it is estimated that between $4 billion and $6 billion will be invested in 1987. Following the crash on Wall Street there have been allegations that the Japanese, together with a West German move, largely triggered the crash by the withdrawal of much of their investments in America so that the market took a downturn. We have to be very aware of the implications for a country of investment of this size. As I said, I do not believe that there should be a strengthening of the Foreign Investment Review Board. I do not believe that such foreign investment can be cut back. But Australians must make a judgment as to the performance of a government that so weakens Australian investment houses that they cannot compete with foreign investment of this type. I return now to the legislation specifically and say in summary again that the family reunion program has to be looked at. It has to be discussed in a place such as this, more than any other, in proper, calm tones-something which too many honourable members opposite will now allow members of the Opposition to do. As a member of Parliament half of my work is made up of immigration matters. I think that members of parliament are a very good measure of community opinion. It is my judgment that there is every likelihood of a backlash and of deep resentment being fuelled by an unquestioning attitude to family reunion, particularly at a time of economic downturn such as this. I believe that the denial of the Government of the need for an increase in skilled, professional immigration is like throwing petrol on to the fire. Therefore, I say to the Government that the legislation before the House is deeply flawed. There are a number of concerns about the Government's entire approach to immigration. The Dr Stephen FitzGerald inquiry is to be welcomed. I believe that it is one stage-only a stage-in reaching proper debate in this country on this whole issue. Mrs HARVEY(Hawker)(12.10) —It is a pleasure for me today to support the Migration Amendment Bill 1987, a Bill aimed at, among other things, recovering some of the considerable costs incurred by the Government through the provision of certain services to migrants, potential migrants and travellers passing through Australian immigration clearance at points of entry into the country. This Bill, of course, is being debated in the context of the ongoing FitzGerald Commission to Advise on Australia's Immigration Policies, so everything that is said here today eventually will be coloured by that, but I will not go into any details about that inquiry because I feel that that has been sufficiently covered by my colleagues, the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) and the honourable member for Cowan (Ms Jakobsen). This Bill allows for the introduction of a $240 fee for appellants to the Immigration Review Panel, the Panel which reconsiders cases where a person's application to migrate to Australia has been refused by Australian immigration officers overseas. In these cases the Australian-based sponsor has the right to appeal to the Panel to have that decision overturned. The Immigration Review Panel is the last resort in our system of migrant selection, a system which in recent years has been eminently fair and democratic. Almost 1.2 million people a year apply to migrate to this country. They apply under a number of different categories-family reunion, business, on humanitarian or compassionate grounds, as refugees, as independents or as sponsored migrants. Under the last of these categories, an aspiring immigrant applies to come to Australia under the sponsorship of an Australian resident, usually a relative, and his or her suitability for entry is assessed under a points system with points being allocated under categories such as age, education, skills, employability and the citizenship of the sponsor. Under this system all aspirants, irrespective of their race, religion or country of origin, are now in theory assessed without fear or favour under the same criteria. The essential requirement is the perceived ability of the person to settle satisfactorily and live independently in this country. Whilst the points system is designed as a standard scale of eligibility to migrate, there is room for a certain amount of subjectivity in the awarding of points. This is essentially desirable in that it allows for some flexibility and discretion, but we must be careful that the system is not so flexible as to leave room for prejudice or caprice. If a policy of equal opportunity is to be observed, we must ensure that the criteria for points allocation are as consistent as possible from country to country. Even in my brief experience as a member of Parliament I have encountered a few cases where it seems to me that points have been awarded or taken away for seemingly arbitrary reasons, to the point where in these cases-I stress that they are few-I have had somewhat less than complete confidence in the intention of the immigration officer overseas to award the points fairly and consistently. I agree here with the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), I think, who expressed some reservations about that process. It is interesting to look at the success rate of appeals to the Immigration Review Panel and to break them down by country of origin. In the 12 months to 30 September 1987, of all appeals reviewed by the Panel, 33.6 per cent were upheld by a departmental officer on a recommendation of the Panel and a further 6.3 per cent were upheld by the Minister. This brings the total to 40 per cent. When the figures are broken down by country of origin we see, for example, that for people coming from Syria, 10 per cent of appeals were upheld; for Lebanon the figure was 24 per cent; for Italy, 27 per cent. The figures go up to 56 per cent for people from Malaysia and 58 per cent for people from Iran. Without further research I do not know the reasons for these disparities but one must be forced to question at least the standardisation and the validity of the original assessment in some of these cases. However, the right of the sponsor of every refused applicant to appeal to the Immigration Review Panel in any case would restore that person's chances for a fair hearing, although this would be, of course, after considerable delay. The Immigration Review Panel was set up in 1982 as a body independent of the then Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to recommend to the Minister whether decisions which have been appealed against should be maintained or changed. This avenue of appeal has been open to every refused applicant with the result that there is now a backlog of 11,000 appeals, with a waiting time for hearing of a year or more. Many applicants with less than half of the required minimum of 70 points have applied and been duly considered, even though they have little or no chance of having the decision overturned. This year the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young) has considerably expanded the Immigration Review Panel so that there is now a panel sitting in every State. Moreover, the membership of the Panel has been increased from 32 to 157. These State-based panels are now working on the huge backlog of appeals and it is expected that the waiting time for a hearing will be reduced considerably as a result. The operation of these panels is very expensive, hence the $240 fee for an appeal which the Government is introducing in this Bill. It is expected that this fee will not only help defray the costs of operating the panels but also perhaps will discourage from applying for review those who have received 20, 30 or 40 points and who have virtually no chance of a successful appeal. The only thing about these new measures which concerns me is that the $240 fee could be prohibitive or even impossible to pay where there is severe poverty. I would like to see some sort of test applied combining assets, income and perhaps a minimum number of points to overcome this problem. I acknowledge that the conditions for the waiving or the reduction of the fee would have to be very strictly applied. But of course, should any appeal be successful in having the original decision overturned, as other speakers have said, the $240 fee will be refunded to the sponsor. Another aspect of this Bill is the introduction of a $5 fee for service for immigration clearance at points of entry into Australia. All people, whether Australian citizens, migrants or tourists, will be required to pay this nominal fee of $5 which will go some way to defraying the costs of immigration clearance rather than having the largely non-travelling Australian taxpayer paying the cost. The Opposition members often employ a strategy-they have applied it very much in this House today-wherever they do not have a valid argument to counter a Government proposal, of extrapolating the Government proposal to the point of absurdity and then saying that this is silly. This has happened at least two or three times in the House today with members talking about tolls, bridges and, I think, fees for people who have been mugged and who get some sort of attention from the police. A prime example of this is a Press release which landed on my desk the other day. It is from the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp), who is also the shadow spokesperson for sport and tourism. The honourable member has actually spoken on this matter today in the House. What he says in this Press release is really such a gem that I think it bears repeating. The title of the Press release is `Aussie passports to cost $8,419 in the year 2050'. It states: Australian travellers will have to pay out more than $12,000 in Government Charges to go on an overseas trip in the year 2050. This includes a notional $637.80 arrival fee based on an 8 per cent consumer price index (CPI) increase for the next 63 years. It goes on: The Australian Government has already fixed passport fees to the C.P.I. and introduced an Arrival Fee under the Migration Amendment Bill of 1987 . . . `The total Government fees may cost more than the holiday itself-even on the closest international destinations . . . `The Government is seriously remiss by fixing the cost of Passports to the C.P.I. instead of fixing them to the real cost of production, . . . For one thing, the fee is not indexed anyway, but even if it were, what he is saying is that while Government charges will supposedly rise by this phenomenal amount over the next 63 years, the cost of overseas trips and the production of a passport will not somehow be subject to some sort of inflationary pressure and will remain the same as they are now; so the cost of a passport and the arrival fee will overtake them in the year 2050. Mr Sciacca —Strange reasoning. Mrs HARVEY —Absolutely. What puzzles me is why he stopped at the year 2050. Why did he not go on to 3000 or 4000? The argument would not have been any more absurd than it is now. Then he could have said that in the year 4000 the cost of a passport might be $1m and then his Press release would be more amazing and breathtaking than it is now. But the best part of the Press release-I use that term facetiously-is the final paragraph where he says in an example of a typical piece of Opposition phoney patriotic hyperbole: `Every Australian should have the right to return to his own country free of charge, a right this Government is legislating to prevent under this Amendment Bill . . . `How dare the Government try and sell us back our birthright'. Five dollars is what we are asking travellers entering Australia to pay to defray the cost of the immigration clearance. I am sure that Australians who do not have the opportunity or the means to travel overseas-which is the majority of them-would not consider it an affront to their birthright but a fair thing in accordance with the principle of `user pays'. I do not know what happened to the honourable member for Gilmore's Press release; I did not see anything about it in the media, so I assume that it was consigned by the Press corps to the garbage bin where it belongs. I conclude by saying that I support this Bill and, in particular, the introduction of the various fees on the `user pays' principle. I oppose the Opposition's amendment. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay)(12.21) —During this morning's debate on the Migration Amendment Bill we have had quite a range of views and comments, some of which, if I may be pardoned for saying so, fully testing relevance to the limit, but perhaps that is becoming increasingly the nature of this place; so at this moment I do not presume to pass judgment on that matter, although I do make an observation. I have little argument with this Bill in respect of its philosophy and the various elements contained in the proposals of the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young). I am attracted by the Minister's explanation that cost containment could be achieved through continued gains in departmental efficiency, the rationalisation of administrative processes and the adoption of fees which will more adequately reflect the cost to clients of the services provided. At first encounter, that seems eminently reasonable, but on pondering the matter in greater depth one realises that, in the main, within a budget there is a distinct absence of cost recovery, whether it be in capital grants to child minding creches-and honourable members should not misread me; I am not being the least critical of that. Ms Jakobsen —I would not dream of misreading the honourable member for Wide Bay. Mr MILLAR —I thank the honourable member for Cowan for her charity. There are numerous instances where for thoroughly valid reasons the Government is not committed to cost recovery. Why should there necessarily be a commitment to cost recovery in an area of economic activity which holds the greatest promise of economic buoyancy that we have seen in this country for a considerable time? An entrepreneur, perhaps, may adopt the view that we should facilitate to the greatest extent the entry or the movement of migrants or visitors to stimulate our economy and, as an added attraction to that, reduce the prices-in simple jargon, have a clearance sale, if you like. It could be self defeating if we pursue the policy of cost recovery to an extent that it becomes an impediment to achieving the objectives that Government has quite properly put before the House. We can be too mean by far. But that is not to suggest that the Government is philosophically wrong in this instance: this is just an observation on the score of the wisdom that might attach to such a decision. Quite often a more in-depth examination of a proposal can reveal that we are not necessarily acting in a manner consistent with our ambition or our best interests. The key elements in the portfolio allocation, as the Minister has pointed out in his Press release, are an increase of $20.3m-11.7 per cent-in outlays, to a total of $194m; an increase of $25.1m-62.4 per cent-in receipts, to a total of $65.3m; and an increase in staffing of 62.4 staff years-2.7 per cent-to an average staffing level of 2,395.9. I must say that when I quickly scanned those figures, as we are wont to do in this place under the pressure of business, I thought that the staffing level figure of 2,395.9 raised the awful suggestion that one member of staff was not pulling his or her weight; but I realised on closer examination that the figure referred to the average level and that it attained a respectability which otherwise would have been denied it. I refer now to the various elements of this measure. The honourable member for Hawker (Mrs Harvey), who has now left the House, commented on the matter of fees to considerable effect. I must concede that at times we do adopt a fairly extreme stance in this place, with a distinct suspicion that it is motivated by political attachments. Some comments have been made that the Government has overdone it slightly, but one should just stop to think about that. The immigration service fee that the airlines have to pay will be $5 per adult passenger, to help defray the cost of immigration clearances for overseas travellers arriving at Australian airports. Of course, one must accept that psychologically the average Australian would be shocked, and ask, `What the hell is going on here, when I have to pay to get back into my own country?'. If one wished to be uncharitable one could say that the state of the nation at the hands of this Government is now such that returning Australians should not have to pay a fee but be given a reward for coming back! That would be the case if one wished to be uncharitable, but I think the House would accept that nothing is further removed from my intentions. Unfortunately, with the effluxion of time I have been here for long enough to realise that we are all possessed with human frailty and compelled to warp logic and reason to our own desire and in our own best interests. However, one must allow for the possibility that Australians will instinctively react. We confront members of the electorate and we are aware of the frailties of human nature. We are very much aware of how quickly they come to the conclusion that their own circumstances are unassailable and that the propositions that they put before us are unassailable. So, we are dealing with people, and when talking about collecting $5 from people coming back into Australia, naturally one must expect that they will be taken aback. The fees relating to the present system of penalties imposed on airlines and shipping companies which carry passengers without valid visas are to be replaced by a system of on-the-spot penalties. This will raise an estimated $1.5m in 1987-88 and $3m in a full year. That is a rather tidy arrangement because, as the House is probably aware, hitherto such breaches have resulted in litigation in many cases and a higher penalty attaching thereto. Again, it could well be that the reduced fee to avoid litigation could create a situation where the economies of the business in which the airline engages are such that it may accept a $1,000 fee as being within tolerable limits and have the subtle effect of minimising the attention of the airlines to the requirement of the legislation in that respect. The amount of $1,000 is not a lot of money, as evidenced in the observations of the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp), to whom allusion was made in respect of his calculation to the year 2050. To be fair, one must point out to honourable members opposite that they had not allowed for the predictable inflation that may result in the interim. So, I think that the Government is probably on the right track in respect of that: litigation is costly, and it is a humbug-with all due respects to my young friend the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran), who carries with distinction the qualification of being a man of the law. The fees paid by people applying to migrate to Australia are to rise from a total of $150 per application to $225. This will raise an estimated additional $4.3m in 1987-88 and $5.8m in a full year. I think it is very important in relation to fees anywhere relating to applications that we take maximum pains to ensure that there is adequate pre-application awareness of what is entailed. It has come to my notice quite often that people in various areas of government involvement have embarked with a determination or an optimism in the pursuit of a particular objective but have found out along the track that the objective was not even a goer, that they had no hope in Hades of achieving it. We must ensure that fees do not apply at a stage where the prospective applicant is ill-educated as to the actual requirements which might lead to his eventual qualification. I think it is important that we take pains to ensure that frivolous applications for which a fee has been paid are not made. The fee for an application to change status from temporary to permanent resident is to increase from $200 to $300. Maybe it is intended that the increased fee will work as a deterrent, and in some instances it undoubtedly will. It will depend entirely on the degree of determination or motivation of the prospective applicants. I am not altogether averse to any measure which would limit or diminish the incidence of prospective migrants into this country who come in on visitors' visas and use other devices simply in an attempt to jump the queue. I am supportive of a fee which has a deterrent effect in that direction. If it is simply a measure to gain additional revenue, that opens up other arguments. But I accept that there could be a deterrent element in that. The fee of $240 to be applied for a review of certain decisions made under the Migration Act is a considerable sum and, again, such a fee may act as a deterrent. I am mindful of the intolerable burden that has been placed upon the system by people seeking a review. It is instinctive that people frustrated in ambition will move to have a matter redressed which they assess to be attainable. But as I mentioned earlier in my remarks, human creatures have a capacity to apply logic and reason to suit their own desire. Many honourable members have a compelling desire to enhance their own electoral prospects by supporting or encouraging applications for review. They also may have cause to ponder more deeply on the enormity of what they are about. I think honourable members have a responsibility to advise responsibly those who seek their involvement and support to ensure that their constituents do not engage in frivolous activities. It is strange how invariably people seek to have government free them from the vicissitudes which flow from their own decisions. This is also linked with family reunion and the element of compassion. Compassion is an exquisite word. Unfortunately, more than a few people would have difficulty spelling it. Even more would not have the slightest understanding of what it means. Compassion is something that has a strong draw on people. We naturally move towards being compassionate. But efforts to be compassionate could simply be construed as an element attaching to the selfish ambition of people to achieve their objective with total disregard for the entitlements of their fellow citizens. So we have to watch this compassion thing. A small number of the population of some 6,000 million people on this planet have a dubious claim to special treatment. To a considerable extent, we need to ensure that we are prepared to answer for that which we have to do. I think it was President Abraham Lincoln who was attributed with the comment, which has been subsequently challenged on the score that it was uttered by another-and I can fairly accurately paraphrase it-that when government sets out to relieve the citizens of their responsibilities, government does not serve the citizens; it betrays them. So the more we seek to accommodate the expectations of the electorate, the more quickly the threshold of expectation will be moved and the greater will be the demand on government and, inevitably, the taxpayer who, innocent of all these machinations, just goes about with his nose down and his tail up paying taxes which become more and more substantial as the years go by. The question of regulations rises quite frequently in respect of legislation which passes through this House. Regulations certainly are desirable. However, it would be advantageous if, on the presentation of Bills, there was a clear understanding of the totality of the measures that are implicit in them. We should know whether legislation will operate by enactment or by regulation. I think when this is not done, the House is denied its full entitlement. I do not accuse any party in this respect because, to a varying degree, it has been the practice probably since Federation. I think the House is being denied its right by not having all the information and the prospective measures before it. We must, as in all matters, leave the Parliament supreme. Comment was made earlier in the day about the distinct risk that the legislation before us will fall into the hands of the bureaucrats or the legal profession and that Parliament will be denied its proper function as the representative of the people. But the Minister of the day and the Parliament as a whole must retain the capacity to make the ultimate decision. I say that with a touch of nostalgia. It crossed my mind this morning that I was very much at risk when my friend the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent) made reference to Arthur Augustus Calwell, the first Minister for Immigration, with whom I had the pleasure of being a foundation officer of the Department of Immigration. The honourable member for Hotham came into the country many years ago when I was in that Department. It appeared for a moment that he was going to challenge the authority of the Chair. I was enormously relieved when he retreated because I thought that I might have had to apologise to the House for having processed his papers and facilitated his entry to Australia. I am thankful for the opportunity to make a brief contribution to this debate. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I see nothing of a sinister nature in the legislation. I have no doubt that it is well intended and, in the fullness of time, we will have the opportunity to measure its real worth. Mr SCIACCA(Bowman)(12.37) —I believe, of course, that the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) is sincere in the views that he puts when he talks about immigration matters. I, for one, do not want to get a reputation in this House of just attacking the Opposition simply because it is the Opposition. But I will be critical at times when I consider that I need to be critical of some of the matters that Opposition members bring up and some of the, let us say, unfair criticisms that they make of Government initiatives. Enough has been said today on the more general aspects of the Migration Amendment Bill 1987 with respect to the question of costs and the benefits of the amendments. I particularly want to address myself to the Immigration Review Panel and the benefit that that will have in cutting down the inordinate delays that have been occasioned as a result of the many thousands of cases that come before it. In particular, there has been much criticism by the Opposition, and the honourable member for Mitchell in particular who says that there is too much of an expansion in the administrative law process. He says that this could lead to a legal minefield and I take his point. I think he has a good point when he says that. The way that government instrumentalities are going and the way that administrative law, of which I have some experience, is expanding, bear out that comment. But I really do not think that this is something that the Government itself can do much about because this sort of thing just happens as a result of questions of natural justice and everything else. The position is this: how does the Opposition suggest that we can cut down these inordinate delays? We get criticised for increasing the size of the Immigration Review Panel from 32 to 157. I ask the Opposition and the honourable member for Mitchell to tell us how we can go about knocking down these inordinate delays. The honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) said that he handles a lot of migration problems. He is not Robinson Crusoe. Most members of this House handle migration problems. But what do we say to people when they ring every two weeks and ask: `How is my appeal going?'. Do we say, `Oh, look, we are still waiting for a reply', which often happens? I do not know about other members, but I say, `Look, the Government has addressed this problem. We have increased the Immigration Review Panel from 32 to 157 and now, instead of waiting 18 months or two years, you will have to wait possibly only six months or certainly half the time that you were waiting before'. I would say to the honourable member for Mitchell and the Opposition that, sure, the system is not perfect but, until they can come up with a better suggestion for cutting out those delays, I do not see that they have any right to criticise the Government in this House. Or does the Opposition simply want us to bury our heads in the sand and say that the problem will go away? That is probably what the Opposition would do if it were in government and it is probably what it did in the past. Opposition members whinge about the large increase in the Panel, which will decrease the delays, but they offer no real alternative to eliminate the delays. Matters have been raised with respect to the cost. The fee of $240 is a very large one, but I feel that it will have the effect of weeding out those absolutely hopeless applications that are made to the Immigration Review Panel. Honourable members on both sides of the House would have people going to their offices with absolutely hopeless cases. When they are told that it will cost them $240, they are likely to get themselves educated. As the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar) said, there has to be some sort of an education process whereby the sponsors know that it will cost them a lot of money and that they could be wasting it. The fact that it is a high amount will be sufficient to let them find that out, or at least take the time to find out what it is all about. The extra fee will eliminate many of the cases that go before the Immigration Review Panel. In the last couple of months I have found that when I have told people who have asked me to help with their immigration review application that the application will cost $240, they do not care. It is like the drink-driver who goes to court and gets six months instead of 12 months. He is not worried about paying double the fine. When people have an emotional problem, which is usually the case with family reunion, they do not care if it will cost them an extra couple of hundred dollars. They just want to make sure that their relatives overseas are given every possible opportunity of coming to Australia, and the question of the payment of $240 is not of great significance. Yet it will go some way, and only some way, in arranging to take the cost burden off the Government because of the large increase in the membership of the Immigration Review Panel and the large increase in staffing levels for support services. One of the major items that I want to mention is something that is happening in my home State of Queensland. I read with regret the Press comments made by Mr Bruce Henry on behalf of an organisation which calls itself the Immigration Reform Council. Mr Henry is involved with some legal service in South Brisbane which is involved with the Immigration Reform Council. That Council has deliberately attacked the integrity and the community standing of members of the Immigration Review Panel in Brisbane, and I find that disgusting. All of those people, without exception, are honourable and intelligent. They are decent members of the community and they are well qualified in their particular field. The attack upon them by the Immigration Reform Council is absolutely despicable and it is something that should be raised in this House. The complaints seem to be-I speak with some experience on this-that because there are no ethnics, apart from one, on the Immigration Review Panel which services Queensland, for some reason, it is not a good review panel. As honourable members well know, I am an ethnic. It would seem to me that the last person one would want to put on the panels would be a person of each nationality-for instance, a Greek, an Italian or a Yugoslav. Obviously, human nature is such that a person would try to help his nationality. Mrs Sullivan —Is Mr Fouras going to do that? Mr SCIACCA —No, because Mr Fouras is a person of high integrity and a person who will, I am certain, be objective, as will all the other members of the tribunal. It is despicable for the Immigration Reform Council to attack these people personally, given that they cannot defend themselves properly. I intend to defend them in the time available to me today. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 101a. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The honourable member will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Deputy Prime Minister) —I regret to inform the House that the Prime Minister will be absent from Question Time today as he is unwell. Questions normally directed to the Prime Minister should be addressed to me. As a courtesy, I also inform the House that the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, Mr Dawkins, will be absent from Question Time today and tomorrow for personal reasons. Questions normally directed to Mr Dawkins should be addressed to the Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs, Mr Holding. Mr PEACOCK —I refer the Treasurer to the Western Australian Government's decision to back a deal to save Rothwells Ltd. Why did the Treasurer, in his answer to my question on this matter on Monday, not advise the House, as he advised a journalist yesterday, that he knew of the deal last week? Was he advised of the deal by the Western Australian Government, the Reserve Bank of Australia, or the Treasury, or one or more of the entrepreneurs and, if so, which one? Furthermore, to what extent is the Commonwealth Government acting as an implicit guarantor for the loans backed by the Western Australian Government? Mr KEATING —The answer to the first part of the question is that that was not what I was asked. I was asked about the details of the so-called rescue package. I told the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that I read about that in a newspaper, which I did. I did know about the so-called run on Rothwells the previous week. That was in some respects-perhaps not widely-common knowledge. As far as Western Australia is concerned, with regard to implicit guarantees and the rest, States in this country make decisions in the face of all the circumstances, be they matters of this kind or any other kind. That is a matter for them. Mr LEE —Is the Attorney-General aware of reports that the Secretary of the Builders Labourers Federation, Norm Gallagher, opened an account with the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd under the name of Luigi Locarno and deposited $1.5m in cash? Has Mr Gallagher claimed that the accounts were opened and operated with the assistance of bank staff? In opening and operating this account, has Mr Gallagher or the bank staff committed any offence? What action does the Government intend to take to prohibit citizens, particularly criminals, from stashing large sums of money in bank accounts under false names? What is the attitude of the banks to the Government's initiative? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I think it is well known that Mr Gallagher acknowledged that he opened a bank account in the name of Luigi Locarno. He further acknowledged that he was not Locarno and he could not spell the name Luigi. It is a matter of grave concern to me because banks have been telling me for some time that they have a code of conduct which requires a fair amount of evidence to identify clearly that the name which one uses to open an account is the name by which one is known, and it should be one's name. Honourable members will recall that the cash transactions legislation, which was passed by this House but was unable to be dealt with by the Senate, contained provisions that certainly related to identity and particularly to the verification of existing accounts. It is well known to anybody, particularly to people in the legal field, that if there is no verification of bank accounts, it will not only lead to abuse by criminals in regard to the hiding of money, the interest on which would be subject to tax, but also cheques can be processed through that account because the false identity has been established. In answer to the honourable member's question, it is true that the banks take down details. Obviously, the person who interviewed Luigi Locarno did not think he would have any trouble because he said, `We have very good people in the banking business'. The problem might be that, although the people are good, there are problems when a bank is attracted by the fact that somebody will open a substantial account. Let me remind the House and the honourable gentleman that the code of conduct, which the banks say is being implemented, requires identification by personal introduction by a known, reliable person-preferably a customer of another bank-and also documentary identification. I am sure, in the banks' anxiety to get business, that that does not always happen. But it is important that we address the issue from the point of view of verification. The legislation that was introduced previously required verification of existing accounts. The banks' representatives have been to see me. They said that it would create a very unnecessary burden for them at this stage if they had to try to verify existing accounts because they would have to look at so many millions of accounts. I will accept that, from the banks' point of view, they cannot say whether existing accounts are in bona fide or false names. But from the point of view of coming to a compromise, I want to make it very clear that whilst, at present, it is apparently not an offence to operate an account under a bogus identity, I will be suggesting to both Houses of the Parliament in future that they approve legislation which makes it an offence to operate an account in a bogus name. We also need some clear idea of what `identity' means. I think it would mean the production of some evidence of identity. The best form would be a birth certificate, with some corroboration as to identity. It would not be too difficult and it would place the onus on the customer rather than on the banks. It would be very easy to do that. In fact, identification is often required. I am disappointed that the banks do not perhaps realise the problems that we face. For example, in regard to tax evasion, the Cash Transaction Reports Bill clearly indicated that we would receive the benefit of $30m or more if that issue of tax was covered. Most importantly, if one talks to the National Crime Authority, which I recently did, one will find that it is horrified at the amount of corruption and evasion that is going on at all levels, not the least of which is in the banking structure. I am not saying that it is more corrupt than anything else, but the problem in being able to prevent criminal activity is that one must implement a code of conduct. Bank managers must clearly understand that it is important that people who are laundering large sums of money be identified in a proper way. It certainly would help the standing of the banking structure if the code of conduct was used. I welcome the banks' co-operation. I thank Mr Bob White of the Westpac Banking Corporation for clearly indicating that the banks would be willing to inform the authorities that will be created in this area of any activity or device that they think relates to unlawful or illegal conduct. I thank the honourable member for his question. He has raised a very important matter. For the first time there is an opportunity to close some of the loopholes that have existed from time immemorial. I welcome the banks' co-operation and I hope, in the near future, to introduce the legislation containing the amended provisions which will be satisfactory to all. Mr PEACOCK —I refer the Treasurer to reports that the Government will support a deferral of the payment of any wage increase to be determined by the national wage case. Is this in response to a letter from the President of the Business Council of Australia addressed to the Prime Minister and dated 26 October, that is, last Monday? If so, is the Government now accepting the Business Council's call for a mini-Budget and the Council's call to force the pace of adjustment of fiscal and wages policies in light of what the Council describes as `the potential vulnerability of the Australian economy at present to events outside our control'? I seek leave to table the letter from the Business Council which, I understand, is published in today's Herald. Leave granted. Mr KEATING —The Commonwealth submission on the national wage case has been published. As far as the Business Council is concerned, Sir Roderick Carnegie did write to the Prime Minister to, amongst other things, urge the planning of a mini-Budget-but, I might add, did not say why-and seek to postpone the national wage case. Our position on the national wage case has now been made clear by the publication of the Commonwealth submission. I made it clear yesterday and the day before that we are not moving to bring down a mini-Budget. Mr SIMMONS —My question is addressed to the Minister for Industrial Relations. I refer to reports that the Fiji Trade Union Congress (TUC) will ask Australian unions to withdraw proposed bans on flights between Australia and Fiji. Can the Minister advise the House whether these reports are correct and, if so, what future developments are likely in this area? Mr WILLIS —There have been some important developments in this matter. The Government has been concerned at the present and proposed bans in relation to Fiji and has expressed its opposition to them. We have also been concerned at the cause of these bans which, of course, was the result of the Rabuka Government's action in denying basic trade union rights to Fiji trade unions and pursuing restrictive and harassing action against trade union officials. The Government has made representations to the Fiji Government seeking cessation of these unwarranted restrictions. I am pleased to say that the reports referred to by the honourable member for Calare are correct. Yesterday a meeting took place in Fiji between the Fijian Minister for Labour and Industrial Relations, the Fijian Minister for Foreign Affairs and Civil Aviation, the Fijian Minister for Tourism and officials of the Fiji Trade Union Congress. At that meeting the Ministers and the Trade Union Congress reached an agreement which involves various assurances being given to the Fiji Trade Union Congress regarding the restoration of trade union rights, including the withdrawal of the decree which outlawed trade union rights, and also assurances were given regarding the ability of union officials to operate without restriction in pursuit of their normal trade union functions. In return, the Trade Union Congress agreed to request the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) to withdraw its proposed bans on flights to Fiji from 1 November and to seek a meeting with the ACTU and the New Zealand Federation of Labour to determine the future of other bans. I understand that that request has been made by the Fiji TUC to the ACTU. The ACTU a short time ago announced that it does not propose that the bans, which were proposed to take place in relation to airlines from 1 November, proceed, and that there will be a meeting with the Fiji Trade Union Congress early next week to consider other bans. The Government, of course, remains with the view that all bans should be lifted. We hope that that will happen next week. Mr DOWNER —I refer the Treasurer to his answer to my question last Thursday regarding the South Australian Government exceeding its Loan Council overseas borrowing limit by $108m last financial year. As the Treasurer undertook in his answer to examine this issue, can he now advise the House whether either he or his Department gave approval to the South Australian Government to negotiate this loan which was over and above the agreed Loan Council limit? Mr KEATING —The South Australian Government has followed accepted procedures in organising its borrowing, certainly in 1986-87. It has not borrowed more than its global limit. I advise the honourable gentleman that we are examining the matter to see whether the Loan Council needs to take account of aspects of the circumstances mentioned and implied in the question, and that I am still doing. Mr KERR —Has the attention of the Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs been drawn to Press reports that the Opposition has criticised the work of the Commonwealth Employment Service (CES) and has called for substantial privatisation of the Service? Is the Minister satisfied with the work of the CES? Does the Government have any plans to privatise any part of it? Madam SPEAKER —The first part of the question was not a question; it was a preamble. The second part of the question is that part which the Minister will answer. Mr HOLDING —I thank you for your assistance, Madam Speaker. There is certainly no intention on the part of this Government to privatise any aspect of the CES. Mr Carlton —Ha, ha! Mr HOLDING —The honourable gentleman opposite can laugh. By the time this Parliament is finished he may well need the services of the CES. I assure him that the CES will assist him because it is highly qualified in helping the disadvantaged in the community. Frankly, having had an opportunity to inspect the work of the CES, I am tired of the sort of carping criticism which comes from some honourable gentlemen opposite when basically what they are doing is yielding to the entreaties of those who stand to make a profit out of private employment agencies which are servicing the upper end of the market. The reality is that the CES is not merely meeting the ongoing problems of people who are severely disadvantaged in the labour market, it is also providing very considerable levels of advise to young school leavers, advice which is often directed at keeping them in school or directing them into appropriate courses of study. I suggest that honourable members opposite who have CES offices in their electorates go to the Service and discuss with it the range of services that are provided. If they do that they will give credit where credit is due. Dr WOODS —I refer the Minister for Social Security to his now acknowledged statement that the Government could raise more than $7m a year from death duties. I ask again: What is the basis for this financial estimate? Mr HOWE —The speech to which the honourable member refers occurred, as I understand it, in 1984 prior to the 1985 National Economic Summit Conference, a summit, as I understand it, which the Opposition declined an invitation to attend. I have nothing further to add. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —Is the Minister for Community Services and Health aware of community concern about the differential treatment and payments accorded to skin keratoses as compared with melanomas? Does this mean that there will no longer be health benefits to cover the early treatment of skin cancer? There is obviously concern in Western Australia and Queensland. Has the Minister had any discussion with the medical profession on these matters? Dr BLEWETT —I thank the honourable member for his question. I point out as a preliminary to this answer that this Government believes that economic restraint should be borne by all members of the community. As part of that, we believe that those with broad shoulders should bear part of the economic restraint that is demanded of the whole community. In pursuit of that objective, a number of changes were made to the medical benefits schedule in the May statement based on one of three principles: that there had been inappropriate fee drift in certain areas which needed correction; that technological changes, since the schedule was established, required changes to the payments made; or, in some cases, where there was obvious abuse of the system. In the case of the removal of the particular item number for the removal of keratoses, warts and lesions, the Government decided that it was more appropriate that these items simply be covered under the consultation schedules both for general practitioners (GPs) and specialists. The prime reason for that was major technological change in that area since the schedule was established. Let me point out that sunspots, warts and keratoses are not skin cancers but, in some cases, should be removed as a preventive measure. Originally, this removal was a time consuming and fairly difficult task performed mostly by specialists. The fees were originally structured on this basis. The professional fee for these procedures was quite separate from the consultation fee. With the advent of liquid nitrogen removal and wart killing paints, a majority of these procedures are now performed by GPs. In fact, three-quarters of the removal procedures are carried out by general practitioners. Therefore, the Government considered that a much more reasonable approach was to allow specialists and GPs to charge a consultation fee and abolish the outmoded items. However-and it is important to note-the difficulty of treating skin cancer is recognised and the items for the removal of skin cancers are still there in the schedule, as separate procedures. It is true that there are a few areas which specialists have raised with officers of my Department. They relate to particularly complex and difficult cases, such as the removal of anal and genital warts. There are discussions with my Department to see whether, in those complex and rather delicate cases, some adjustment needs to be made. Mr SHARP —My question is addressed to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. The Minister will remember that yesterday he told the House that there is a need for a monorail because-and I quote his answer to a question: I think it is important that people have access to the Olgas, particularly in the wet when the waterfalls are running on the Olgas and when the area is at its most pleasant. Does the Minister realise that the Olgas are in a region that is one of the driest in the world, that it rains very rarely and, if it does, the waterfalls last for only a few hours? How can the Minister justify this bizarre, costly and environmentally dangerous project on the basis that it will overcome the problem of getting people to the Olgas in the wet, when the simple solution is to provide a proper bitumen sealed road, at a fraction of the cost? Mr JOHN BROWN —I take it that the last statement is backed up by some detailed research on the costs of a new road. In the first place, I did not propose a monorail. A monorail is one of a variety of proposals that have been put forward by the National Parks and Wildlife Service to provide access to the Olgas. Mr Nehl —What about a hovercraft? Mr JOHN BROWN —I think that is Donald Duck up there flapping his wings. Maybe we will add that to the list. The House should be aware that the road is a danger-and I think everybody realises that-and environmentally it is not sound. It has been regraded month after month at a cost to the Government in the last few years of almost $2m. As soon as the grading is finished-and it takes five days along the full length of it-the road needs grading again. Mr Sinclair —Seal it. Mr JOHN BROWN —The Leader of the National Party says we should seal it. It is impossible to seal it. In order to have a sealed road a new alignment must be found. There is some agreement between the traditional Aboriginal owners and the National Parks and Wildlife Service on a new alignment. That new route has been found but it will cost between $6m and $8m to produce that road. Mr Howard —I have learned to lip-read Barry. Mr JOHN BROWN —I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition finds the whole thing a joke. He has always found tourism a joke. He was a Minister of a government for seven years while a great tourism opportunity in Australia went begging because of his lack of imagination and the total lack of imagination of his Government. So I do not need advice from him. His great proposal in the election was to demolish my Department, get rid of the Australian Tourist Commission and eliminate government from any interest in tourism. That is not our policy. What I am searching for, and what the National Parks and Wildlife Service is searching for, is a solution to this problem which is economically viable and culturally and environmentally acceptable. The monorail is one of several solutions which have been looked at. All these solutions will require environmental investigation and an environmental impact statement. They will require consultation with the park management and with traditional owners. When the National Parks and Wildlife Service has all that information it will come back to me. Mr SCHOLES —I ask the Minister for Industrial Relations: Is it a fact that those persons who are calling for reductions in real wages in order to finance speculative losses on the stock exchange have not complied in the management area with the levels of wage restraint which have been applied to employees? Have management wage packets increased substantially faster in recent years than those of wage earners? Mr WILLIS —It is a fact that so far as statistics give us this information, the rate of pay of executives has increased at a faster rate than that of wage and salary earners generally. The Advisory Committee on Prices and Incomes (ACPI) has done quite a bit of work in this area. Although the findings in the research organised by ACPI have been subject to some disputation from employer organisations, I certainly am quite convinced the statistics show quite clearly that in the last couple of years remuneration of executives has proceeded at a much faster pace than that of wage and salary earners. Those figures perhaps have been distorted slightly by the fringe benefits tax and the consequential cashing out of fringe benefits, which may have given executive pay additional imposts. Even allowing for that, it would appear that there has been a lack of adherence by executives as a whole to the wage principles which their employees have to follow. That has been of considerable concern to us. We have made it clear on several occasions to employer organisations that that is a far less than satisfactory performance by business and it is just not fair and reasonable for business to pay executives salary increases which are ahead of those which apply to their wage and salary earners, particularly at the same time as they are lecturing wage and salary earners on the need for wage restraint. It is certainly high time that business made sure that its executives adhere to the wage fixing principles which apply to their wage and salary earners. Mr BURR —My question is directed to the Minister for Industrial Relations. In light of the fact that the Prime Minister apparently has agreed with the demand from Mr Bill Kelty of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) to have the Government overrule decisions made by the independent Remuneration Tribunal, has any agreement been reached with the ACTU to allow the Government to overrule decisions made by the independent Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, if economic conditions demand such action? Mr WILLIS —A matter of constitutionality is involved. I am sure that most honourable members opposite would realise that we do not have a constitutional power to overrule the Arbitration Commission. Leaving that aside, this issue of disallowance of Remuneration Tribunal decisions is relevant to the Parliament. Let me say however that although disallowance obviously is some inducement to government to use that power-and the honourable member who asked the question and who has a private member's Bill around which addresses this issue should take particular note of this fact-that does not mean that if we had no disallowance power, the Government would be without power to overrule a Remuneration Tribunal decision. There is a very good example for us in a nearby country of what happens when tribunals such as this give decisions which the Government feels are inappropriate to the economy. There is a higher salaries commission in New Zealand and the Parliament has no power to disallow its findings. A few years ago that body gave an increase of over 30 per cent to members of Parliament. That went through and added about another 6 per cent to the wage round that was going on. Subsequently, the next time that commission looked like reporting, the Government was concerned that it may come in again with a finding which would be damaging to the economy by initiating another increase in the wage round, and it legislated in advance to restrict the increase that it could give. Quite clearly, in our own context, we could adopt the procedure, even without a disallowance provision, of simply bringing in an Act of Parliament which overruled the Remuneration Tribunal decision. It would not remove the power of the Government to overrule a decision of the Tribunal which it thought was inappropriate if we took away the disallowance provision. I think the honourable member should bear that point very much in mind if he wishes to push on with the Bill that he has foreshadowed. Mr TICKNER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. I ask: Can the Minister inform the House when the Government will ratify the International Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment? Mr HAYDEN —The United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment was adopted unanimously by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1984. Australia signed the Convention on 10 December 1985. The Attorney-General announced the Government's decision to ratify the Convention at the opening of the Human Rights Congress in Sydney on 25 September 1987. The process of drafting legislation is now, I believe, well advanced. It is a matter of completing that legislation and moving to the ratification of the legislation in the Parliament for us to be able to do that, which I think should be in the very near future. Mr COWAN —I refer the Minister for Industrial Relations to a report in the Australian recently, which claims that the Government is considering abolishing the Coal Industry Tribunal. Is this the case? If so, will the Minister use this opportunity to solicit publicly the New South Wales Government's concurrence in abolishing this ineffective and outdated body? Mr WILLIS —The report that was in the paper about the Government proposing in the strategy paper for the coal industry that the Coal Industry Tribunal should be abolished was wrong. That is not what is said in the strategy paper. It simply raises, as an issue for consideration, the future of the Tribunal and suggests that it may be appropriate that it no longer exist, but does not propose its abolition as a strategy for the industry at this stage. What is relevant is that the Tribunal is established by joint legislation between ourselves and the New South Wales Government. Its abolition by us unilaterally would still leave the Tribunal operating in New South Wales and would only be relevant, therefore, to Queensland. What would happen in that State would then depend on whether the unions involved and the employers sought to come under a Queensland State award or seek a Federal award. The Tribunal is a bit of an anachronism in the sense that with the proposed rationalisation of tribunals in the Industrial Relations Bill which we brought forward earlier this year, we left the Coal Industry Tribunal to one side because of the difficulty with New South Wales and the fact that New South Wales did not, at that stage, support its abolition. I think a rational system of industrial relations in this country would see that Tribunal no longer in existence. However, I think we need to discuss that further with the New South Wales Government and have agreement between the two governments before any step can be taken in that direction. Ms JAKOBSEN —My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General. Is the Minister aware of the concerns of certain business interests in Western Australia and elsewhere about advocated changes to the operation of the National Companies and Securities Commission? Has the Minister given consideration to these concerns? Can he inform the House of the Government's actions on this matter? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —This matter relates to the national companies and securities legislation which already exists. As honourable members know, I indicated that it would be appropriate, indeed opportune, to legislate at a national level rather than continue with the present scheme. I did that on the basis that significant sectors of the business community thought it appropriate. There might be some uniformity in this area. We recognise that at present the existing scheme which started about 10 years ago has defects, not the least of which is no parliamentary accountability nor any ministerial responsibility; the National Companies and Securities Commission is devoid of resources despite the fact that there are significant resources in the various States. For example, there are 1,500 employees in the States. The amount of money gathered by filing fees is about $135m, of which there is a surplus of some $70m. It is known that there is not much uniformity in the gathering of information which would relate to companies which trade right across Australia. At present Australia has one market in the stock exchange. It is very national and, indeed, international. It is appropriate that we have legislation which would cope with the needs of the business community. A Senate committee this year unanimously reported-that is, all parties represented on that committee agreed-that there should be national legislation. I am aware that the Opposition has now indicated that it does not really favour national legislation. If that is the position, I do not want to have a situation where we are endeavouring to legislate for the business community if there is no agreement. I am receiving very strong representations from significant members of the business community who feel that the situation ought to be looked at from the needs of business right across Australia and not perhaps be so married to the issue of proprietary company areas which operate within State boundaries. I am not attracted to it myself, but perhaps there could be an opportunity to leave out the small companies, the proprietary companies, on the basis that they do not trade outside their State boundaries-there are many of those-and then perhaps have a national scheme which would relate to the National Companies and Securities Commission and stock exchanges. Australian stock exchanges have now been established by legislation. We have a problem at present, which has bedevilled Australia ever since Federation, as to what is the most effective method of legislation and administration. I come back to the administration area. In some States there are no computer facilities at all; where there are computer facilities they are not compatible. The business community is bedevilled by delays and is also trying to grapple with the fact that there are a lot of difficulties in processing share transfers. All these matters come back to the point that I have established a steering committee of business people with a wider consultative committee. I would be very anxious to get some bipartisan support on this matter because it is evident that that support exists in the community. At the same time, I acknowledge that there is some hostility on the issue in State administrations, not so much on the merits of the issue but because the States look like losing $70m in profit. I do not think that is the issue we ought to be addressing. From the point of view of administration, it is about time that we had uniform legislation. The only way to do it is on a national scale. Ample evidence has been given to the Senate Committee by the business community. They favour that course of action. If the States feel that they still need to make some profit out of filing fees, perhaps the way to do that would be by leaving them the area of the proprietary companies which would be significant in terms of collecting fees. But the real issue is that we ought to face up to the fact that we are a nation now, not a series of about seven different little countries all trying to operate. We have one stock exchange. There is one market in Australia which is international. It is important that we clearly indicate to the world that we know how to run commercial transactions. The best way to do it is with national legislation, with the National Companies and Securities Commission responsible to a parliament and with ministerial accountability. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and it is supplementary to the question asked of him by the honourable member for Cowan. I preface my question by informing him that the Opposition shares the view he expressed about the national character of the securities market in this country. I would also correct the false impression conveyed by his answer: that the Opposition is unalterably opposed to change in this area. Am I to construe from the Minister's answer that he is willing to examine seriously the possibility of dealing with this matter on the basis that matters relating to takeovers, securities and nationally operating companies would be the subject of national legislation, with the residue relating to private companies being the subject of State administration? If the Minister is so disposed to do that, could he inform the House of the mechanism that he proposes to adopt, bearing in mind that the opposition to his original concept is not confined to our side of politics but is felt among all of his Labor State Attorney-General colleagues, with the exception of Mr Sheahan? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. It throws some light on what might be the Opposition's policy in this area. I was a bit vague about what it might be. I want to make it clear that when the Senate reported, it reported unanimously, and the Opposition's representatives were there. Mr Howard —It is a sensible question. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I accept that it is sensible. One thing about it might be that the business community does not think it would be so workable. In the States, there are commissions that will have responsibilities for the State, and we would need to create Federal commissions in the same area. It has the attraction of at least starting towards a national scheme; I will acknowledge that. By the same token, I make it clear that some of the Attorneys among my State colleagues may seem to be inhibited by State boundaries, and that is a problem in their mental outlook. They are also attracted to the view that there is a profit in it for them, and the problem is that they might be prepared to settle if we give them a dollop of money. I do not see that as being a rational approach to the situation. All States seem to have that view, so if the Leader of the Opposition agrees with me, he is disagreeing with them. That is the important part. What the honourable member has said is significant for the nation because, in business dealings, we want to have integrity in these transactions, and that requires good legislation, good surveillance and bipartisanship. There is no point scoring in this issue. I am having a lot of difficulty convincing the States that they ought to get their money elsewhere rather than through filing fees. At the same time I have it in mind-later, but not today, I would welcome the Opposition's view on this-to have a scheme, if that was the only way that we could go, of national legislation and the option for small proprietary companies to opt into Federal legislation. That puts the onus on them and we would talk about effective administration. Mr Howard —That is our policy. You are learning. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I have been wanting that for 10 years. Mr FITZGIBBON —My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. Is the Minister aware that the honourable member for Gilmore has been making exaggerated, many would say ridiculous, projections about the cost of Australian passports? The honourable member for Gilmore has claimed-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Will the honourable member for Hunter ask his question? Mr FITZGIBBON —Will the Minister inform the House whether, in present day monetary values, Australian passports will cost thousands of dollars by the year 2050? Mr HAYDEN —First, I wish to dissociate myself from this question. The next thing is that that is possible, if the inflation-fuelling policies of the Peacock economic program were to be implemented, but that is most unlikely. What would be much more likely is that in the years ahead we shall probably be forced to implement a fairly substantial entry fee for people wishing to come to Australia, not because we do not like people coming to this country, but because, I suspect, there will be a problem in handling the huge inflow of people into this country. They will be coming to it for various reasons: firstly because of its natural beauty, and secondly to see the developments that have taken place. I suspect that the largest inflow of people will be those wishing to sit at the foot of the internationally celebrated economic guru, Paul John Keating, who will be, for future generations, what Henry Kaufman is for the bond market in New York at the present time. As they say in parliamentary parlance, perhaps I ought to rephrase that answer. What I am saying, in a less than elegant way, is that the Keating policies are working so well that such a lurid projection is totally unsubstantiated. Mr WEBSTER —My question is directed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I refer the Minister to the proposed Aboriginal Affairs Commission. I ask the Minister: At what stage are the discussions with regard to the establishment of the Commission, how close is its expected implementation and how will the new Commission improve the efficiency of service to Aborigines? Mr HAND —I thank the honourable member for his question. The proposal is still being prepared. It will be announced shortly. I hope that the legislation to establish the Commission will be proceeded with during the autumn session, and that will allow us ample time for discussion with the Aboriginal community between the announcement and then. In terms of how it will improve the service delivery to Aboriginal people, as the Prime Minister has said, what we are going to do is to bring all the services, as best we can, under the one umbrella of the Commission. I believe that will eradicate substantial duplication of services, thus enabling more funds to be delivered to Aboriginal people for the various programs. Alongside this proposal, we are reviewing all programs, State and Federal, to ensure that no duplication occurs. It has been claimed that there is duplication. That will be eradicated by March, following the completion of that report. I am confident that the legislation will be proceeded with in the autumn session and I hope that it will be agreed to by both sides of the House, so that we can end duplication of services and collectively provide a better service to Aboriginal people. Madam SPEAKER —Pursuant to statute, I present the annual reports and financial statements of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, the Commonwealth Savings Bank of Australia and the Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia, together with the Auditor-General's report thereon for the year ended 30 June 1987. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Building Standards Committee 1986-87. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Building Review Committee 1986-87. Mr DUNCAN(Makin-Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support) —Pursuant to section 54 of the Federal Airports Corporation Act 1986, I present the annual report and financial statements of the Federal Airports Corporation, together with the Auditor-General's report for the period 13 June 1986 to 31 March 1987. Mr BURR(Lyons) —Madam Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr BURR —I have been most grievously misrepresented. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr BURR —Madam Speaker, I am sure that you will have noticed in today's edition of the Sydney Morning Herald an item relating to a private member's Bill that I intend to bring before the House. Together with that particular report was a photograph which clearly was not a photograph of me. I am sure that all honourable members would have noticed the difference. Clearly, the photograph was of a much older, much balder and certainly, not as handsome a man as I. It has been brought to my attention that in fact the person was a Mr Max Burr who is, in fact, the Assistant Secretary of the Victorian Trades Hall Council. I am quite sure that, if Mr Burr would care to give support to my private member's Bill, all honourable members would welcome his support. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —Madam Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr DONALD CAMERON —Madam Speaker, in this House, I think on Tuesday night, I spoke during the adjournment debate and referred to the fact that the Government benches represent 58 per cent of the membership of this House although the Government obtained only 50.3 per cent of the popular or two-party preferred vote in the last election. Yesterday in the Senate I was attacked-I guess that is the word to describe it-by Senator Robert Ray on the grounds that my abilities with a calculator were somewhat limited, in that he perceived the figure to represent 54 per cent of the vote. However, his error is in not realising that I was not talking about Queensland, as Hansard clearly shows, but talking about the House of Representatives and Australia. The realities are that the Australian Labor Party received 50.3 per cent of the vote but has 58 per cent of the members in this House. I was suggesting that something very unusual had gone on in terms of producing that result. The second part of Senator Ray's misrepresentation was that he suggested that my motivation was caused by a decision of the Australian Electoral Commission to look at closing the Divisional Returning Officer's office in the Moreton electorate. Madam Speaker, I can assure you that my speech was based on my concern at the gerrymander in this country and the lack of democracy which enables the Labor Party to have 58 per cent of the members of the House of Representatives with only 50.3 per cent of the vote. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —Madam Speaker, I seek to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr TUCKEY —Yes, Madam Speaker, I do. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr TUCKEY —I have just got the copy of yesterday's Hansard. During the debate yesterday on the Defence Housing Authority Bill the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland), in speaking to the matter of the Authority, made some remarks about me. He said: The honourable member for O'Connor had the courage during the last election campaign to stand up and say in my electorate, `We will sell it all off to the private sector- he was referring to defence service homes- and you will have to pay full commercial rents'. That is not the first time that I have corrected a statement of that nature in this place. Of course, the comments were originally made in a speech to the Building Owners and Managers Association at the Hilton Hotel in Sydney. I was reported in fact as saying: Not all of the properties would be suitable for the private sector, but many such as off-base Defence Department owned housing would be ideal for small investors. The Government could then lease them back. That is considerably different from saying that each individual serviceman would have to make his own arrangements. That is the position I wish to correct. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled- The petition of the undersigned expresses concern that some scientists in Australia are intent on undertaking destructive experimentations on human embryos. This subject was examined exhaustively by the 1985-86 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 experimentations on human embryos. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Adermann,Mr Blunt,Mr Ian Cameron,Mr Courtice,Mr Ian Robinson,Mr Ruddock,Mr Sharp and Mr Tickner. 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 Halverson,Mr Jenkins,Mr Kent,Mr Saunderson and Mr Scott. 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 Connolly,Mr Dobie,Mr Tim Fischer,Mr Porter and Mr Sharp. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth: 1. The proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians. 2. Therefore your petitioners request a national referendum on the Australia Card bill before the proposal is re-submitted to Parliament. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Mr Halverson,Mr Hunt,Mr Ruddock and Mr Shipton. The Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australian Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth concern: about the evil caused by the fact that x-rated videos with their depiction of unnatural sex and often horrible violence, are allowed to circulate around Australia from Canberra. And your Petitioners, therefore humbly pray that such circulation be prevented. The laws regarding obscenity in the media should also be revived and enforced. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Beale,Mr Ian Cameron and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Maranoa Electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID Card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation ever, and that on all the evidence available will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to reject Labor's ID card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayers' money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron,Mr Cobb and Dr Harry Edwards. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Lyne Electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID Card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation ever, and that on all the evidence available will not tackle in the most cost-effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayers' 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 the Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Page Electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID Card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation ever, and that on all the evidence available will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayers' money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Howard. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) That we are totally opposed to the proposed introduction of the Labor Government's Identity Card. (2) That this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive and authoritarian, and alien to the Australian way of life. (3) That we are deeply concerned at the Labor Government's resorting to such a far-reaching and expensive measure to deal with the problems of tax evasion and social security fraud. We call upon the Government to improve management systems within the Australian Taxation Office and appropriate departments to tackle these issues. (4) That a referendum of all voters be held on the Australia ID Card proposed legislation. Your Petitioners urge those members present to reject the Identification Card proposal: And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever humbly pray. by Mr Ruddock. 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 were intended to reduce should be attacked by other, more effective methods. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cobb and Mr Tim Fischer. 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: 1. The decision by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation not to televise the Jack High Bowling Tournament in 1988 is cause for distress to the 500,000 bowlers and many non bowlers who, for years, have enjoyed this interesting programme on television. 2. The unilateral decision was taken after verbal assurances had been given that the 1988 event would be televised. This action is deplored and we feel should be reversed by the parliament in the interests of your many constituents. by Mr Blanchard. 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 time local telephone calls gravely concerns all country people. Isolation and communication was the second biggest problem facing rural women according to the `Survey of Rural Women' questionnaire and any attempt at timing local calls will only add to this problem not decrease it. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Parliament to: Ensure that Telecom do not proceed with the timing of local telephone calls. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ian 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 not be considered any further, and in the event of it coming again before parliament it should be rejected because: We do not accept the concept of an ID card as necessary to control social security fraud or tax evasion, It would be an unwarranted infringement of individual privacy and our democratic society, in particular because it being required to work, operate a bank account, enter hospital or enter into any transaction, It would cause a further large and costly growth in the bureaucracy and burden on tax payers, It cannot be guaranteed that the aggregated private information would not be misused for other purposes, The people of Australia should be fully informed and consulted in a referendum before legislation for any such change with such wide-ranging effect is considered, and We call upon the Government to cease immediately any endeavour to introduce this invasion upon our lives. 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: 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 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 avail- ability 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 Dawkins. 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 assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that the Post Office at Gymea Bay be closed. The Post Office serves a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced by having to travel to another centre for our postal requirements, or even to collect registered letters and parcels, cash pension cheques and transact banking. Many of us are pensioners and the cost of such travel would be an unnecessary imposition. The nearest Post Office is 2.3 km away with no convenient transport. We maintain that the purpose of the Post Offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer, and that they should not be closed merely to save money or help Australia Post make a profit. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of Gymea Bay Post Office. 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. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses represents the nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law. (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901 and each point depicting a State and the Territories of the Commonwealth. 3. They know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to its form or to its acceptance as the sole Australian National Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Members of the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled will ensure that the existing Australian National Flag remains sacrosanct from change and remains the sole National Flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Goodluck. 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 Howard. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we consider the 2% discounting of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Scheme pension adjustments on 10 October 1986 to be a serious breach of trust by the Government. The Commonwealth has reneged on an established commitment as incorporated in Commonwealth legislation and benefit promise pensions are not being paid in full. In particular we resent the long-term effect of the discounting. The pension loss is compounded throughout the life of a pensioner and surviving dependants-into the 21st century for many. We consider this Government-induced penalty to be out of all proportion to the short-term `extraordinary circumstances of the economy' given as the reason for the discounting. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. limit the pension discounting effect of the Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation Amendment Act 1986 to the period 10 October 1986 to 1 July 1987 so that pensions are restored to the 9 October 1986 level as a base for the 1987 pension adjustment; and 2. consult with organisations representing pensioners before changing the terms and conditions of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Schemes. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Jenkins. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows. That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. 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 combating 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 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 Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the wake of the Chernobyl reactor disaster, no nuclear reactor can be considered entirely safe. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government close down the Lucas Heights reactors immediately and permanently. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. 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 Tickner. We, the undersigned, call on the Federal Government to give notice to terminate the lease of the US base at Pine Gap before October 1986. We believe that in the interests of world peace and the Australian people, this lease should be terminated and the base closed because Pine Gap is a spy base and a war base: since it was opened in 1969, it has eavesdropped on Australian telephone and telex communications. Information obtained in this way was used by the CIA to destabilise the Whitlam Government in late 1975. it provides communication facilities for CIA activity in countries throughout the world, much of which is connected with overthrowing other countries' governments. Last year it became clear Pine Gap was spying on Greece. the electronic and photographic information its satellites receive is used to select nuclear targets in the territory of the Soviet Union and its allies. many US military activities short of nuclear war are also co-ordinated by Pine Gap. These include the war against Vietnam and the invasion of Lebanon by US marines in 1984. Pine Gap spends only a tiny percentage of its time monitoring arms control agreements, and even then the data gathered is so top-secret Australia has no access to it. Pine Gap's role will be expanded under Reagan's Star Wars scheme to extend the arms race to outer space, threatening the existence of our planet. by Mr Tickner. 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 Speaker of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Australian Capital Territory respectfully showeth: That the present stallholders of the Belconnen and Fyshwick Retail Markets have made an offer of $2 million to the government for each of the markets, and although this matches the government's estimate of the markets worth, the offer has not been accepted. Failure of the stallholders to retain the markets could result in their sale to other commercial interests with the displacement of the present stallholders and increased costs being passed on to consumers. Your petitioners therefore pray that. The present stallholders of the Belconnen and Fyshwick Markets should be given the first option on the sale of the markets. And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Langmore. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The failure of the Government to revise its fiscal and wages policies in the face of adverse internal and external pressures emanating from the fall of the stock market. 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 PEACOCK(Kooyong)(2.59) —Today at Question Time I tabled a letter dated 26 October 1987-last Monday-written by the President of the Business Council of Australia to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). I want to read to the House the contents of that letter that was written only last Monday. It states: My dear Prime Minister At a Business Council meeting last Wednesday Council members took the opportunity of a meeting with the media to respond in public to events of the last fortnight in a way designed to sustain public confidence. This should not be taken to imply a view that government policies should remain unchanged. The eventual impact of the share market collapse on the world and the Australian economies remains uncertain. The international moves to contain financial problems by providing liquidity have been appropriate as a short-term response. However, whatever happens the government should move now to adjust both fiscal and wages policy. We believe the community as a whole will understand the need for action. Strong leadership in the current circumstances could help stabilise markets and restore confidence. He goes on-I will not quote it all-to indicate that we need a far more rapid stabilisation of our external debt and that if the world economy slows down significantly it is clear that commodity prices will fall again and our adjustment task will be more difficult. He also calls for a mini-Budget and seeks the postponement of the national wage case. The contents of Sir Roderick Carnegie's letter totally support-though it is not written, of course, on that basis-all the arguments that the Opposition has been putting forward week after week after week. And it was putting them forward before the stock market collapse. The focal point of the economic agenda has now altered dramatically. Australians are therefore entitled to know what the Government proposes to do now. As the Government itself only this morning in its submission to the national wage case has said, `There is likely to be some slowing in world economic activity through the impact of lower share prices on private consumption expenditure and through reduced consumer confidence. It may also moderate private investment expenditure'. Yet the Treasurer (Mr Keating) continues to assert that the macro settings of the economy are still appropriate, a far call from what we have said, a far call from what the Business Council of Australia has written privately to the Government. The fact is that the major assumptions upon which the Government's economic strategy was formed have now changed. In any case, as we have argued, the Government's fiscal and wages policies were never adequate. They were formulated on the basis that everything would turn out well. It is now obvious that everything is not turning out well and that Australia is one of the most vulnerable economies in the Western world. It is interesting that I have used that term in this House in these debates a number of times, saying just how vulnerable Australia is. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) only the other day, I think in a discussion of the matter of public importance he brought before the Parliament, used the word `vulnerable'. It is interesting to see that Sir Roderick Carnegie in his letter was talking about the share market collapse indicating the `potential vulnerability of the Australian economy at present to events outside our control'. He went on once again to talk about the demonstration of Australia's vulnerability with the changes that have occurred. These changes appear to be making not one whit of difference to or having any impact on the Government. It prefers not to recognise the vulnerability that our economy now faces. The Government should have taken action to reduce the vulnerability of the economy. I mean by that that the pace of adjustment of fiscal and wages policies should have been speeded up. Now, in the face of the stock market disruptions, the Government really does not have the luxury of any choice at all; it has to act and act fast to minimise the adverse impact of the collapse of foreign and local stock exchanges on the local economy. It is irresponsible, to put it neatly, not to take action. While the Government's complacency, which was the very description we used, at the time of the Budget was irresponsible, it is even more so if the Government delays the necessary policy adjustments. This morning the Government conceded the likelihood of a slowdown in world economic activity which will dampen demand for our exports and hence lower our export income. On the domestic front, the uncertainty flowing from the stock market collapse will adversely affect the outlook for investment. There will be an effect not just on investment-I will touch on some other matters but the collapse will certainly adversely affect the outlook for investment. I remind honourable members that investment in plant and equipment has been stagnant for the last couple of years. Even in the Budget, there was a forecast of only a 3 per cent increase in investment in plant and equipment. Mr Halverson —That certainly won't happen. Mr PEACOCK —It certainly will not. Despite the Treasurer's confidence that investment in plant and equipment will pick up this year, the implications of the stock market slide, to put it mildly cast doubt on his optimism. In addition, personal consumption expenditure may be less buoyant and economic growth may well be slower than projected in the Budget. All in all, it is clear that we are dealing with a different set of circumstances and both fiscal and wages policies need to be adjusted to minimise both the shock to confidence and the uncertainty emanating from the collapse on the stock market. On wages policy, it is simply downright irresponsible to grant a wage increase under the first tier, which is unrelated to productivity, in such an uncertain environment. Wage increases unrelated to productivity raise costs and erode our competitiveness. Anyone can tell one that. Moreover, at a time when economic activity may slow down wage increases would tend to dampen the growth of employment. Of course, the jobs of those with whom the Government is in bed-namely the trade union leaders-are not at stake. Even with a downturn in economic activity, the trade union leaders will keep their jobs, they will maintain their cosy relationship with the Government, but working men and women and their families know from bitter experience that wage rises without an increase in productivity lead only to prices increases. They know that they will not be better off: it is just wages chasing prices like a dog chasing its tail. The Government should have recommended abandoning the current claim for $7 a week or 1.5 per cent under the first tier. It mused, evidently, and thought about a deferment. Do not be fooled by that. Even a deferment is not enough: it just defers the problem. It is the exact opposite of forcing the pace of adjustment on wages policy that we have been calling for week after week. We are now joined by many commentators and additionally, by the letter that was leaked today, by the Business Council. Deferment of the increase is exactly what Australia does not need. Decisions have to be taken now. The Government cannot run away from its responsibility to ensure that wage increases are linked to productivity. Businesses and households make decisions based on current and prospective prices and wages. Obviously, a decision to delay a wage increase for a few months does not change the fundamental problem facing the economy. On fiscal policy, the issue is simple: the Government should get on with the job of cutting expenditure that it failed to deliver on in the last Budget. It could start by simply examining that list in the Department of Finance that Senator Peter Walsh has produced of 200 programs that he alleges could be cut. The Government should get back to work on it. This has always been a matter of urgency; it is now even more urgent because Government revenue will be affected by the fallout of the collapse on the stock market. Revenue will be affected in this financial year and substantially affected in the next financial year. At the time of the Budget we pointed out that the underlying Budget deficit was about $2.5 billion and the importance of this can no longer be understated. The Government's fiscal situation is in fundamental imbalance, not in balance as alleged. In short, we still have a significant fiscal problem. We have a problem of Budget imbalance. We have a problem with Government expenditure-that is, public sector demand absorbing resources of both labour and capital that could be released for use in the tradeable goods sector. It is a matter of urgency that the Government produce a mini-Budget and introduce tax reductions funded by substantial expenditure cuts. It should do that without delay, by the end of 1987, to restore confidence and make it clear to businesses and to households that they can get on with the job of working to get Australia out of this mess without the burden of big government hanging around their necks. That is essentially what we are saying: when times are tough get off people's backs. Also, regarding fiscal matters, the Government should resist pressure to bail out private and public enterprises that may come under pressure following the collapse of the stock market. Clearly, the Reserve Bank has the authority to exercise prudential control in the banking system. This goes without question, but questions can be raised about Government involvement in the bailing out of Rothwells Ltd in Western Australia. Questions could also be asked concerning the precarious nature of some government public financial enterprises that have accumulated substantial net borrowings in recent years. When the economy comes under pressure, State and local government finances will also come under pressure. The weak links in the public finance sector, including State government insurance offices which at present are allegedly selling assets to meet claims made by policy holders, will, in turn, need to be monitored carefully. It is not unreasonable to expect governments at all levels to take necessary corrective measures to avoid the need for costly government bail outs of public financial enterprises. Yet again, these measures should be taken now and not when it is too late. The response of the Government to these economic policy issues clearly affects the confidence of foreign investors in the economy. Recently we have been subjected to an incessant barrage of rhetoric from the Prime Minister and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) about how Australia is showing the way on economic policy. Essentially, that is irrelevant and incorrect. What is relevant is that our economy is very vulnerable. It is now even more vulnerable than it was when the mirage of a balanced Budget was put before the Australian people. We have to adjust our policies; the pace of adjustment has been too slow. The Government has missed several opportunities to force the pace of adjustment on fiscal and wages policies. The Treasurer may well talk about the political problems of adjusting economic policy-and of course political problems are involved, which are there to solve-but he cannot have it both ways. The Treasurer cannot urge other governments to take the necessary policy measures while at the same time argue that Australia cannot force the pace of adjustment because of political problems. He cannot go around saying that the United States must force the pace of adjustment and that that must be done now but that we in Australia will not do it because we would be accused of panic. One must recognise the reality that in percentage terms to the gross domestic product our situation is infinitely worse than the situation in the United States. Mr Howard —And deteriorating. Mr PEACOCK —And it is deteriorating, as the Leader of the Opposition says. As I have said, it is bad enough that the Budget brought down was one of missed opportunities-and the situation is infinitely worse now-but, at root, the Government cannot say, `We are setting the way, we are the guiding light, you, the United States do this, but we cannot do it because we would be accused of panic'. That is a cop-out. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of commentators are coming to recognise what the Opposition has been saying for so long: the Government must move on this pace of adjustment and move rapidly, not for its own survival alone but for the welfare and benefit of Australia. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(3.14) —One of the problems with these motions which have come persistently on a weekly basis from the Opposition is that they tend to repeat the latest thought that has come into the head of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) or the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). Last week the Opposition made a call for a mini-Budget. One of the problems that bedevils both the Opposition and the Government on these issues is that there is plenty of advice around. In this situation, it is interesting that the Australian Financial Review, having considered the plea of the Opposition to the Government to introduce a mini-Budget, has said in its editorial today: The Australian Government should not consider bringing in a hastily conceived mini-Budget before the end of this year. It would be ill-timed, ill-informed and politically ill-considered. Mr Peacock —You think they are better judges than the Business Council, do you? Mr HOLDING —All I can say is that Sir Roderick Carnegie is entitled to push his view, and he has done so-- Mr Peacock —It is the Business Council's view. Mr HOLDING —And the Business Council is entitled to put its view but, in the final analysis, the people of Australia have elected this Government and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to determine the fate of the Australian economy. Mr Peacock —Yes, but you are governing by the Financial Review editorial. Mr HOLDING —No, I am quoting an opinion of the view held by the Opposition last week: it was that we needed to have a mini-Budget. This week, the view is, `Sir Roderick Carnegie has written a letter so let's tap into the view of the Business Council and see what we can get out of this'. What flows from all this is that the motion implies that the Opposition has an alternative economic strategy that would enable the Australian economy to adjust more rapidly to the economic problems facing us. We all know that that is just simply not true. When the Leader of the Opposition raised a similar matter of public importance on Tuesday, the Treasurer gave a considered response, and let me quote his words: The very essence of everything which the Government has been about since 1983 has been to claw back Australia's economic sovereignty and take control of its own events. The number one legacy of the previous Government- the Government of which the honourable gentleman sitting opposite was a part- was our extreme vulnerability to international economic conditions without the capacity to fight back. The very theme of everything which the Government has been about in the past five years has been seeking to restore that competitiveness and diminish that vulnerability. It is absolute nonsense for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to claim that the Government has not ensured that the necessary adjustments to the economy have taken place. Let us contrast the views of the honourable gentleman opposite. When the former Liberal Government went out of office the first Hawke Government found itself faced with terms of trade that were far more advantageous than those that exist today. But despite the advantageous economic conditions under which the former Government operated it left us with negative economic growth, double digit unemployment and double digit inflation. Honourable members should remember that prior to the most recent election the Opposition's economic policy was to try to bribe the Australian taxpayer by offering an unfunded tax cut of $6 billion. At that time, when the rest of the world was paying us less for our exports, they believed that we should pay ourselves more by way of a tax cut. That was less than four months ago. That was the policy of members opposite and that was the view that they put to the Australian people. Yet, they now have the audacity to say that the Government must adjust to the pace of change. There is nothing new in what they say. The fact that honourable members opposite can quote some remarks from the Business Council of Australia does not give their position any more veracity. On the question of the declines in the stock market, does anyone believe that the Treasurer is not monitoring the situation very closely on a daily and, if necessary, hourly basis? As the Commonwealth argued in the national wage case this morning, the stock exchange developments point to a potential downside risk to the world economy. We know that; we do not need the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to tell us that. We also pointed out that the actual outcomes will depend on a range of factors, not the least of which being the response of the United States Government in addressing its Budget and current account deficits. The Government's assessment is that the policy framework within which we are operating our economy remains appropriate, that at this stage there is no requirement for any major adjustment of broad policy settings. That is the position of the Treasurer as of today and as of last week, and all the bleatings of the Opposition about rates of change and pace of change do not alter that situation. I point out that the record falls in share prices must be considered against the background of the five years during which share prices rose substantially. Current prices are at about the level that they were a year ago and they are substantially above the levels of 1982. In that sense it could be said that share prices have moved into line with earnings potential. The Government's assessment is that the outlook for the domestic economy in 1987-88 will not be substantially different from that foreshadowed at Budget time. Further on the external account, the outlook for the balance of payments remains basically unchanged, with any reduced demand for exports likely to be offset by a dampening of domestic demand for imports. The Opposition has always whinged jealously about this Government's income policies. The fact is that the current wage system has delivered an exceptional degree of wage restraint and that has been absolutely central to the major adjustment that has taken place in the Australian economy over recent years. It is quite extraordinary to think that when times were booming and there were record upward movements on the stock exchange, the Australian workers had come to an accord which seriously restricted what they were going to get out of the economy. Mr Ronald Edwards —A responsible accord. Mr HOLDING —A responsible accord, as I am reminded by my colleague. At that stage prices were going up and if one bought the right stock at the right time one could make a real killing. When it was suggested that people in that situation ought to be prepared to pay a capital gains tax, the gentleman opposite said, `Not a bit of it'. But at the very same time that record profits were being made on the stock exchange, the gentlemen opposite were still saying that there had to be wage restraint. They were saying that there could be profits for their mates but the average Australian worker had to be restrained. They have not changed that tune at all. Of course there is concern when prices come down on the stock exchange, but who are the gentlemen opposite saying ought to pay? Of course, we hear it again today that the people who have to pay, the people who have to accept the burden of the economic sacrifice are the wage and salary earners of Australia. Mr Reith —That is Mr Burke's line. Mr HOLDING —I do not want to hear anything from the honourable member because his record in the way he has handled aspects of his own community do not earn him any entitlement to get into this debate and talk about the rights of wage and salary earners. If there was a quick quid to be made anywhere in some kind of land development, the honourable member was up to his eyes in it, and he knows it. It is always gentlemen like the honourable member who talk about wage and salary cuts for other people, the people at the bottom end of the scale. Nobody believes that the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) caused the slump on the stock exchange. The fact is that the leadership of the ACTU, in its willingness to ensure stability in the Australian economy, has made a major contribution to economic development in this country-a far greater contribution than many of the so-called entrepreneurs who now face substantial losses because the stock exchange has gone down. In my view the ACTU, the trade union movement and the ordinary rank and file Australians-and trade unionists are ordinary average Australian family members-having made sacrifices, having made a contract, the principles of which we have adhered to, are still perfectly entitled to receive a measure of wage justice. That is what the argument is all about. When times were good, the honourable gentlemen opposite called for wage cuts. They are still calling for wage cuts now that times are difficult but they are not doing so within the framework of any coherent or consistent economic policy. That is the problem in respect of honourable gentlemen opposite. What have we heard from members of the Opposition in terms of alternative economic statements? As I said, last week the big go was to produce a mini-Budget. This week the Opposition says, `Goodness me, Sir Roderick Carnegie and the Business Council of Australia have produced a letter'. That is where the Opposition's policy is this week. God knows who will write a letter next week when we will get an alternative set of theories. That is the problem with honourable gentlemen opposite. The fact is that they have not at any stage made any kind of responsible contribution to any assessment of the economic basis upon which this Government is operating, the key to which is the 1987-88 Budget which establishes the basis of a long term process of economic reconstruction. That process has been underpinned by progressive fiscal reform. It has been designed to reduce public sector borrowing requirements. It has freed resources for net export sector and productive investment. Mr Peacock —Rubbish! Mr HOLDING —I know that the honourable gentleman does not like being reminded of it, but when this Government came to power we inherited a prospective Budget deficit of $9.6 billion. Mr Peacock —Ha, ha! Mr HOLDING —That is the record. The honourable gentleman can laugh. I can understand that. He laughs to cover his embarrassment. The best that can be said for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is that at least at one stage he did not hold any position in the Cabinet and when he did it was as the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I believe he should have stuck to that position in the shadow Ministry. Over the last five Budgets we have progressively reduced the size of the deficit. The 1986-87 Budget deficit came in at $2.7 billion, nearly $800m less than that which was previously estimated. The 1987-88 Budget will be in balance and these reductions have been brought about by reduced Government expenditure, not increased taxes. The Government's spending as a proportion of gross domestic product (GDP) is down two percentage points compared with the level that confronted us in 1983. In 1987-88, Commonwealth spending will decline by 2.4 per cent in real terms. We have had the biggest cuts in expenditure in more than 35 years. We have provided massive tax relief. Personal income tax cuts worth $4.5 billion were made in December 1986 and July 1987. In 1987-88, taxes will fall to 24.5 per cent of GDP. They are not accidents. They are the result of a long term strategy which has been pursued by the Treasurer and this Government. They are not about to be panicked or hoodwinked by gentlemen who, less than four months ago, were saying to the Australian people, `Trust us and you will have a massive deficit as a result of all the tax cuts that we are going to give you but we are not going to tell you where the money for those cuts is going to come from'. Sections of the Opposition have called for a mini-Budget. As I said, that was last week's policy. Today the Opposition has a new position. Next week, depending upon who may write a letter, there may be another position. This matter of public importance is like all of the matters that have been proposed previously. It lacks any substance. It lacks any kind of coherent strategy, which is what we are looking for, in terms of a real argument from the Opposition on the important economic issues which are facing Australia. We reject the matter of public importance. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(3.28) —The complacency of the Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Holding) astonishes me. One would have expected that the complacency of the Hawke-Keating Government would have been shattered in the last 10 days. We of the Opposition-and I particularly support the efforts of the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock)-have endeavoured to highlight that there was no reason for their complacency. In the various debates that we have participated in, both inside and outside the Parliament, we have consistently supported the view expressed by the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, who said that the Federal Government's policies were going down the Argentinean road. He believed that the Budget had been oversold. There was a glorious opportunity for the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to adjust policies in that Budget which, on quiet reflection, most people agree was nowhere near tight enough. The Treasurer, unlike Senator Walsh, was complacent about the inherent economic risks in the Budget. He does not understand, or refuses to understand, that a commodity producing country with a high debt in a very fragile world economy is always at risk. He seemed to divorce himself from the assessment held by most people that at the time of the Budget there was a high probability of a world slow-down. He seemed to adopt the policy that everything will go fine and everything will be okay. As the shadow Treasurer has pointed out on numerous occasions, there was an underlying Budget deficit of $2.5 billion and the overall Budget strategy did not result in substantial cuts in expenditure and, therefore, did not reduce public sector demand to allow for any growth in domestic demand. Let us look at some of the economic facts. In June 1980, Australia's foreign debt was $13.6 billion. Today, it is $110 billion, consisting of $44 billion in public sector debt and $66 billion in private sector debt. The Minister Assisting the Treasurer was very keen to quote figures so I will quote some back at him. In 1980-81 $2.5 billion was paid in foreign debt interest. Now, it is $8 billion. Interest payments represent over 50 per cent of the current account. The September balance of payments deficit was $1.35 billion, consistent with the bad figure for July of $1.39 billion. Given that the world looks for economic leadership from the United States, it is interesting to note that, according to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development forecasts, the US current account deficit, as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), will be 3.3 per cent, and Australia's will be 4.6 per cent. In 1986, the US growth external debt, as a percentage of GDP, was nearly 13 per cent. In Australia, it is close to 40 per cent, whilst in 1982 Argentina's was 29 per cent. These figures indicate that Australia is in a difficult economic position. The lesson to be learnt from the recent share market collapse surely is that we live in a very fragile world economy in which confidence is lacking and uncertainty is the norm. This uncertainty leads to the highly likely proposition that there will be upward pressure on interest rates, which, as we all know, will have a very savage effect on investment. Australia needs an upgrading and an expansion of our capital stock if we are to be able to compete on a competitive basis in international markets. Any slowing down of capital investment will have serious effects on employment and growth. `Investment', in economic terms, means the creation of new capital equipment and buildings, which, in turn, provide for additional jobs and the capacity to produce things when share prices go up. And so, when share prices rise, we are faced with an economic climate conducive to investment. However, given the present scenario, when share prices come down, lower prices encourage buyers to purchase existing buildings rather than to build. This, in turn, means fewer jobs and no creation of extra-productive capacity. Investment is dictated by three factors: wages, fiscal policy and shares. So, as in this situation, it is the share market which has affected investment. The other two factors need to be adjusted accordingly. Therefore, in this instance, the Government should be obliged to reassess the remaining two factors: wages and fiscal policies. That is why we brought in this matter of public importance. Prior to the stock market crash, the Australian dollar had risen by 9 per cent in recent times, as against the US dollar while short term interest rates had dropped by 4 per cent since the beginning of 1987. Of course, one realises that Australia is a small fish in world economic activities. We cannot control the world economy. We have to live with it and be part of it. What has happened has been a real warning to the Government-shots fired across the bow of the ship of state sailing with far too much sail-and the climate is now one which will be an intelligence test for the Government's economic will and strength, as most commentators believe there will be a second round of world economic instability. Of course, it is not known whether it will be of similar stature to the present one. What the Opposition is seeking to do is to convey to the Government that its policies are not flexible enough, nor finely-tuned enough, to meet challenges from a volatile world economy. There is a need to adjust policies early enough and fast enough to minimise damage to Australia's world economic position. We cannot, and must not, accept statements such as that made by the Treasurer in the House of Representatives on 26 October this year. He said: There will be no mini-Budget during the remainder of calendar year 1987. This view has been publicly supported by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). I said originally that the Government missed an opportunity to set the correct policies in the Budget. There was no need for the Government to increase its revenue from $44.35 billion in 1982-83 to $78.11 billion in the last Budget-a massive increase of 76 per cent, matched by expenditure increases of over 40 per cent since 1983. These policies, as the Committee for Economic Development of Australia said recently, have led to a situation in which Australia has one of the largest debts in the world. Further, if we take the Economic Planning Advisory Council's estimates of Australia's net external debt to GDP ratio, it is clear that Australia is about to join a group of other high-borrowing developing countries or industrial countries with severely strained economies. With respect to the world share market collapse, the Opposition calls on the Government to revise its fiscal and wages policies in the light of the ensuing pressures. As an ordinary Australian, I find it hard to understand how the Australian Press has been so gullible as to accept the high-selling campaign of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) that wage and salary earners should not have to pay for the stock market crash by having their claims for wage increases deferred. `Let us divorce it', the ACTU says, `from economic reality. Let everyone else suffer except the wage earners'. The Press seems to have fallen for that type of propaganda. It appears to me that if there was a case for wage restraint earlier-the Government's argument for postponing the decision for a week suggests that it agrees with me that there was a case for wage restraint-it would seem that there is even more of a case for wage restraint now. Increasing wages merely chips away at our international competitiveness in markets which are very fragile. The Government should be giving leadership rather than running away from its responsibilities. The Confederation of Australian Industry estimates that the ACTU's pay claim amounts to a $2 billion increase in the annual wages bill. In effect, for every week the ACTU's claim can be delayed, employers nationally will save about $38.5m. The Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) indicated on 21 October this year that he is subject to the control of the ACTU-just as the Minister Assisting the Treasurer said in the debate today-and is not aware of his responsibilities overall to the Australian nation. I quote from his statement of that date: Anyone who is suggesting that a workable wages policy should be put in jeopardy based on over-reactions in the stock market, is not properly reading the economic fundamentals of this country. According to a recent edition of The Round-up published by the Treasury, nominal unit labour costs in Australia increased by 7.5 per cent over 1986-87, compared with those of our trading partners, which had an average rise of 3 per cent. Treasury estimates, additionally, that unit labour costs will grow by at least 6 per cent in the coming year. The Government's economic strategy is in question and we look for leadership from the Government. We look for sensible, responsible economic management rather than a government which bows to the pressure of the ACTU. I do not have much confidence in the Government's leadership. I hope that it will be giving us something better. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(3.38) —The Opposition has made much in this debate about having a flexible economic policy. It focused, with the comments of the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh), on wages policy. We need to get one thing clear in this debate: the Opposition, when in government, would not float the Australian dollar. So there was no flexibility in terms of an exchange rate policy. I say this to the honourable member for Groom: It is a pity that the Premier of Queensland, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, did not come to Canberra because we would have had a wonderful time with him in these debates. His economic nonsense would have been just what we on this side of the House need. We have a wonderful time in being able to knock over the nonsense that is presented. If the honourable member is echoing Joh's line, let us have more of it, because we will have a good time with it. The first thing we can say is that the Opposition had no flexible economic policy when it was in government. It would not float the Australian dollar. It is all right for Senator Stone to come to Canberra now and revise his nostrums. The truth is that when he headed the Treasury, under the then Treasurer, the present leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), he would not float the Australian dollar either; and neither would Malcolm Fraser. So we have an extraordinary situation where the Opposition now says, `Let us be flexible', but when it was in government it would not be flexible in terms of an exchange rate policy. When the Opposition talks about flexibility in policy making, we must remember that the only policy making from the Opposition recently was the tax policy which was offered in the election campaign. That policy was discredited because it was based on an unfunded tax cut. The Opposition has no tax policy to offer. We know very clearly that that is so. There is no wages policy and there is no industry policy. I will talk a little more about industry policy in a moment. I said that the Opposition has no exchange rate policy because it has not come clean on its attitude to the floating of the Australian dollar. We have been very clear on this matter. Given the fact that we floated the Australian dollar, the external activities that are occurring on Wall Street and in Tokyo and Hong Kong are more easily accommodated by the Australian economy. But under the previous Howard-Fraser regime, which had a fixed exchange rate, the sorts of things that are occurring on Wall Street would have had traumatic effects on the Australian economy. It would have been a bit like the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong. If one closes something down and does not let the market forces play a part, one gets an enormous shock at some time in the future. That is exactly what has happened in the Hong Kong stock market. It is exactly what would have happened under the Opposition's proposal to have a fixed exchange rate. So there is no historical circumstance in which the Opposition can talk about its flexible approach to economic management, because when it came to it, it was not flexible. There is also no circumstance in which the Opposition can talk about a wages policy because it does not have a wages policy. The interesting thing, as the Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs (Mr Holding) said during this debate, is that the only attitude that the Opposition has had to wages is to hold them down. It is very important in the current situation in the Australian economy, when share prices are declining, that there is continuing consumer confidence. If there are declining share prices, consumer confidence declines and also the ability to pay for those goods and services declines, and one heads into a recession. In fact, it makes it more important to be able to build consumer confidence by keeping up the level of wages. Our submission in the national wage case is quite substantial. It states that we know that there is a need for further wage increases because we have to ensure that there is consumer confidence in the economy. If there has been a blow to confidence at the level of investors-and I listened to what the honourable member for Groom said about investment-one must ensure that there is consumer confidence. That is the only other aspect of the economy which can keep it going. That makes it more important to have a wage arrangement which gives that guarantee of confidence. That is certainly not to say, `Let's now cut wages'. That has been the constant theme of the Opposition since we have been in office. That is saying, `Let's increase wages in terms of the productive capacity of the economy and in terms of the standard of living'. We have pursued that strategy, and it has been successful, because not only have we been able to reduce the level of industrial disputes, but also we have been able to lower real wages, at the same time making Australian industry more competitive. As a contrast, the attitude of the Opposition when it was in government was, `Let's keep the Australian economy like a hothouse. We'll freeze the exchange rate. We'll have a highly protectionist economy. We certainly won't administer a tax system which is equitable. We won't have a capital gains taxes or anything like that. We'll have an out-of-date tax system. At the same time we will ensure that we look after the distribution of income in the economy so that we look after our mates'. When we came to government we opened up the Australian economy. We began to modernise the Australian economy. There is no doubt that if there is a volatile world situation, which is what we have at the moment, one either has a modern economy or one ends up having an economic disaster. The fact is that we have succeeded in terms of our industry policy. Australian industry is on the move. We have import replacement industries which are successful in producing goods and services in Australia that previously were not produced, but were imported. We also have industries which have entered the export market. The honourable member for Groom would know that we have industries that not only are as effective as the wool industry in terms of delivering goods and services, but also are successful in creating jobs. I instance the tourism industry. We have a much more effective industry base than we had previously. That is the result of Government economic policy plus the goodwill and initiative of people in the private sector. We now have a much more modern economy in that respect. The honourable member for Groom emphasised the three angles approach to investment: wages, fiscal policy and investment. He said that they are the things that should change. He should have included in his model of economic analysis that one of the determinants of investment activity is also interest rates. If one has declining interest rates, one will have increased levels of investment activity. That is exactly what we have succeeded in doing in recent times. We have seen a 7 per cent reduction in interest rates for 90-day bank bills in recent times. This has flowed through to a decline in housing interest rates in recent times, until the last 10 days. Clearly, the effect of our economic policy, because we have been able to reduce our demand on the economic system, has been to reduce interest rates. The other issue that the honourable member for Groom did not address in his remarks was that the other important determinant of investment activity is the marginal efficiency of capital. That relates to how effective the investment is. Also, the other thing to observe is what the capital costs is in relation to wages cost. We have succeeded in reducing the wages cost in industry, so capital investment is far more efficient that it was five, six or seven years ago. That is part of modernising the economy. That is one of the other things to which the Opposition has not related. It will have to do so at some stage. Next year is supposed to be the big policy year for the Liberal and National parties. Let us hope it gets down to that level of analysis. After 4 1/2 years it has not yet reached that level. We will wait, but in the meantime we will continue to be successful in government. The other issue that I should talk about is the comment by the honourable member for Groom about the external debt. One thing that was acknowledged by the honourable member as a component of external debt is private sector debt. One of the issues that the economy faced, that was never properly addressed, both during the Howard-Fraser years and during the Whitlam years, was that there was bonus for industry to service its investment needs by borrowing overseas. In particular, if the interest rate was lower there was an extra bonus. We have now tried to ensure by way of dividend imputation that there is also some merit in trying to fund investment activities by selling shares. The dividend imputation legislation that we have successfully introduced in this Parliament was designed to give a bonus to people to buy shares in Australian companies. In the long term-it will not happen overnight-in five or 10 years, more and more Australians will have equity in Australian companies and there will be less incentive to have debt arrangements overseas. That will lead to a reduction in private sector debt overseas. Mr Hunt —You will get more exports. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —Exactly. We must play our part as well, as the honourable member for Gwydir says, in reducing our public sector borrowing requirement. Of course, we have done that. We have reduced our public sector borrowing requirement since we have been in government. It has been a very effective move. Let us begin to assemble a few of these points. We have talked about flexibility. What I said at the outset of my remarks was that the Opposition when it was in government was totally inflexible because it would not float the Australian dollar. Everyone knows that, so it cannot get away from that. We floated the Australian dollar, and that has meant that we are now more responsive to these external activities, and the Australian economy adapts. The other point is that one must have a competitive industry policy. We now have a far more competitive industry policy. One must have a wages policy that works. It must work not only in terms of delivering reasonable levels of wages, but also in terms of reducing the number of industrial disputes. That has been our experience. The number of industrial disputes has reduced markedly since we have been in government. It must also be perceived by the community as being fair. One cannot always, as is the wont of the Opposition, say, `Let's cut wages'. As the Minister correctly observed, when things were a little better, the Opposition was saying, `Let's hold back on wages'. Now, when things are a bit worse, it is saying `Let's hold back on wages'. But when things were better it was against a capital gains tax. If it does not have any equity in its policy making, it cannot expect to get community co-operation. In my view, and as the Minister has said, we have policy settings that are right and the fundamentals of the economy are right. I am pleased to support the Government's position on these matters. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —The debate is concluded. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(3.48) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. On 24 February last I advised the Parliament that where there is evidence of serious war crimes being committed during World War II and there being no punishment of the offenders, the Government has a duty statement to ensure that justice is done, no matter how long since the events in question have passed. Accordingly, the War Crimes Amendment Bill 1987 is designed to ensure that any serious criminal activities committed in the course of World War II, the commission of which is established beyond a reasonable doubt, by persons who are now residents or citizens of Australia, will not go unpunished. The Bill is confined in its operation to the period of hostilities known as World War II and provides that certain criminal acts done during that period, whether in or out of Australia, which were during that period offences under a law in a part of Australia, are serious crimes for the purposes of the Bill. It goes on to provide that where a serious crime was committed in the course of the hostilities, in the course of an occupation of territory or, more generally, for the purposes of the war, then, subject to certain exceptions, it is a war crime punishable under the Bill by prosecution in an Australian court. The scheme, therefore, involves the hypothetical transfer of the act alleged to constitute the offence from outside Australia to some part of Australia. Most of the serious offences described in the Bill are such as are to be found in all Australian jurisdictions, so that it will not be possible for an offence to exist in relation to one jurisdiction but not another. However, deportation and internment in death camps and slave labour camps are serious crimes by virtue of an express provision to that effect. A serious crime will also be a war crime if committed in the course of political, racial or religious persecution or with intent to destroy, wholly or partially, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. The types of crimes which will always be of concern, no matter how long ago they were committed, include participation in police or so-called `security units'-whether or not German controlled-which deported, ill-treated or murdered persons on racial or political grounds; and participation as guards or administrators in German-established death camps or similar places at which large numbers of persons were murdered or ill-treated. The involvement of secondary parties in such activity either by attempting, aiding or abetting, or by being knowingly involved in the activity, is also addressed in the Bill. The exemption provided under sub-section 7 (2) will exclude the operation of the provision with respect to secondary parties whose involvement is incidental or remote. The provisions concerning deportation to and internment in death camps and slave labour camps reflect the Government's concern that the Bill should extend to persons in national or local puppet governments under nazi direction at an executive level who had direct responsibility for the deportation, ill-treatment or murder of persons on racial or political grounds. The intention is to address crimes committed during the war at what is called the `municipal' level, involving nazi-controlled or influenced national or local puppet governments, or persons acting pursuant to, for example, an anti-semitic policy, or on behalf of a puppet regime. A war crime is to be an indictable offence if committed within the relevant period, irrespective of whether it was committed inside or outside Australia or whether it was committed by a person acting as an individual or as a member of an organisation. The words `member of an organisation' are intended to preclude a person distributing blame away from himself or herself by virtue of membership alone. In the interests of justice and impartiality, the Bill makes no special provision in relation to persons who will be liable under it-beyond requiring residency or citizenship-or in relation to the standards and procedures adopted in dealing with alleged offences. No distinction is drawn, for example, between members of the Allied or Axis forces, or between persons of different races or origin. Consistent with the Government's even-handed policy, the Bill applies to any person who commits a war crime as defined. Lest there be any confusion, the Bill specifically provides a defence where the act alleged to constitute the offence was permitted by the laws of war and was not, under international law, a crime against humanity. Although the Bill deals with events occurring over 45 years ago, no special provision has been made with a view to changing the normal rules governing evidence and procedure-including the operation of procedures under the Evidence Act 1905 for the obtaining of evidence overseas in criminal cases. Trials will be conducted in the ordinary courts of the States and internal Territories and, as in all criminal cases, the presumption of innocence will have full force and effect. Any evidence sought to be adduced can be fully tested by defence counsel. The question of weight to be attached to any evidence will be a matter for the trial jury, and the Government has complete confidence in the ability of our courts and the jury system to deal fairly and responsibly with such matters. No person will be deported to any country on the basis of a simple allegation that the person has committed a war crime. Australia must, of course, honour its obligation under extradition treaties, but the intention is that Australian citizens and residents accused of war crimes be dealt with in this country and this course is open under the treaties. Customary international law recognises the acts or omissions addressed in the Bill as war crimes. It has long provided for criminal responsibility to be imposed on persons committing the acts or omissions dealt with by the Bill, and for their punishment. The Bill therefore extends to Australian courts jurisdiction to try to punish crimes recognised at international law as war crimes. The Bill does not create offences retrospectively. The offences described in the Bill have existed for many years and many of them are cognisable by military courts under the War Crimes Act as it presently stands. As I have explained, the basic scheme contained in the Bill for the prosecution of persons alleged to have committed war crimes during World War II involves selecting the most serious criminal acts encompassed within international law relating to war crimes and making them triable in our criminal courts in accordance with the normal rules, procedures and standards applying to our criminal trials. The Government believes that this approach provides the most comprehensive and efficacious answer yet devised anywhere in the world to the difficulties of prosecuting alleged war criminals in a jurisdiction other than that of the place where the alleged crimes were committed. I commend the Bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Reith) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(3.56) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Family Court of Australia (Additional Jurisdiction and Exercise of Powers) Bill 1987 marks a major development in the administration of family law in Australia. The Government recognises that the specialist jurisdiction of the Family Court of Australia has created problems for judges and that the volume of routine and minor contested matters has produced delays. In this Bill the Government addresses these problems by extending the jurisdiction of the Family Court of Australia and by introducing proposals to provide for speedier resolution of proceedings in routine and minor contested matters. The proposals embodied in the Bill have been developed having regard to: the views expressed by the Constitutional Commission Advisory Committee on the Australian judicial system that the jurisdiction of the Family Court be extended so as to broaden the work of the Family Court judges and help enhance the standing of the Court; that the Committee's further view that a large number of applications which, being essentially of a routine kind and uncontested, do not warrant the attention of a superior court; and the need to reduce delays in defended proceedings in the Family Court by devolving some of the less complex contested and other matters now handled by judges to court officers and by providing additional jurisdiction for State courts of summary jurisdiction. For some time now the Government has been concerned about the difficulty of recruiting judges to the Family Court. The narrowness of the jurisdiction exercised by judges of the Family Court has reduced its attractiveness to a wide range of practitioners. By broadening the jurisdiction of Family Court judges, appointments to the Family Court will be more attractive. It will also give existing judges some relief from the burdens of the highly emotive family law jurisdiction. The Bill will extend the Family Court jurisdiction to proceedings in bankruptcy, income tax appeals, consumer protection provisions of the Trade Practices Act and proceedings under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. It does not permit proceedings in these matters to be filed directly in the Family Court. Instead, it provides for proceedings which have been filed in the Federal Court of Australia to be transferred to the Family Court. This may be done at the request of the parties or by the Federal Court on its own initiative. There is to be consultation between the Chief Judges of the two courts in respect of the transfer of proceedings. These consultations will ensure that appropriate Family Court judges are available to deal with transferred matters and that these matters will not be delayed as a consequence of transfer. The transfer of matters will not affect the basis upon which proceedings are conducted. An identical provision in the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, the Bankruptcy Act 1966, the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and the Trade Practices Act 1974 ensures that the practices and procedures applicable in proceedings in the Federal Court will apply in transferred proceedings in the Family Court. Registrars of the Family Court currently exercise jurisdiction under delegation from the judges in respect of many procedural matters and consent orders. They may not be delegated powers to deal with undefended divorces and to approve maintenance agreements under section 87 of the Act. The Bill provides for the creation of offices of judicial registrars to exercise jurisdiction under delegation from the judges. These offices will be similar to the office of master attached to State supreme courts. The Bill also removes the limitations on the powers of the judges to delegate functions to registrars. The office of master is a concept well established in State superior courts. Masters undertake much minor and undefended work, relieving the judges of these more routine matters. The State experience is that the appointment of masters enables the numbers of the judges of such courts to be minimised. It is expected that the appointment of judicial registrars in the Family Court, together with the possibility of more matters being delegated to registrars, will leave the judges free to concentrate on the major matters and to accept additional jurisdiction. State courts of summary jurisdiction at present exercise limited family law jurisdiction. Apart from maintenance and minor property matters, however, that jurisdiction can be exercised only with the consent of the parties. Courts of summary jurisdiction are not presently able to deal with divorce applications. After discussing this matter with State Attorneys-General I propose that the jurisdiction of courts of summary jurisdiction in family law matters be extended. The Bill gives courts of summary jurisdiction, jurisdiction in respect of undefended applications for dissolution where the parties, for their own convenience, request that the application be transferred from the Family Court to a specified court of summary jurisdiction. Further, the monetary limit on the jurisdiction of these courts in property matters-unless the parties consent-has been substantially increased so that it will equal the monetary limit in the jurisdiction of those courts under State law in actions for the recovery of debts. It is expected that in country areas the extended jurisdiction for courts of summary jurisdiction will provide a less expensive and more timely resolution of family proceedings for the parties and their legal representatives. Financial Impact Statement The proposals for the transfer of proceedings from the Federal Court to the Family Court are substantially revenue neutral. Some additional expenditure will be involved in payments to the States in respect of additional jurisdiction conferred on courts of summary jurisdiction, which be partly set off by the reduced work load of the registries of the Family Court. The additional cost will depend upon the number of matters brought in courts of summary jurisdiction and this cannot be predicted. Additional expenditure may be in the order of $250,000 in a full year. I commend the Bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Reith) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.03) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill consolidates and, where necessary, amends Australia's extradition laws. In November 1985 I gave to the Parliament an undertaking that an exhaustive review of the extradition laws would be undertaken to ensure that there were no inconsistencies or problems of implementation. That review has resulted in the preparation of this Bill. As the Bill is substantially a consolidation of existing laws I propose, in this introduction, to concentrate upon changes to the current laws. The Bill also introduces important new principles most of which add to the safeguards afforded to people whose extradition from Australia is sought. It is these new safeguards which I regard as the most important elements of the Bill. The first is a statutory prohibition providing that no person will be extradited from Australia to face charges or to serve a sentence in respect of a purely military offence. By a purely military offence I mean an offence not known to the ordinary criminal law. I do not include in this category offences such as drug trafficking by members of defence forces which can be dealt with either by civilian or military courts. Military offences are offences like insubordination or desertion. Australia will not extradite, nor seek extradition, for such offences. The second new safeguard is to preclude extradition where the death penalty can be imposed for any offence for which extradition is granted. Unless Australia receives an undertaking from the requesting country that either such penalty will not be imposed or if imposed will not be carried out extradition will be refused. A third new safeguard gives effect to the obligation Australia will assume when it accedes to the Convention against Torture or other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Bill requires refusal of extradition unless the Attorney-General is satisfied that the person will not be subjected to torture. Clause 45 is innovative. It will allow, in certain circumstances, Australia to reap the benefits of the provision contained in most of our extradition treaties which permits the requested state to refuse to extradite its nationals. Many civil law countries are precluded by law from extraditing their nationals. Common law countries, on the other hand, usually extradite because their laws do not generally give extraterritorial jurisdiction over nationals to the courts. The effect has therefore been an unequal application of the treaty obligation in relation to extraditing nationals where the parties to the treaty are a civil law and a common law country. Clause 45 seeks to redress the balance by allowing Australia to prosecute Australian citizens for offences committed overseas in cases where extradition is refused solely on the basis of citizenship and where the requesting country will not extradite its nationals. The courts of the States and Territories are vested with jurisdiction-via the operation of the Judiciary Act-to hear and determine cases where the Attorney-General consents to prosecution. The offence with which the person may be charged in Australia is the offence under the relevant State or Territory law with which he or she could have been charged had the conduct which gave rise to the extradition request occurred in that State or Territory. Australia will thus have the facility, in appropriate cases, to try its own citizens for criminal conduct engaged in overseas and any sentence imposed would be served in Australia. Since the second half of the nineteenth century almost every extradition treaty negotiated has contained a provision which stated that extradition would not be granted for political offences. Originally, political offences were offences against the state and those who committed them were often seeking asylum in the country of refuge. Wishing to be able to grant such asylum, countries overwhelmingly recognised the concept of asylum by refusing to extradite those who had been referred to as ideologically motivated offenders. A problem then arose as to how to distinguish between types of offences and the motivation of offenders. That problem manifested itself in the decisions of courts determining extradition cases and has led to confusion as to the real meaning of the phrase `political offence'. The civilised world is now faced with the grave problem of politically-motivated terrorists whose crimes are such that they should not find a haven behind the doors of the political offence exception to extradition. The Bill seeks to clarify this difficult area of law by imposing limits on the political offence exception. It does so by excluding from that exception crimes recognised by the international community in multilateral treaties as being extremely serious. The crimes statutorily excluded from the exception are set out in the definition of `political offence' in clause 5 of the Bill. They relate to hijacking, safety of aircraft, genocide, torture, the taking of hostages and the protection of internationally protected persons. The Bill also has the effect of allowing treaties to be negotiated which add to the list of exceptions to the political offence exception. Crimes which may be added by way of regulation include crimes recognised in future multilateral conventions to which Australia becomes a party, other crimes against heads of state or heads of government and crimes of violence committed in circumstances which create a collective danger to innocent life. This limitation of the political offence exception represents Australia's clear abhorrence of terrorist conduct and our unwillingness to provide any sort of haven for criminals whose serious or violent crimes are allegedly perpetrated for ideological reasons. The Bill simplifies certain matters which have led the courts into difficulty under the current laws. It does not change the law; it merely expresses in clearer language the concepts contained in the current Acts. The major of these changes relate to the determination of dual criminality and the satisfaction of the prima facie evidence or committal for trial tests. Sub-clause 10 (3) makes it clear that the court is to look at all the acts or omissions alleged against the person sought and if any or all of those acts or omissions would have constituted an offence against the relevant law in force in Australia had the conduct occurred in Australia and the minimum penalty test is satisfied in respect of them, the dual criminality test is satisfied. Sub-clauses 11 (4) and 11 (5) operate to unify throughout Australia the test to be applied by courts in determining whether evidence supplied by the requesting country is sufficient to justify the trial of the person sought. These sub-clauses will apply where a request is received from a country with which Australia has an extradition relationship requiring the production of prima facie evidence that the offence was committed. Since arrangements of this sort were entered into there have been amendments to the laws of some Australian States which have had the effect of changing the test of whether a person should be committed for trial. At least one of these changes requires the magistrate to assess what a hypothetical jury might decide at trial. The effect of the application of this test to an extradition case is to permit the magistrate to postulate as to the potential outcome of a foreign trial and clearly has the effect of abrogating the rule that extradition proceedings should not be determinative of the guilt or innocence of the person sought. The test set out in the Bill requires the magistrate to form the view that the evidence provided would, if uncontroverted, provide sufficient grounds to put the person on trial. In other words, the magistrate must determine that the evidence provided is sufficient to warrant a court inquiry in relation to the offence or alleged offence. This test will be applied throughout Australia and will therefore overcome the problem, for example, of two or more co-conspirators being arrested in different States and having the magistrates coming to different conclusions on the basis of the same evidence. Clause 18 of the Bill recognises that certain people are willing to return to the country seeking their extradition and there to face the processes of the law. This clause therefore re-enacts the provisions relating to consent to surrender which were introduced into Australian law in 1985. Experience over the last two years has shown that a reasonable percentage of extradition requests have come to speedy and satisfactory conclusions by the person sought consenting to his or her surrender. Clause 20 takes the consent concept further by allowing a person sought to consent to being tried on return for offences for which extradition cannot be granted, normally because the sentence which can be imposed falls below the minimum required to make the offence extraditable. The benefit of the accessory extradition process is that it enables a person to return and stand trial for all outstanding offences for which he has been surrendered. The result may well be concurrent sentences and at the end of the sentence the person will have wiped the slate clean. He will not be faced with the unenviable choice of having either to face new proceedings or to leave permanently the country to which he was extradited. I expect that the provision will be most availed of by people whose extradition is sought by their own country. Clause 20 requires that the requesting country lists all extraditable and non-extraditable offences so as to give the person sought a clear understanding of the charges he can be required to face on return. The operation of the rule of speciality still protects him in respect of any offence not specified in the request for extradition and any offence for which extradition is not granted or not consented to as the case may be. The Bill contains an enhanced system of review and appeal procedures designed to ensure that the removal of decisions under the Bill from administrative review pursuant to the Administrative Review (Judicial Decisions) Act 1977 does not leave a person without recourse to proper review procedures. Although the system of review and appeal in this Bill is similar to that contained in the current Acts it imposes upon requesting countries seeking review new time limits within which applications or appeals must be made. It was only after lengthy deliberation that decisions taken under extradition laws were determined to be decisions which should be removed from the scope of the Judicial Review Act. Fundamentally the decision was forced upon us because fugitives were pursuing both their statutory rights to review under the extradition Acts and, often concurrently, their rights under the Judicial Review Act. One case was taken to the Supreme Court of New South Wales on an application for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus at the same time as the Full High Court was determining an application under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. Had either application succeeded the result to the fugitive would have been exactly the same. Another case shows that fugitives can, and have, made a habeas corpus application to the Supreme Court of a State, sought removal of those proceedings to the High Court, made application to the Federal Court pursuant to the Extradition Act and following determination by the Full Federal Court taken the matter back to a single judge of the Federal Court of Australia pursuant to the Judicial Review Act. The enormous cost to the Australian community of a review system which permits unnecessary duplication cannot be justified. Additionally, the lengthy delays caused by duplex review procedures have caused some consternation with Australia's treaty partners. In one case, the proceedings took in excess of two years. The Bill therefore establishes rights to review and appeal, all the way to the High Court of Australia, and at the same time leaves in place the High Court's original jurisdiction-also exercisable by the Federal Court-to grant relief. Another innovation is to be found in the provisions relating to temporary surrender. I do not anticipate that these provisions will often be used but I can see their great utility where the interests of justice require that a trial be conducted but the operation of extradition laws which bar the surrender of a person serving a prison sentence in the requested country has the effect of postponing that trial for years. Temporary surrender allows a person otherwise unavailable for surrender to be sent to, or received from, another country for trial and then to be returned to finish the first sentence. After that time he or she can be permanently surrendered to serve any sentence imposed at the time of temporary surrender. The provision will be useful in cases involving more than one accused where trials are better conducted concurrently. In this regard I see major drug rings being able to be dealt with effectively. An example of a case where temporary surrender to Australia may have been most useful was the Mr Asia case. I now turn back to the safeguards for a person whose extradition is sought. The Bill requires extradition to be refused in any case where the surrender is sought for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing the person on account of race, religion, nationality or political opinion. It also requires refusal of extradition where any prejudice on any of those grounds may result. Extradition must also be refused if the person has been acquitted, pardoned or has served the sentence imposed in respect of the same conduct where that acquittal, pardon or service was in either Australia or in the requesting country. Where a third country has granted the pardon or has acquitted the person the Attorney-General may refuse to extradite. This reservation to the Attorney-General of the power to consider third country pardons and acquittals has been proved in the international arena to be desirable. I concede that it would, in normal circumstances, be unheard of to surrender a person who had been pardoned. Recent experience suggests, however, that some drug offenders have the means and have sufficient influence to purchase pardons with the very intention of using such a pardon or acquittal to defeat extradition. I would require from the requesting country substantial evidence that I should go behind a pardon or acquittal and question its bona fides and can only foresee so doing in extreme circumstances such as cases where the country purporting to acquit or pardon had no connection with the alleged offence. Australia's model extradition treaty which has formed the basis of all treaties and arrangements negotiated since May 1985 contains other mandatory and discretionary bars to extradition which operate either directly to protect the person sought or to protect Australia's sovereignty. Pursuant to these treaty provisions extradition can be refused if the Attorney-General, acting under clause 22, considers that a treaty prohibition exists or treaty discretion should be exercised. For example no persons may be extradited if they either have been or are likely to be dealt with by an extraordinary or ad hoc tribunal or court. Australia will extradite only where the normal courts of the requesting State are to deal with the offender. Nor may extradition be granted for a statute barred offence. The treaty provisions permitting discretionary refusal operate in any case where Australia would have concurrent jurisdiction and either decides to exercise that jurisdiction or, alternatively, makes a deliberate decision in the exercise of that jurisdiction not to prosecute. Where the age or health of a person is such as would make surrender totally incompatible with humanitarian considerations most, if not all, modern treaties give a discretion to refuse to surrender and/or to delay surrender. All of these treaty matters are matters which must be considered by the Attorney-General before he issues a warrant for surrender. The Bill recognises that there may be other circumstances where the Attorney-General exercises a discretion not to order surrender. For example, the Attorney-General may refuse surrender when it would be unjust, oppressive or too severe a punishment to extradite. The Bill contains a special part which governs extradition relations with New Zealand. Our close ties with that country have made appropriate a reciprocal regime which bears a very close similarity to the extradition relations between the various Australian States and Territories contained in the Service and Execution of Process Act 1901. Fugitives are moved between Australia and New Zealand by a process based on the backing of warrants by magistrates. The whole process is normally handled by the police in exactly the same way as an interstate extradition would be handled. The Bill's only innovation in this area is to permit temporary surrender to New Zealand. As I stated at the beginning of this speech, this legislation is the result of a comprehensive review of the efficacy of the current extradition laws. It embodies much of the wisdom of our courts which has been gleaned from judgments. The law has been rewritten to make it more readable and accessible for courts, foreign countries, practitioners and fugitives. It seeks to recognise modern problems and to resolve them and in so doing adopts an approach which ensures that a proper balance is struck between the aspirations of the international community in wanting to limit havens for law breakers and the legitimate expectations of persons accused or convicted of crimes that they will be dealt with humanely and in accordance with law. I present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Reith) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.20) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is introduced as a consequence of the introduction of the Extradition Bill 1987. The most significant provisions of this Bill deal with the period of transition which necessarily occurs when one set of laws is replaced by another. Additionally, the Bill repeals the Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966 and the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act 1966 and amends certain Acts as a consequence of the introduction of the Extradition Bill 1987. The extradition process has various distinct phases. Three are of particular importance. The first is the arrest and remand of the person sought. The second is the determination by the magistrate of the question whether the person is eligible to be extradited and the third is the determination by the Attorney-General of the question whether the person is actually to be surrendered. This Bill makes the necessary transitional provisions by allowing the repealed Acts to continue to operate in any case which has reached the second state. That is, where the magistrate has already commenced the determination of the issue of what was called `liability to surrender', all proceedings for surrender are governed by the repealed Acts, which are given an extended operation to cater for such cases. In a case where the person sought has been arrested and remanded to await the magistrate's hearing, all proceedings and subsequent actions are to be taken under the new legislation. Warrants, notices and other instruments and documents made for the purposes of the former Acts are continued in force for the purpose of the new legislation. Arrest warrants issued under the old Acts but not yet executed are deemed to have been issued under the new Act. The former extradition Acts are also given extended operation in respect of persons transiting Australia-having been surrendered by another country to a third country-pursuant to the authority of one of those Acts. Those Acts also continue to authorise the entry into Australia of persons surrendered to Australia at a time prior to the commencement of the new law and to ensure the continued operation of speciality undertakings given or deemed to have been given by Australia under the 1966 laws. Other operations or effects of the former Acts which are preserved relate to the taking of evidence for the purposes of an extradition request by Australia and the disposal of property seized under those Acts. In my second reading speech on the Extradition Bill 1987, I explained that a new review and appeal procedure has been put into place and that decisions under the extradition laws were no longer to be reviewable under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. This Bill implements that change and provides for the transition from the old rules to the new. It does so by providing that decisions under the new Act are decisions included in schedule 1 to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act and by maintaining judicial review rights in respect of any decision made prior to the enactment of this Bill and by making decisions made after the enactment of this Bill reviewable only under the review provisions provided in the relevant extradition Act. Other than the amendments made to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act and the Migration Act, all amendments made to other legislation are consequential upon the change of name of the legislation. The amendment to the Migration Act has the effect of applying to persons extradited to Australia the provisions of that Act which were put in place by the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Consequential Amendments) Act 1987. Those provisions ensure that persons brought into Australia become subject to the normal migration procedures once they have been dealt with by the courts for the offence for which extradition was granted. I present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill and commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Reith) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Resources)(4.24) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill implements in Australian law the Treaty on Fisheries between the governments of certain Pacific island states and the Government of the United States of America. The Treaty will enter into force when it has been ratified by the United States (US) and by 10 member states of the South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency. To date, six nations have ratified the Treaty, including Australia on 18 May 1987. The Treaty allows US purse seine fishing boats to fish for tuna in the fishing zones of all of the Pacific island parties to the Treaty under a single licence to be issued by an Administrator who acts on behalf of the Pacific island parties. Access by US fishing boats to the Australian fishing zone will be limited at the outset to the area of the Coral Sea shown on the indicative map attached to the explanatory memorandum. The Treaty imposes rigorous enforcement responsibilities on the Government of the United States and has the effect of disapplying provisions in US law which have afforded US tuna fishermen substantial protections from the enforcement efforts of South Pacific countries in the past. Under the Treaty, the US Government is required to pay $US60m in licence fees for fishing rights for the first five years, and Australia will share in a distribution of those fees between the Pacific island parties. The overall approach the Bill takes to implementing the Treaty in the Australian fishing zone is to validate a Treaty licence as if it were an Australian licence under the Fisheries Act 1952. The Bill provides in clause 4 the circumstances in which a Treaty licence shall be taken to be in force. Clause 5 extends the powers of officers to matters in relation to Treaty licences. While a boat licensed under the Treaty is in the Australian fishing zone, this clause also validates the exercise of those powers by an officer appointed by another Pacific island party as an observer on board the boat. Clauses 6, 7 and 8 exempt boats licensed under the Treaty from the range of offences relating to fishing activities which are generally applicable to foreign boats. Clause 9 creates the offence for boats licensed under the Treaty of contravening the Treaty licence conditions. These conditions are set out in annex I to the Treaty. Other provisions in the Bill deal with matters which are not directly related to the Treaty. Clause 15 creates a regulation-making power with respect to returning cancelled instruments issued under the Act, the regulations or a management plan. Management plans routinely require that the holder of a certificate of registration of units return the certificate promptly to the Department following cancellation of the registration in accordance with the plan. The new power will allow the making of regulations making it an offence to fail to return certificates in such circumstances. Clause 16 empowers the making of orders by the Minister about any matter about which regulations may be made, except that orders may not impose penalties. Orders are required to be tabled in the Parliament and are subject to disallowance in the same manner as are regulations. The Bill is essentially of a machinery nature, for the principal purpose of giving effect to Australia's rights and obligations under an agreement of great significance in the Pacific islands region. The Bill itself will not affect Government expenditure and will have no staffing implications in the Department of Primary Industries and Energy. Australia will share in the distribution of $US60m in licence fees, to be paid by the United States for fishing under the Treaty for the first five years of its operation. After that, fee levels will be renegotiated. I present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill and commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Braithwaite) adjourned. Debate resumed. Mr SCIACCA(Bowman)(4.28) —Just before the luncheon recess I was talking about certain attacks that had been made on the membership of the Immigration Review Panel in Brisbane by certain elements in an organisation called the Immigration Reform Council. Before I continue with that, I wish to say something about some of the comments made by the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) during his dissertation this morning. I do not know what relevance this had to the debate, but he said that he was concerned about Japanese investment, particularly on the Gold Coast in Queensland, and about the fact that they are buying large tracts of land, which could affect Australia's sovereignty, and so on. I remind the honourable member for Gippsland, who is not here-I am sure he will find out about it-that a leader in the field of people trying to sell off Australia to the Japanese is the Leader of his own National Party in Queensland. Joh Bjelke-Petersen and little Johnnie, his son, who I understand evidently is involved in a company concerned with one of the Japanese conglomerates, are involved in the purchase of land in Queensland by the Japanese. Mr Braithwaite —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am speaking in terms of relevance to the Bill. What the honourable member is speaking about now is land ownership by foreigners. I do not think it has anything to do with the Migration Amendment Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —There is no point of order at this stage but I am sure the honourable member for Bowman will very shortly come back to the contents of the Bill. I call the honourable member for Bowman. Mr SCIACCA —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The only reason I raise this matter is that it was also brought up as a matter of relevance by the honourable member for Gippsland. However, as the honourable member raised this matter in the debate I think that it has to be made fairly clear that if anyone is responsible for selling off this country to the Japanese it is Joh Bjelke-Petersen. In fact, he still wants to do that in Queensland. He wants to give another 8,000 hectares of land next to the Iwasaki resort to Iwasaki. I would not expect that in a debate of this nature the honourable member for Gippsland would mention such rubbish. I come back to the Migration Amendment Bill. I spent less time on the matter of foreign investment, Mr Deputy Speaker, than did the honourable member for Gippsland. As I understand it, the criteria for the appointment of Chairman of the Immigration Review Panel are a knowledge of and experience in the administration of legislation; an understanding of the interface between powers provided in legislation and the policy setting out guidelines for the exercise of these powers; an understanding of and some experience in decision-making in the context of the requirements of administrative law and some experience in the administration of the Migration Act, consistent with the above criteria; and a capacity to operate effectively as a chairman of the Immigration Review Panel, whose other members offer a range of qualifications, skills, experience and background. The biographical details that I will give indicate the people in Brisbane appointed to the Immigration Review Panel meet those criteria. I want to mention some of those Brisbane appointees because I think it is important, as I said prior to the luncheon recess, that these people, who do not have the capacity to defend themselves, should be defended in this House. The Chairman is a gentleman by the name of Jim Fouras. He is a former State member of parliament. Mrs Sullivan —He is an ethnic, isn't he? Mr SCIACCA —I was about to say that. He has a bachelor of science degree and arrived in Australia in 1949 from Greece. Currently he is senior consultant to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, a member of the board of the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Queensland, chairman of the Woolloongabba community youth support scheme and the Ethnic Broadcasting Association of Queensland. I know from personal knowledge that Mr Fouras, while he was a State member of parliament, handled a myriad of immigration cases and rather than send them to Federal members of parliament he used to make representation himself. Again, as I said, prior to the luncheon recess, Jim Fouras has an excellent reputation as a worker for the community, a person who understands the community and a person who can be objective-- Mrs Sullivan —He is an ethnic? Mr SCIACCA —Irrespective of the fact that he is an ethnic. The honourable member for Moncrieff keeps taking about the fact that he is an ethnic. I have acknowledged it five times. How many times does she want me to acknowledge that? The point is that he is a very good Chairman. He is an excellent Chairman. Also on the Panel is a gentleman by the name of Greg Marsh, who is ethnic radio station manager and journalist with the Special Broadcasting Service television. Currently he is the media chairman of the Ethnic Communities Council of Queensland and a part time lecturer in current affairs journalism at the Queensland Institute of Technology. William Morrison, also a member of the Panel, is a bachelor of commerce and has a number of other qualifications. Susan Hocking, who is a chairperson of the Panel, is a columnist with the Brisbane Sunday Mail newspaper, Queensland bureau chief of the Australian Women's Weekly, tutor in journalism and winner of the Porcia Award for excellence in communication in 1986. Dr Janet Irwin, also a chairperson of the Panel, is a Director of the Health Service at the University of Queensland, a member of the Better Health Commission and a member of the Australian Association for Adolescent Health. Indeed, there is my predecessor, Mr Keogh, who was a secretary of the Government Caucus committee on immigration and ethnic affairs-a position to which he was well suited. There is also Mr Charles Venning, a former officer of the Australian Taxation Office, who is involved in a number of community activities. I mention also Ray Barrett, who is, I know, fairly well renowned throughout Australia as an actor. There is Mr Robert Boughen, an organist and Master of Choir at St John's Cathedral Brisbane, Senior Lecturer in Organ and Academic Studies at the University of Queensland and a member of the Performing Arts Trust. There is Enid June Collins, who is a company secretary and accountant and also has appropriate qualifications. I refer also to Keri Craig; Alan Edwards, who is also an actor, producer and director for radio and television; Mr Bob Gleeson, who is very heavily involved in community affairs; Rodney Henshaw, a radio broadcaster in Queensland for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and who runs an excellent talk-back program-in fact, a person who is very well known throughout the community as a community worker and as a person with a top rating current affairs program; Diane Jameson; Bruce Paige, who is well known in Queensland as a radio personality; and Wayne Swan, who is a lecturer in public administration, Faculty of Business Studies, Queensland Institute of Technology, chairman of the Brisbane inner city CYSS and a well known public figure in Queensland in many areas, including politics. The fact is that there is already an input by ethnics into the policy formulation of the Government. In fact, there will be an input from the ethnic communities into the Immigration Review Committee consultations which will take place over the next seven weeks. The policy that will be formulated as a result of those consultations and the advice that the Committee will give to the Government will have that ethnic input. For members of the Immigration Reform Council, as they want to call themselves, to go out in such a despicable way and say through Press articles that all the Immigration Review Panel members should be sacked is disgusting. Frankly, I am sure that no one takes any notice of them. I know that the Immigration Review Panel is not a toothless tiger. There are many instances of its overturning a decision of the appropriate authority. Frankly, I think the decision to expand the Immigration Review Panel is probably the best initiative of the Government in respect of the Migration Bill. I conclude by saying that the Government needs to be commended for what it has done. The bleatings from the Opposition relating to the question of extra cost really are of no value. As I said, it is a fact that the cost is not something that will deter serious applicants from making application for review. If anything, the fee will cut down on a number of completely hopeless applications that come before the Immigration Review Panel. I can only speak of the people I know in Brisbane who have been appointed to the Panel. I am sure that the members of the immigration review panels throughout Australia, whom the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young) and his advisers have appointed, are excellent in their fields and will give that degree of objectivity which is required to make such decisions. It is only an advisory body. As I said previously, if we were to put just ethnics on the immigration review panels we would have a situation where at least the public perception would be that certain members of the panels were looking after their own people. As much as I would like to see more ethnics involved in all areas of immigration and ethnic affairs, I really think that the Immigration Review Panel is not an area in which we could do that. I may be criticised by the ethnic communities when I go back to Brisbane for what I have just said. But I do not care because I think that if they look at the matter seriously and objectively they will see that the only people who can make these types of objective analyses are people who have no direct involvement with the issue. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(4.39) —I do not want the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Sciacca) to misunderstand my interjections of this morning and this afternoon. I was trying to clarify that objectivity to which he was making such great claim. What I understood him to say this morning and repeat in this afternoon's debate was that he did not believe that ethnics should be on the immigration review panels. Mr Braithwaite —He said that. Mrs SULLIVAN —Yes, indeed; he said that several times this morning too. However, he thought it was a very good idea that Mr Jim Fouras was on the Immigration Review Panel. This morning I invited the honourable member to identify whether he would describe Mr Fouras as an ethnic in the same way as the honourable member had called himself an ethnic this morning. Mr Sciacca —He is. Mrs SULLIVAN —That is right. So it is all right if it is Mr Fouras but it is not all right if it is other groups. One could speculate a little unkindly about why it is all right for Mr Fouras and not for people who come from other ethnic groups. Mr Fouras, I hasten to say, is someone I had quite a bit to do with when he was a State member of parliament, albeit an Australian Labor Party member, because I have had a long-standing involvement with immigration and ethnic affairs. It was certainly my experience, in matters particularly in relation to the Greek community in Brisbane, that Mr Fouras was very much to the fore and was a very useful and helpful member of parliament. However, he is very much identified with the Greek community. There is nothing wrong with that because he can play a very useful role, but the honourable member for Bowman cannot have it both ways. If he is going to say to other ethnic groups that they should not be represented on these immigration review panels but that it is okay for Mr Fouras, then he has to find a different rationale for Mr Fouras. On a previous occasion the honourable member for Bowman raised this subject. I refer to his speech on the Appropriation Bills on 7 October 1987 when he had this to say when he was defending certain appointments to immigration review panels: I want to say that I know three or four of those fellows personally. I can say that they have the highest qualifications and I am sure that they will prove excellent people for that immigration review panel. I refer actually to the previous member for my seat, Mr Keogh, and also a gentleman by the name of Jim Fouras. At which point the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) interjected mistakenly: Jim is a good member, a good bloke. In fact, as members of parliament go, Mr Fouras is past tense. The honourable member for Bowman continued: He certainly is a good member and a good fellow. He is the sort of person who has the qualifications to do that job. That is fine. Again today the honourable member for Bowman referred to Mr Keogh and Mr Fouras. I would not take away from their qualifications to serve on immigration review panels but one thing that they do have in common is that they are former Australian Labor Party (ALP) members of parliament. So apparently it does not matter whether one is an ethnic if one is an ex-ALP member of parliament, Mr Fouras of course having lost his endorsement in one of those unholy faction deals for which the Queensland division of the Labor Party is infamous. The honourable member really cannot have it both ways. I am not suggesting that that is the only reason they are on the immigration review panels, but it is something that they have in common. I also would like to give a little advice to the honourable member for Bowman on his troubles with the Immigration Reform Council. I have never heard of this group. I checked with the shadow Minister for immigration and ethnic affairs and he told me that it disseminates information. I had thought that when the honourable member for Bowman was speaking this morning he might have been referring to the Immigration Control Association. It is an organisation that, so far as I know, still exists. Maybe it is the same organisation. I will give the honourable member for Bowman some advice on how to avoid this noxious, racist garbage landing on his desk. Do what I did; write the Association a letter saying, `Please do not send me any more of this noxious, racist garbage'. It takes two letters but it works. That might be why I am not on the mailing list of the Immigration Reform Council, of which I had not heard until today. The honourable member for Bowman might like to pursue that course. I have an interest in the immigration aspects of the Migration Amendment Bill but an amendment will be moved in committee by the Opposition on which I will make some more comment. Because of the time available I want to concentrate instead in my speech this afternoon on the fee that is being introduced in this Bill. I must admit again to some little confusion because of the words that have issued out of the mouths of Government speakers. I would like some clarification. Perhaps the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young), who is at the table, when he responds could clarify this. When is a tax a fee and not a tax? Likewise, when is a fee a charge and not a fee? I will elaborate: the answer is of course when they are introduced by the Hawke Government. If they are introduced by coalition governments or proposed by coalition oppositions they are called by their proper names. There is a little crisis of rhetoric here, I think. I would like to quote from some statements by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) that are relevant to this subject, to this payment of an amount of money, let us call it, that the Bill introduces by people who are travelling to Australia and what the Treasurer and the Prime Minister have had to say this year on the subject of introduction of taxes and increasing taxes. The Treasurer, on 28 May, said: On the receipts side let me confirm that there will be no tax increases in the 1987-88 Budget. On 29 May the Treasurer said: The Government has made it quite plain that it does not intend to introduce new taxes or increase new taxes in the Budget. On 23 June, when launching the ALP campaign policy, the Prime Minister said: In the completed Budget in September there will be no new taxes and no tax increases. The Treasurer, in his Budget Speech on 15 September, said: Turning to the revenue side, I repeat that we have adhered to our election commitment not to increase taxes or introduce new taxes. The way the Hawke Government increases a tax or introduces a new tax is to call it an immigration clearance fee. On 6 October, the shadow Minister for tourism, the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp), asked a question of the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown) relating to budgetary matters and tourism. The Minister, in his response, made reference to the fact that the Fraser Government has introduced `a $20 departure tax which this Government has not seen fit to increase'. On several occasions this session that Minister has used that form of words. He has referred to the Fraser Government's $20 departure tax which the Hawke Government has seen fit not to increase. This week I asked the Minister: Is it not a fact that international travellers will now pay a total of $25 into Federal Government coffers, thanks to the introduction of a $5 entry tax in this year's Budget? Does the new $5 tax therefore amount in practice to little more than a 25 per cent increase in the departure tax? The Minister said in response: With some justification, I think, I have said quite often that the Government has not increased the $20 departure tax . . . This Government made a very firm decision when we first came to office that we were not about to increase that figure . . . The extra $5 for the visa is in the nature of cost recovery. I can only conclude that at that instant the Minister was a little ashamed of what he had been saying previously about the departure tax and this new entry tax, as I had referred to it, not having checked the nomenclature in this Bill that we are debating. It is either a $5 increase in a travellers' tax or it is a new tax. If paying $20 to leave this country to defray costs because one is an international traveller can be called a tax, then $5 to enter the country can also be called a tax. It is, of course, not a visa fee. The Minister, in his answer, was attempting to downplay the fact that this is a tourist-and a returning tourist-tax. It is payable by people travelling to this country. The Bill describes it thus under the heading `Immigration clearance fee'. It is now called a fee-a tax when one leaves and a fee when one comes back in. The distinction escapes me, but the Bill states: Where a passenger, other than a prescribed passenger, travels to Australia on an overseas flight, the passenger shall pay the prescribed fee for immigration clearance of that passenger by an officer at the airport at which the passenger intends to enter Australia. In kind it is no different from the departure tax. The statements and promises that there would be no new taxes fall down, or alternatively, the statements that there would be no increase in tax fall down if we call the departure fee a tax. I hope the Minister will at least have the shame to desist from drawing that distinction and claiming that he has had a victory. In fact, of course, the Minister had a few defeats in the Budget deliberations and that fee is but one of them. The matter of the collection of this fee and its effect on tourism is, of course, one that has excited the tourist industry and the international airlines in particular. In introducing the Bill, the Minister said: The fee is to be collected by international airline operators who bring the passengers to Australia. In turn, the operators will pay the fees collectable by them to the Commonwealth. The amount of the fee payable by the airlines will be a debt due to the Commonwealth. Consultation with the airline operators is taking place to ensure that the legislation and mechanisms to impose the charge will impose as small an administrative burden as necessary on the airlines. I hope that the Minister responsible for tourism has brought to the attention of the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs a front page article published in a tourism journal called Inside Tourism, dated 21 September 1987. The article to which I refer is headed `Industry angry at Budget measures', and states, in part: International airlines slammed the decision to charge them $5 for every passenger over the age of 12 they bring into the country. The fee will be charged on incoming visitors and returning holidaymakers alike. It will cost Qantas about $7m. Continental Airlines estimates it will pay $2m. Air New Zealand, Singapore Airlines and British Airways will pay more that $1m each. In his second reading speech the Minister indicated that it was estimated that revenue would be $17m in a full year. Airlines, of course, do not like being tax collection agencies. It costs them a great deal of money to collect and to pay these sums of money to the Government, because a considerable amount of paperwork must be very carefully attended to. It would have made more economic sense for the Government to increase the departure tax to $25, and to let the airlines collect all of it. Mr Young —But that is a tax. Mrs SULLIVAN —`But that is a tax', the Minister says, with a smile on his face. As I have said, I had hoped that the tourism Minister would have drawn this article to the attention of the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. I reiterate that it is dated 21 September. There is no excuse at all for the tourism Minister to talk in this place about a $5 charge being a visa fee, when the article to which I have referred says in very plain words that the fee will be charged on incoming visitors and returning holiday-makers alike. It is not yet necessary for Australian citizens to have visas to return to this country, and yet they will pay a $5 entry tax. In his second reading speech the Minister gave the following reasons for the fee-cum-tax. He said: It will be used to offset the cost of immigration inspection of passengers at airports, the costs relating to passengers who are refused entry, the cost of facilities to detect fraudulent immigration documentation, the cost of issue of visas, the salaries and other costs of airport staff, and general administrative overheads. Of course, for nearly all of those points there would be equivalent costs for outgoing passengers-which was the reason that a departure tax was introduced, and honestly, but probably politically foolishly, the Fraser Government decided to set it up as a straight out taxation gathering exercise, or fee gathering exercise, instead of just doing what many countries in the world do, and that is incorporating it in the airline fare and allowing the airlines to collect it. One of the reasons that the Fraser Government did not do it that way was that it would have imposed an undue burden on the airlines. The Government, however, is not at all troubled by putting the airlines to an almost totally equivalent amount of red tape turmoil, and for the sake of $5, and it has done it simply for the cosmetic reason of not wanting to make crystal clear that it has in fact increased a tax-in the face of all the promises made by the Prime Minister and the fine words uttered by the Treasurer in his Budget Speech. Mr Millar —That is a good point. Mrs SULLIVAN —I acknowledge the support of the honourable member for Wide Bay. In committee, the Opposition will move to delete a clause. I trust that this amendment will be supported by the Democrats in the Senate. This is to remove a provision relating to a new appeals scheme for people who receive unfavourable immigration decisions. In his second reading speech the Minister said that the details of the scheme will be prescribed by regulations, which will specify: the types of decisions that will be able to be reconsidered under this procedure; who will have standing to apply for reconsideration; the time limit within which such a request will have to be made; and the limited circumstances in which the fee for appeal will be refundable. The first point, at least, is a policy matter. I know that this matter troubles the Government. I know that the matter of the courts virtually making policy for the Government on immigration is a matter that troubles the Government, and the Opposition shares that concern. The Opposition has indicated to the Government that, if it can come up with a reasonable solution whereby Parliament and the Government are in control of this country's immigration policy, it would certainly look favourably at those suggestions. The Opposition would agree with the Government that the matter of immigration policy is the business of the national Government-which means that it is also the business of the national Opposition. It is not the business of the courts; it is not for judges to decide the criteria by which people may become residents and, ultimately, citizens of this country. However, that is a policy matter, and the Opposition stands opposed to policy matters being made by regulation. I point out that the only way that this Parliament could debate those policies when tabled in regulations would be through a motion for disallowance. It is quite possible that the Opposition would not want to move a motion for disallowance but may want to make a contribution in Parliament in relation to the conditions that ought to apply. As this is a policy matter it should not be dealt with by regulation. I hope that the Government will accept the Opposition's concern in this regard and its bona fides in saying that it would like to assist the Government in this dilemma-being one which also faced the Fraser Government-in relation to the role of courts in determining our immigration policy. I hope that we can avoid undue conflict on this subject in debating this Bill both in this place and in the other place. I shall say some more about this during the committee stage-should it be necessary, I hasten to add, because if the Minister accepts our amendment debate in committee will be very brief. In fact, if that is the case I will not speak at all. At this stage I just reiterate that I hope we have seen an end to the double speak of the tourism Minister, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer on the subject of taxation policies. The Government increases many taxes in every Budget. It has done it by this device of indexing taxes, and because it has brought the legislation through once it avoids the odious business of actually legislating every year but, in fact, it increases taxes all the time. It is just that it has done it in a far-reaching measure. This immigration clearance fee-so called-measure is a very blatant breach of promises that have been made. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler)(4.59) —The Migration Amendment Bill 1987 makes a number of alterations to the Migration Act 1958, as foreshadowed in the Budget this year. The proposals in this legislation will implement the decisions that have been made. In listening to some of the Opposition members speaking on the legislation, one gets the impression that we are about to see the end of the rule of law as we now know it. The contribution of the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) and, to a lesser extent, his colleague the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan), on how some of these schemes should be implemented by regulation, made one think that we were seeing some drastic and dramatic departure from the way business is normally done in this Parliament. While proclaiming regulations to change some of the appeal procedures might not be the best way of doing it, the one thing that is for sure and certain is that there needs to be some change in the system of appeals. My electorate, which has to have one of the highest contents of new immigrants of any electorate in this country, shows up in many instances some of the great difficulties of the appeal system. I am sure that you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, representing an electorate adjacent to mine, the difficulties involved in that. I think often I become the bane of the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young), who is sitting at the table, because of the number of representations from my constituents that I pass on to him. The problem is that over the years the appeal system has encouraged people, who really have no chance at all of being successful, to appeal. In many instances we have raised the hopes of people who have no hope of being successful in terms of some of the administrative procedures of the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. To my mind, one of the most important features of the cost recovery measure will be the improvement of service. The Minister has increased the number of people on the appeals tribunals. He has ensured that there will be a more speedy hearing of and dealing with appeals. I think many of the frivolous applications will be discontinued because if people have to put up a fee to have their case considered they will be more careful. For instance, people will not put in an application if they have 30 points but need to get 70 points. One would think that under this new system people will put in applications for a review where there is a reasonable chance, in their minds, that the appeal will be successful. In a sense, the fee will act as a mechanism for making people reconsider how good a case they have. As I said, to listen to the honourable member for Dundas, one would think that promulgating this system by regulation was a grievous attack on the rule of law. We also heard the honourable member for Moncrieff say today that the system of on the spot fines that the Government is proposing for airline carriers is something of which we should be careful. The honourable member was critical about this, as were other Opposition members who spoke in the debate. The experience that I have in my electorate of the number of people who come to Australia without adequate travel documents indicates that what the Minister is doing is absolutely necessary. The on the spot fine system will make sure that the airline companies carry out the job that they have to do-that is, to see that the people who get on their planes have the proper travel documents. Some airlines do this but some are notorious for not bothering. If a passenger has a ticket, they are happy. We in Australia should not have to foot the costs associated with people landing here without proper documentation. The airline companies know that it is not worth the effort for the Commonwealth to take them to court over a fine of $3,000. The Commonwealth probably does not proceed in such circumstances and, as a result, the airline companies do not carry out the job they are supposed to do. If they know that they can be fined $1,000 or $1,500 on the spot for each person that they have not adequately checked, I think they will take a whole lot more care in what they do. As I said, I do not think it is fair that Australia should have to foot the bill for the slackness of some international carriers. I was pleased to see as well in announcements that were made in the lead up to these proposals that in certain areas the Minister has relaxed the restrictions on the right of people to work while they are waiting for appeals to be heard. My experience in my electorate-and I am sure, Mr Deputy Speaker, that this would be the same in your electorate-is that this placed many people who had come to Australia in very difficult circumstances. Many people had valid reasons for wishing to change their status which in the long run would have been approved. But the rules that prohibited people from working while they were applying for a change of status-and in many instances these rules were strictly adhered to-put a very severe financial penalty on those people and, very importantly, on their families. Under the system that operated until recently it took 18 months to two years for an appeal to be heard. This presented difficulties for people who were not able to work during that time. The unfortunate thing was that the rule was often honoured in the breach. Any law that falls into disuse is never a good law. I think the decision of the Minister to take a more relaxed attitude to people working when they are waiting for their cases to be heard is a reasonable one. The honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), in his contribution to the debate, criticised the increase in the number of cases that have come before the review system. Mr Deputy Speaker, I would have thought that the honourable member would have been as aware as you and I are that the reason for the increase in the number of cases is that a lot more applications are being made than was the case in the past. This Government has been more willing to allow people rights before the law than were previous governments. In fact, when people have their applications refused they get a letter from us telling them exactly how they can appeal. Many of them think that this is in fact an invitation to appeal and they do so. As I said earlier, maybe the fact that people will now have to pay a fee to appeal will make them realise that while the invitation is still there they will have to participate financially in the process. The honourable member for Mitchell should realise that when people become aware of their rights they attempt, quite rightly, to exercise those rights. It was obvious that there would be an increase in the number of applications for review. The honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran), in his dissertation, brought up the subject of family reunion migration, a subject which will receive close attention during the inquiry of the FitzGerald Committee to Advise on Australia's Immigration Policies. The honourable member asked whether it was a good thing that there has been an explosion in family reunion applications. Of course it is a good thing. In fact, I would have thought that in the main the type of migration that we want in Australia would be by people who could be cared for, assimilated and assisted to find their way in Australia by relations rather than people who just arrive here without any friends or relatives to help them to move into a life in a new country. So of course it is a good idea that we should have an increase in the number of family reunions. It is natural that we should have an increase in applications. But the difficulty, of course, is that we do not have the capacity to absorb everybody who applies. I think I heard the Minister mention a figure of over a million applications a year around the world from people who want to come to Australia. At present we are taking about one in nine applicants. It is quite obvious that the vast bulk of those applications are from people who already have family in Australia who encourage them to come here. The honourable member for Gippsland criticised the trebling of participants on review panels, which is a direct result of the standard of our selection process, at the same time as he laments the scarcity of skilled immigrants. Of course, skilled immigrants enter Australia under the family reunion program. Many people who come to Australia under that program are skilled immigrants. They do not just come under the category of skilled immigrants. The Department actively encourages applications from skilled people under the independent category as well as under the employer sponsorship program. I suppose it indicates the type of electorate that the honourable member for Gippsland represents-probably he does not have much to do with migration matters-that he would have the rather cock-eyed idea that the only way that tradesmen and skilled people come to Australia is under the skilled immigrant program. Of course, many of the relations of permanent residents who were sponsored to come to Australia have skills which are of great benefit to Australia. The honourable member for Moncrieff adverted to the advisability of former members of parliament serving on the immigration review panels. I think that that is an eminently sensible proposition and that retired members of parliament, particularly those whose electorates had a high ethnic content, would be able to do an admirable job on the review panels. If the Minister has appointed only a couple so far and they happen to be from a particular side of politics, maybe in future he will appoint somebody from the other side. People who have had electorates such as those of the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Sciacca), of yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker, and mine, have come into daily contact, often many times each day and over the weekend, with people with immigration problems. Surely such people are able to do a better job on the Immigration Review Panel than someone who might live at Vaucluse but whose grandfather had an ethnic name. We need people on those tribunals who have a hands-on understanding of the immigration procedures and practices and a hands-on understanding of the problems of people who are trying to settle into this great country of ours. Surely people who have spent many years dealing with those problems are eminently qualified to serve on the panels. It is pretty stupid to suggest that once a member of this Parliament who has spent years dealing with Ministers on both sides of politics on these issues loses his seat, he suddenly does not have any more information or understanding of a particular matter. I think that, rather than be criticised on this matter, the Minister should be commended, and I hope that he will expand it and that Ministers and shadow Ministers will say that we can make use of the skills of former members of this House and State Houses who have had a lot to do with immigrant communities. A matter about which I pester the Minister a lot concerns a problem facing members of the Lebanese community who, in the main, have to go to Damascus when they apply to migrate to Australia or when they apply for a visitor's visa to come to Australia. The difficulty of people getting to Damascus has been a long-standing problem. On a number of occasions, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) and the present Immigration Minister's predecessors have said that there is a risk to Australian officers if they interview people in Beirut or in other parts of Lebanon. One of the reasons I have heard put forward is that the Australian Embassy is in East Beirut and that is a particularly dangerous area. I am sure that you would agree with me, Mr Deputy Speaker, because of the representations you have had from some of your constituents and the things we saw in Damascus when we went there a couple of years ago, that it is time that the quarter of a million people in Australia of Lebanese descent had a better service provided for them. We should be looking at opening some other office in Beirut or another part of Lebanon so that people do not have to make that journey. It should not be beyond our wit to do so, even if it means sending an officer on a regular basis to at least process applications. I find myself in great difficulty with many of my constituents in that respect. While we are looking at charging fees to facilitate the processing of applications, I think that many people sponsoring relations from Lebanon would be more than happy to pay any sort of fee if their families did not have to make that very dangerous trip from parts of Lebanon to Damascus. The final matter I raise concerns the need for flexibility in the immigration system. Over the years, Ministers have recognised that we have to adapt to changing circumstances. When the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) held the immigration portfolio, he introduced a specific category of migration to Australia for former residents returning to Australia. This category, in the main, picked up young people who had undertaken all of their education in Australia and were as Aussie as any of us here but had returned with their parents to their home country for some reason or other. Their parents and their brothers and sisters may have been Australian citizens but they had not become citizens while they were here but they believed they were Australians. Three of my constituents went to the Australian Embassy in Athens to get a passport and were told that just because they had lived in Australia and went to high school in Australia, that did not make them Australians. They were as surprised at that as anyone could be. Minister Hurford said that that situation should be fixed up and he introduced a new category for returning former residents. It was only a small category, but it did a great deal to overcome a problem for a small number of people who had spent all their formative years in Australia. I wish to commend to the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, who is at the table, a suggestion that another small category be introduced for established migrants who have not had any relations come to Australia, who do not have any relations living in Australia and who have not been given an opportunity to nominate a brother or a sister for consideration under the family reunion program because he or she would have been outside the economic test. There are not many of those people, but there is a number in the various communities in my electorate who have never nominated anyone to come to Australia, have lived in this country for 15 or 20 years, are citizens, have become successful Australians, have had children born here, have brought them up, and they are successful Australians. They now feel that they are economically able to help a relation, perhaps a brother or a sister or a niece or nephew. But, because of the way in which the system is geared, they are unable to do so because the niece or nephew, brother or sister, might not get the 70 points that are necessary. I suggest to the Minister that we look at a category which says that a person who has never put in an application to sponsor someone but who is a citizen, has a consistent work record, is in a sound economic position and is of good character might be able to nominate one brother or sister or niece or nephew. It will not be a big category; it will not do much to the migration pattern of Australia, but, my goodness, it will make a whole lot of people who have become good citizens quite happy. Such a category is required because many hard-working Australians have reached a point in their lives where they would like to support a family member-a brother or a sister who has not quite made it in Greece or Lebanon-and would like to say, `Come out here and live with me. I've been lucky enough as part of this family to make it in a new country'. I think that if such a category were introduced, it would make many people happy that they have taken out Australian citizenship. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs)(5.19) —I thank all of those honourable members who have participated in the debate on the Migration Amendment Bill 1987. I apologise for not being here this morning, as I was in Melbourne launching an information kit for the Office of Multicultural Affairs. I had my spies here. They were able to tell me what was said, so I will make some comments about what was said. The honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar), as is usual, as he is a very wise person, said that he does not see anything sinister in this legislation. He is quite right. I am not a sinister Minister. This is not a sinister government. This is not a sinister piece of legislation; it is quite simple. What we are dealing with basically is the way in which we facilitate the Government's decisions that were taken in the Budget regarding some fees. I do not think that the Opposition is very serious about its amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill, which seeks to substitute these words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that the imposition of a fee of $5 on Australian citizens returning to their own country by international air travel is an obnoxious attack on the fundamental right of Australians to enter their own country'. What about the $20 that one must pay to leave the country? The $20 fee that the Fraser Government imposed is 400 per cent as obnoxious as the $5 that must be paid to re-enter the country. I can understand the views that have been expressed by the tourist industry and the airline industry. They do not like the idea of the $5 fee for the services we provide. Nevertheless, I am sure that they will learn to live with it. Mr McGauran —It will soon be $20. Mr YOUNG —No, we have not shifted the $20 that the previous Government imposed some years ago. Obviously, in the years ahead, when the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) is an old man and we see another Liberal government in this country, that government will have to look at services that government provides and how it pays for them. If one continues to provide all of these services without making any charge, one will not be able to provide other services which perhaps are more urgent. In the case of immigration and ethnic affairs, there are certain services that must be delivered. They are of the utmost importance. If I have to make a decision about the imposition of a clearance fee for people to re-enter the country, to cover some of the expenditure that I would like to persuade my Cabinet colleagues ought to be spent in the area of settlement services or English classes, that is the road that I prefer to take. It is a sensible way to go about the business of government. It is true that because of the enormous influx of visitors to this country, the Government is investing heavily in the immigration clearance area of airports. Of the 2.9 million visitors to Australia last year, 45,000 were referred to immigration officials, 400 were not even allowed entry and about a hundred were detained. Another part of the legislation imposes on the spot fines for airlines, some of whom do not take much notice of whether people have the proper documentation for landing in Australia. People may not be cognisant of the difficulties that can arise in this regard. Last week I talked to a chap from the Canadian Embassy in Bangkok. Canada is now dealing with 20,000 people who have arrived illegally this year. There will be a special session of parliament to discuss and deal with this enormous problem. In terms of resources, obviously, the Government must make up its mind whether it can legitimately recoup some of the cost of the services that it provides. Mrs Sullivan —They are not the only ones paying. Mr YOUNG —Sure, but in this Budget we have decided that people over 12 years of age who enter Australia will pay the $5 fee. We have told the airlines that it is a clearance fee. It is exactly the same as the fee that is paid in the United States. Mr Connolly —How is that going to stop illegals? Mr YOUNG —It is not, but at least we are maintaining the integrity of the entry. At least we have a better opportunity of being able-- Mr Connolly —With visas. Mr YOUNG —With visas, but also using the resources of manpower and the very sophisticated computer programs which we have in place, to try to identify who is and who is not legitimately entitled to enter this country. We have invested heavily in this area. One must make up one's mind whether it is then legitimate to try to recoup some of those costs. In this case we say that we can justify the $5 immigration clearance fee. We have told the airlines that they can make up their own minds about how they collect it; but it will be up to them. We will get their incoming cards, of course. We will know how many people over 12 years of age the airlines are bringing into the country. Every few months we expect the airlines to pay the fee. Obviously, no industry likes to participate in schemes of this nature. Nevertheless, we think it is an essential part of government processes. There has been some talk about the immigration review panels to which I would like to refer. I agree with the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) that former members of parliament are ideal people to be appointed to the panels. As honourable members will know, in the last list of people who were appointed, I increased the number from 32 to 157, because we have seen an explosion in the number of appeals. We have not seen an increase; we have seen an explosion. The number of appeals on the waiting list increased from about 6,000 to 26,000 over a period of 18 months. The appeals of people who were borderline cases, who one might predict would win their appeal, were being held up for 18 months because everybody else was appealing. Most of the others had no chance of winning their appeal-they may have had 40 or 45 points. One must make up one's mind whether one will continue to say to everybody, `You will all be treated equally; you can appeal', or whether one should cut out some people if they do not have a certain number of points. In that case there will be a lot of protests. People will say that they are not being treated equally. One can try to deal with it another way-which we have done-by providing extra services at great cost to the Government and try to recoup some of those expenses, which we have done by imposing the appeal fee. We will get through the appeals a lot quicker. I want to say something to those honourable members opposite who raise the question about whether we are implementing policy via regulation. As they will know, when I took over this portfolio earlier this year some consultations with the Department and the communities around Australia were already under way regarding the recommendations of the Administrative Review Council (ARC). I took over during a very busy period. The consultations had not been completed. There were numerous requests on my desk to prolong the consultations and have a good look at them. One of the problems, of course, that were raised with me, that I know are of some consequence to honourable members opposite, is the future role of the prerogative of the Minister. My view, as the immigration Minister-I have had to take a lot of cases to different Ministers over the years-is that if one dismisses the prerogative of the Minister by saying, `You're just there to administer the Department and the bureaucrats will make all the decisions', quite frankly, it would not be an acceptable piece of legislation. There would be a lack of authority. The other point is that no one would believe me. If I attended a function in my role as Minister and someone said, `Will you give me a hand with this case?', and I said, `I don't have power', he would say, `You've got to be joking, you're the Minister'. I will relieve honourable members opposite of that burden by assuring them that whatever the final outcome is-and I do not want to pre-empt it-of the FitzGerald Committee to Advise on Australia's Immigration Policies, which will also deal in some ways with the ARC recommendations, the Government will have before it the ramifications of all the recommendations about the way in which we ought to deal with the appeal system and what can be written into substantive legislation. Substantive legislation, in my opinion, at the moment, may prejudice what we want to do in early 1988. Hopefully, we will have the FitzGerald recommendations by March. We will have completed a second round of consultations. By then, everyone should be suffering from consultation fatigue. Perhaps we can put a firm set of recommendations on the table for consideration. In the case of the regulations being drafted, I assure honourable members opposite that I am not inhibited in showing them the regulations when they have finally been drafted. As I understand it, they will be ready in about two weeks time and people can look at them. All we are doing at the moment is facilitating the decisions we have made in the Budget. This is by no means the end of the road with regard to the substantive legislation which will be before the House, I hope, in 1988, to deal with this very pressing matter. It is true, as the honourable member for Grayndler said, that we should not base what we may want to do in the Parliament on what our experience in the past has been. Judging from the applications this year, we are going to get another substantial increase in the number of applications for immigration to this country in 1987-88. After looking at the figures quite recently, I am sure that at the end of the year, and in the future, we will be dealing with an enormous number of new appeals, not only via the concessional entry, but also via other areas of appeal that may be in existence and available to people who enter this country under the various categories. It is an important area and it is one which ought to be readily understood. I agree with the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) that the process ought to be established by the Parliament and not by people outside the Parliament. That is a very important aspect because sometimes, when these matters are left in a grey area, people outside the Parliament take the bull by the horns and say, `We'll start invoking a bit of policy of our own from the benches. We'll tell the politicians what the policy ought to be'. No one is more experienced in this field than the people who practise it every day, and they are the politicians who serve in this Parliament. Obviously, it is very important for all of us to get that right. I do not believe that what we have done on this occasion in any way pre-empts what may be done in a more substantive fashion in 1988, nor do I think that the use of regulations, which I undertake to give to the Opposition as soon as possible, will in any way undermine or threaten the proper processes of the operations of this piece of legislation. The honourable member for Grayndler raised a couple of questions which I am sure he will put out in a Press release to his local paper. Mrs Sullivan —He probably already has. Mr YOUNG —Yes, it is probably already out. As the honourable member for Grayndler would know, and as anybody connected with immigration who meets with the Lebanese communities would know, the first question he raised is of the utmost concern to the Lebanese communities. The concern is not only that they have to travel to Damascus but also that their country continues to be in turmoil. They are extremely concerned about their relatives, friends and countrymen in Lebanon and they would like to see something done about the problem. I have held numerous discussions with various representatives of the Lebanese community in all the States of Australia about this problem. Basically, it is not a decision which is taken by my Department; obviously it is a decision on which we take advice from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. I add that the security problems are real. We are not using that to camouflage any other decision we would wish to make. I have indicated my view that as soon as it was humanly possible we should do something to facilitate the receipt of applications from that country. I can well understand their concern about this matter. Hopefully, if things settle down in that country in the not too distant future the Foreign Affairs Department may see things a little differently than it has in the past year or two. I was not so attracted to the honourable member's second suggestion because I did not want to run around seeing that everybody who had migrated to Australia was of good character. I am not too sure how we would undertake that. Nevertheless, I can see that his views are strong on this matter of someone who has come out here, who has never sponsored anyone previously but who would like to do so. It may be the sort of submission that the honourable member could make to the FitzGerald Committee to Advise on Australia's Immigration Policies. Perhaps it could have a deeper look at the matter. I invite honourable members opposite to go to the FitzGerald Committee with any views they may have on these questions. If the FitzGerald Committee can have all the propositions that people have in their minds about the future policy parameters on immigration, the appeals procedures and so forth, perhaps we could put something in place that would last for the next 10 or 15 years. That is enormously important. I conclude by thanking all honourable members who participated in this debate. This is a key area of government operations. I know that honourable members opposite always take a keen interest in this matter, particularly members who service areas that have high migrant settlement. It is something which is continually being serviced by members of parliament. As I understand it there will be an amendment to one of the clauses. We will deal with that when the time comes. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Cadman's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Cowan) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 54 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A. Beddall, D. P. Johns, G. T. Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L. Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C. Bowen, Lionel Kerr, D. J. C. Brown, John Klugman, R. E. Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V. Charles, D. E. Lavarch, M. H. Charlesworth, R. I. Lee, M. J. Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J. Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J. Courtice, B. W. McLeay, LeoCrawford, M. C. Martin, S. P. Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P. Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDubois, S. C. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G. Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P. Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T. Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F. Free, R. V. Saunderson, J. Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D. Gear, G. Sciacca, C. Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, J. L. Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W. Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H. Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R. Harvey, E. R. Theophanous, A. C. Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E. Hollis, 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. Adermann, A. E. McArthur, F. S. Aldred, K. J. McGauran, P. J. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R. Beale, J. H. McVeigh, D. T. Blunt, C. W. Macphee, I. M. Brown, N. A. Miles, C. G. Burr, M. A. Millar, P. C. Cadman, A. G. Nehl, G. B. Cameron, Donald Peacock, A. S. Cameron, Ewen Porter, J. R. Cameron, Ian Reith, P. K. Carlton, J. J. Robinson, IanCobb, M. R. Rocher, A. C. Connolly, D. M. Ruddock, P. M. Dobie, J. D. M. Shack, P. D. Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J. R. Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F. Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC. Fischer, Tim Smith, W. L. Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M. Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J. Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W. Halverson, R. G. Webster, A. P. Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C. Hunt, R. J. D. Woods, R. L. Jull, D. F. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Jones, Barry Prosser, G. D. Beazley, K. C. Moore, J. C. Snowdon, W. E. Hewson, J. R. Dawkins, J. S. Lloyd, B. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(5.44) —The Opposition is relieved to hear the comments of the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young) in regard to the processes for review he intends to adopt. I am particularly pleased that the Minister said what he did about retaining ministerial control over the immigration area. There was a view abroad in the Department, and perhaps with the Minister's predecessor, that we should move to a more codified process. That somewhat concerned the Opposition. We felt that the tradition of the Minister taking the flak and the appreciation for his decisions is a very important part of our system. The Opposition and I are grateful to him for his spelling out of his personal attitudes. The Opposition will move a small amendment to clause 9 of the Migration Amendment Bill. The purpose of the amendment is to remove the processes whereby the Government, in general, may prescribe the reconsideration processes and the details of reconsideration. We are not proposing to remove the charging and recovery process. We consider that that is not our prerogative in this instance. I move: Clause 9, page 3, lines 35-38, omit proposed sub- paragraph 67 (1) (ac) (i). We take note of the Minister's commitment to give us the opportunity to see the regulations. I needed to move this amendment and I must follow it through because my colleagues in the Senate are expecting me to do so. I feel obliged to follow this process but I suspect that, if things go as the Minister has predicted, there will be no need to pursue the matter in the Senate. However, I would have to say that there is a view in the Opposition that some aspects of this proposal may need to go into the Migration Act, rather than be dealt with purely by regulation. We will have a look at that. No doubt I will have the opportunity of discussing the matter with you and with my colleagues. There is a process that the Minister is starting to establish of some codification. He is giving the reconsideration process the strength of law. This is the first time that that has been done. Maybe the fact that there is to be a review could be established in the Act and the areas capable of review be established in the regulations. I would like the Minister to consider that because I do not foresee the day when a review will not be available to people. It is well established. The honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) established the review process. Basically it has worked successfully. We endorse the Minister's comments about giving additional resources to the review panels. We have called for that for a long time, as the Minister knows. It is not, as some members of the Australian Labor Party have represented, that we oppose the system. We are concerned that the delay process which is built in is encouraging people to abuse the system. They can have the opportunity of staying in Australia for an extensive time if they are aware that there is an inordinate delay. They can manipulate the system to achieve that delay. That has been the basis of our concern. We wish to see the review panels working swiftly and accurately with no following challenges to the Federal Court of Australia or other jurisdictions. The intentions that the Minister stated in his winding-up speech have the endorsement of the Opposition. The Minister, at one stage, said that the measures are facilitating the Budget decision. The matter goes beyond that in this narrow section of establishing the review in regulation. The fee could be charged, I believe, without setting up that regulation process. I am not certain, but I think a fee could be established for the purposes of certain reviews, without going to regulation. If that is not the case, the Minister's comments are correct. The codification of review and the setting of it into legislation are things that are happening for the first time. We know of the delays in the system. In 1985-86 there were 3,688 unresolved cases and in 1986-87 there were 10,866. It is certain that the extension of categories has, in part, been the reason for more people using the review process, but the advice given to all applicants that their unsuccessful applications are reviewable does encourage those who stand little chance of success to apply for a review of the decision. There is no qualification in the letters that are received by applicants. It is just a bland fact stated in the letter that they are eligible to have their cases reviewed if they consider they should, and they are given a prescribed time in which to apply. That does encourage people to consider that they may be successful the second time round. The Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs is not like the Departments of Veterans' Affairs or Social Security. People have a heartfelt commitment and intensity of feeling in wishing either to change their status or come to Australia. In other areas of administrative law that have been extended by this Parliament and successive governments, there is not the same attitude or feeling within a family group or between members of the one family, or relatives. I believe we have a situation in immigration that is quite different from other areas of government policy and administration. People will try and try again. Whenever they think there is a chance that they may be successful they will use every avenue offered. The very rapidly increasing number of cases before the Federal Court of Australia demonstrates what I am saying. There were 79 cases before the Federal Court last year. That is a very substantial number compared with only five years previously. The CHAIRMAN —The honourable member is widening this debate a little. It is more like a second reading debate. Mr CADMAN —No, I do not think so. The CHAIRMAN —I do. Mr CADMAN —Mr Chairman, what I put to you is that this reconsideration process, the very narrow amendment that we are moving, does have wide-reaching implications. I think members on both sides of the House do not want legislation of the review, the taking of the review to the courts for consideration. They want it to be done properly and in a balanced way; they want to have capable people on the panels; and they want the Minister, ultimately, to be responsible. That is the purpose of the amendment. As I stated, it is the Opposition's intention to divide on this issue. I have a degree of confidence that we can resolve this matter before the Senate deals with it. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(5.54) —I am anxious for the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young) to understand very clearly the concerns that I expressed in the debate on the second reading speech on this particular item and what I am going to say about the Opposition's amendment now. I appreciate that since the Minister has been responsible in this area he has taken steps to involve the Opposition in a certain bipartisan approach on immigration affairs matters-at least those members of the Opposition who he knows have a particular interest in immigration. I in no way reflect on the bona fides of the offer that he made in the second reading debate to show members of the Opposition the proposed regulations when they are ready-as I recall he said in a couple of weeks time-when I say that I do not consider that the offer meets the objection that has been raised. The principal objection that was raised is that the Migration Amendment Bill is proposing to put matters of immigration policy into regulation. I said in my speech in the second reading debate that the only way the Opposition could then debate that policy would be by moving disallowance of the regulation which may not be what the Opposition wants to do. As one who would expect to be invited by the Minister to see those regulations in advance, I do not find that to be sufficient. It is not a case of a fear of the unknown that has led me to object to this provision of the Bill; if it were, then it could possibly be solved by my being in the know, courtesy of the Minister. It is the simple principle that anything as important as this should be in the legislation. I point out that the actual terms used in clause 9 of the Bill are that there is to be provision for reconsideration of prescribed decisions. There will be a very keen interest in this country amongst many people as to what those conditions and prescribed decisions will be. I expect that there will be a very keen interest on the part of all members of Parliament because I do not think any of us are in a position where we simply never encounter a request for information or assistance on immigration matters and review of decisions. It is a matter of national policy. Whilst some part of those anticipated regulations might properly be contained in regulation-that is supporting policy matters and not policy matters in themselves-there must necessarily be policy matters in the proposed regulations. For example, I point out that this Bill makes allowance in other areas for certain fees, for appealing and so on, but it does not necessarily say what the fees are. We have a policy matter, the imposition of a fee, in this Bill. It is accepted in a number of Acts of Parliament that fees provided in them can be provided for by regulation. They are usually in cases where fees and charges are made by agreement with certain industries, but the imposition of the fee is in the Bill and, in the same way, those categories of prescribed decisions must be in the Bill and, ultimately, in the Act. I will make a helpful suggestion to the Minister in return for what he hoped would be a helpful offer. There is before this Parliament a Bill called the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 1987. If the Minister wants to get the Migration Amendment Bill through for the sake of fees and other things, and if it should happen that the Senate resolves to delete the clause we are referring to at the moment, it is always possible for him to bring in the provisions of the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. I notice that this Bill has been standing on the Notice Paper since 8 October. It is clearly not urgent because other Bills that have been introduced a fortnight after that date have precedence on the Notice Paper over it. There are all sorts of mechanics which could be employed. In fact, from recollection-I am afraid I do not have the Bill in front of me-there is a section in that Bill that relates to the Migration Act. Mr Cadman —Yes, you are right. Mrs SULLIVAN —The shadow Minister confirms that there are amendments to the Migration Act in the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. It can be done. I am sure the Opposition would not wish to hold up the Minister's legislation and other parts of this legislation unnecessarily. We have stated in the second reading debate a matter of principle on what is properly in a regulation and what is properly not. We have stated it in this debate because of the high degree of sensitivity in immigration matters which has been shown by contributions by both Government and Opposition members. I believe it would be a very sorry mistake for the Parliament to allow this provision to become part of the Migration Act. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(6.00) —I would like to add my comments to those of my colleague the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) about the way in which this matter has proceeded. I appreciate that my colleague the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) has been very generous with the Minister in his response to this matter. I do not share his generosity. The matter has proceeded in a shabby way. I did not like to say that behind the Minister's back, as he was not here this morning. I say it to his face. The matter should have been dealt with in a way that showed respect for the Parliament and our law-making role. Legislation should not be introduced by pamphlet, in the way that it was explained to us this morning by the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) in responding to comments made by the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Mitchell. Law-making is a serious task which we fulfil. We are being asked to include a capacity for delegated legislation. The CHAIRMAN —Order! I drew the attention of the honourable member for Mitchell to the fact that we did not want to rehearse the second reading debate, and the honourable member for Dundas is beginning to do that. He might recall that the committee stage is for debate about the specifics of proposed amendments to particular clauses in Bills. Mr RUDDOCK —Mr Chairman, I am referring specifically to the provisions in clause 9 which amend section 67 to delete paragraph (a) (ac) (i)- The CHAIRMAN —The honourable member is also repeating his second reading speech, which I heard. Mr RUDDOCK —That is the provision that deals with reconsideration of prescribed provisions under the Act, including decisions relating to prescribed classes of visas on application made by prescribed persons in accordance with regulations. We are dealing with the specific provision which includes in this legislation the capacity for delegated legislation-the very matter that I was addressing. I would like to conclude those remarks. I do not believe that I am canvassing any other matter than that raised by the amendment. I wish to make this point about those aspects of the regulating power that the Minister is seeking, and which we might well have objection to. That is the reason why we want to see the regulations in advance of any approval of something like this. That is why we have sought preference for it to be done by amendment to the Act rather than by delegated legislation. I want to draw the attention of honourable members to that section of the Minister's second reading speech where he explained the new arrangements and the regulatory procedure, which we have not seen. He said: I recently wrote to all members and senators. I note that representations concerning these prescribed migration decisions-if they are to be effective-will need to relate to a formal request for reconsideration. That is, no effective action on a request for reconsideration will be taken unless statutory requirements have been fulfilled, including the payment of the notified fee. He then emphasised: Where a valid request for reconsideration has been made, representations from honourable members of parliament will be able to be considered by me and the Immigration Review Panel. In other words, the Minister will not consider representations from me when I consider an injustice has been done to a constituent unless a fee has been paid. These regulations, when they come in, will be introducing a new and fundamental principle that puts a cost on the approaches that we can make to the Minister. I find that an astonishing proposition, if what the Minister is to show us in his room is a regulation that gives effect to that statement. I do not believe that there can be a fine on us approaching him. I am quite prepared to accept that in relation to panels and appeals where lawyers and so on are involved, one might want to put a fee on, but in relation to that matter, where one wants to take the alternative route, in which I would approach the Minister, there should not be a fee. When I come to speak to him in the chamber, is he going to ask me whether I can produce a receipt for the application? That is what we are being told will happen. I assume that that is what the regulations will deal with. There is good reason for us to have some knowledge and appreciation of what the Minister has in mind. I am troubled about this, and I want the Minister to know of my concern. This is something that needs to be done in the open, so that we can all understand it, not something in which the Minister can say, `I will show you what I have in mind in a couple of weeks time when we are ready'. If it was good enough to go into the pamphlets, surely it is good enough for us to see it now. If the regulations are going to be in some way different from the pamphlets, what right do we have to commit ourselves to expenditure involving these pamphlets, which have been passed around the place and which might have to be shredded next week? None of these problems would have arisen were it not for the retrospective nature of the fee and the desire to impose it from 16 September, so that Parliament had to be bypassed. When this matter reaches the Senate, it should deal with it in the way we have suggested and delete the provision. If the Government wants to talk to us later, so be it. I would have none of this nonsense that, if we are not prepared to submit to that approach, the Minister might find some administrative way of giving effect to the same approach that he foreshadowed might be taken in his second reading speech. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs)(6.07) —The honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) thinks that it would be wise to exempt members of parliament from the appeals system which will be implemented. If that were to happen, he would find that the 200-odd members of parliament would have to deal with tens of thousands of appeals, because anybody who could circumvent the $240 fee would use a member of parliament. It would be only those unfortunate people outside who wanted to appeal but did not know a member of parliament who would have to pay the fee. The other thing is that if, on the evidence given in the appeal, the decision is overturned, the fee is returned, so that is a fair way to handle matters if there is a change in the evidence that may change the circumstances. If, at the appeal level, the appeal is upheld, the fee is returned. One would have thought that the Liberal Party of Australia in government never used regulations in its legislation, and it tabled, for the then Opposition to see, all the regulations that would operate in conjunction with the legislation being introduced. We all know that that is nonsense. What happens is what I said on the second reading, when I outlined what the regulations would specify-the types of provisions that could be reconsidered under this procedure, because not everybody has the right; who will have standing to apply for reconsideration; the time limit in which such a request will have to be made; and the limited circumstances in which the fee will be refundable. Let me reiterate that to do otherwise would have required more than legislation to deal with the matter before us today. An extension of the legislation would have been required to outline other matters. The honourable member for Dundas was not in the Chamber to hear what I said earlier. One of the reasons why the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), was so generous was that I was so forthcoming about what will happen. When I refer to the FitzGerald inquiry, I am not referring to the Fitzgerald inquiry in Brisbane. I am referring to Stephen FitzGerald, who is heading the Commission to Advise on Australia's Immigration Policies (CAAIP). He will be looking at the Administrative Review Council recommendations and the extent to which these matters can be codified. I am not at liberty to introduce at the moment substantive legislation which may pre-empt the extent to which the Parliament may do this, hopefully in either the autumn or Budget sessions of 1988, when we have all the matters before us. As I said earlier, when I took over this portfolio, as honourable members would well know, there were consultations taking place between the Government and the communities about the Administrative Review Council (ARC) recommendations. I was requested by a whole range of people and organisations to continue with those consultations, which have been going on for some time. That has now been overtaken by the decision to have the Stephen FitzGerald inquiry, or CAAIP, as it is now called. When we have all that information together, we will do that. The Parliament will then have before it substantive legislation in that regard. To the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) I say that I am pretty sure that if we had introduced legislation such as she invites into the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill some honourable member on her side would have said, `We are not accepting that; that is substantial policy legislation. That is not a matter of administration'. I am sure that the Opposition will not make that an open-ended invitation for the exploitation of the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which governments in the past have been apt to try on occasions but which the Opposition is usually on the lookout for in regard to any of those things that might be incorporated into such legislation. Mrs Sullivan —You usually got them through. Mr YOUNG —We never tried it, but there was some pretty heavy-handed stuff during the Fraser Government, I can tell the honourable member. What are we going to prescribe in the regulations? We will prescribe decisions including classes of decisions that may be reconsidered. We will include also persons, or classes of persons, including organisations, who may lodge an appeal. We will include time limits for lodgment, fees, payments and refunds. As an honourable member opposite said, a lot of our experience in the immigration field is trial and error. There is always the unknown case. Of course, the use of regulations does give us flexibility because someone is sure to come along and say that we have overlooked a particular group of people and ask why they should not have the right or, if someone else has the right, why they should not have the right, and whether there is not another circumstance in which the fee of $240 can be refunded. In my opinion certain flexibility will be required in the initial stages of the application of this. Of course, as honourable members opposite point out, this allows the minimum legislation to implement the Government's fee decision. It provides the flexibility which I think we will need. The point I would like to make to the honourable member for Dundas is that if we had legislated we would have had to provide for further substantive measures in the Migration Amendment Bill. For instance, we would have had to provide for categories of visa and entry that are now described by policy statements. We would also have had to include those in the Bill because they are related to those other aspects. We would also have had to provide details of the review machinery and revised primary decision-making arrangements, including, perhaps, policy in all of these areas. Therefore, we are not just dealing with the implementation of the fee. We would have had to go right back to the primary line and deal with all the matters that can now be laid down by policy. We would have had to put them in this legislation. If we are going to attempt to do that we are going to have a much more major task on our hands. That is why I say that I do not think that the honourable member will be amazed or bewildered, shocked or have to be given oxygen when he sees the regulations. I am sure that a man of the maturity and experience of the honourable member for Dundas will be able to sustain his interest long enough to read through the document. More importantly, when the Stephen FitzGerald inquiry is completed, this will become a matter of urgency because we will have had these matters, from the ARC and the Stephen FitzGerald inquiry, before us for some 18 months or more. Hopefully, we will have enough documentation for public discussion to be able to pinpoint the introduction of legislation in 1988 that will tell us how far down the road of codification we can go with all of these matters. But in the meantime-I do not say it flippantly-the offer to members of the Opposition who are interested to have a look at the regulations as soon as they are drafted will be carried out. Question put: That the amendment (Mr Cadman's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 76 —— 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. Macphee, I. M. Burr, M. A. Miles, C. G. Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C. Cameron, Donald Peacock, A. S. Cameron, Ewen Porter, J. R. Carlton, J. J. Reith, P. K. Cobb, M. R. Robinson, IanConnolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C. Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M. Dobie, J. D. M. Shack, P. D. Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J. R. Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F. Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC. Fischer, Tim Smith, W. L. Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M. Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J. Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W. Halverson, R. G. Webster, A. P. Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C. Hunt, R. J. D. Woods, R. L. Jull, D. F. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Katter, R. C. Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen C. A. Beddall, D. P. Jenkins, H. A. Bilney, G. N. Johns, G. T. Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J. Blewett, N. Kent, L. Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C. Brown, John Kerr, D. J. C. Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E. Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V. Charles, D. E. Lavarch, M. H. Charlesworth, R. I. Lee, M. J. Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J. Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J. Courtice, B. W. Martin, S. P. Crawford, M. C. Mildren, J. B. Cross, M. D. Milton, P. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morris, PeterDubois, S. C. Mountford, J. G. Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P. Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T. Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S. Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J. Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D. Gayler, J. Sciacca, C. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W. Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H. Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R. Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C. Harvey, E. R. Tickner, R. E. Hayden, W. G. Uren, T. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Willis, R. Humphreys, B. C. Wright, K. W. Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Prosser, G. D. Jones, BarryMoore, J. C. Beazley, K. C. Hewson, J. R. Snowdon, W. C. Lloyd, B. Dawkins, J. S. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(6.22) —We have spoken about the significance of people on immigration review panels. I wonder whether Al Grassby is still on the panel for the Australian Capital Territory or has he been asked to stand down for a period? Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs)(6.23) —He has been asked not to involve himself at the moment. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Young)-by leave-read a third time. Reference to Committee Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —Madam Speaker has received a message from the Senate acquainting the House of the Senate resolution referring the Constitution Alteration (Democratic Elections) Bill 1987 to the Joint Committee on Electoral Matters for inquiry and report. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests: Sea Installations Bill 1987 Sea Installations Levy Bill 1987 Sea Installations (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1987 Assent reported. Bill presented by Mr Duncan, and read a first time. Mr DUNCAN(Makin-Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support)(6.25) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is part of a package of Budget measures aimed at reforming the current arrangements under which broadcasting licensees pay revenue to the Commonwealth. The related Bills are the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1987 and the Radio Licence Fees Amendment Bill (No.2) 1987. Commercial television licensees currently pay licence fees assessed as a proportion of their gross earnings each year. The fee scale is progressive, with rates increasing from 3.5 per cent on gross earnings of $5m to a maximum of 8 per cent on gross earnings of $48m and above. This Bill amends the fee scale for licensees currently paying that maximum rate of 8 per cent. The new scale will continue to apply a fee of 8 per cent on gross earnings of $48m, but will increase to 8.8 per cent on earnings of $75m and to a maximum of 9 per cent on earnings of $100m or more. The new scale will apply to all payments of fees due on or after 1 January 1988. They are expected to affect major metropolitan licensees only during the current Forward Estimates period. Increases have not been applied at lower levels of gross earnings since to do so would place further financial obligations on regional licensees currently planning major capital expenditure programs for equalisation. Assessments of financial viability of licensees under equalisation, which formed an important part of the planning process, were based on the existing fee scale. The fee scale was last increased in 1983. Financial Impact These measures are expected to raise $4.8m in the current financial year, $5.7m in 1988-89 and $6.4m in 1989-90. Total revenue from television licence fees is estimated at $79.5m in 1987-88, an increase of 17.1 per cent on 1986-87. Most of the increase reflects assumed increases in stations' earnings. I table the explanatory memorandum to this Bill and commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Smith) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Duncan, and read a first time. Mr DUNCAN(Makin-Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support)(6.28) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is part of a package of Budget measures aimed at reforming the current arrangements under which broadcasting licensees pay revenue to the Commonwealth. The related Bills are the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No.4) 1987 and the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1987. This Bill requires successful applicants for new commercial radio licences to pay an establishment fee which will be set out in the notice inviting applications for the licences. The procedural aspects of this fee and the method of calculating it will be incorporated into the Broadcasting Act, and are described in my second reading speech for the related Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1987. Only the formal provision imposing the obligation to pay the amount so calculated is included in this Bill. Other provisions of this Bill require the payment of a fee on conversion of a commercial radio licence from broadcasting on an AM frequency to broadcasting on a higher quality FM frequency, and provide for increases in licence fees. Conversion Fee While there was initially considerable scepticism about the prospects for FM broadcasting in Australia, the success of the commercial FM radio licences granted in the metropolitan cities in 1980 has led to considerable pressure on the Government to allow existing AM licences to convert to FM. The Government has previously indicated that it is prepared to consider conversion, at this stage in limited circumstances. It has been decided that conversion will be considered where an existing solus AM operator is facing competition from one of the new FM services being introduced under the Government's regional commercial FM radio planning program. In such circumstances, the incumbent's isolation on the AM band could be a serious commercial disadvantage. In any case, there seems to be no reason to deny conversion to those who desire it-provided certain conditions are met. The Bill makes the fee payable on conversion from AM to FM of a non-metropolitan commercial radio licence where the Minister has issued a notice under section 82 of the Broadcasting Act inviting applications for a new commercial radio licence serving substantially the same service area. The fee does not apply to conversion in other circumstances at this stage since the Government has not yet settled its policy. The conversion fee will apply to all markets where new licences are being granted under the Government's regional commercial FM radio planning program, including those for Geelong, Shepparton, Gosford and the Gold Coast for which applications have already been called, but where the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal is still some way from making decisions on the successful applicants. This is essential to ensure equitable treatment of all new licensees and markets receiving licences under the Government's new planning program. The following conditions will have to apply before I consider conversion. Firstly, FM frequencies and sites will have to be available, given the requirements of other planned broadcasting services. Secondly, there will have to be direct competition between the converting service and the new service. This will require the incumbent service area to be substantially the same as that of the proposed new licensee. Thirdly, there will have to be no loss of service to people who formerly received the AM service, reflecting the different transmission characteristics of AM and FM signals. These amendments thus do not give any licensee a right to convert. The decision on conversion and its timing remains one for the Minister, to be made in accordance with his general powers under the Broadcasting Act to plan the development of broadcasting services in Australia. The Minister would propose to convert the incumbent licensee at a time as near as practicable to the date on which the new licensee will commence transmission. No converted service will be able to commence before the commencement of the new service in the area. If there are limited FM frequencies, the new rather than the converting service will have priority. The new fee also does not oblige anyone to request conversion if they meet the Government's criteria but would prefer to stay on an AM frequency. The fee will be calculated as 50 per cent of the incumbent licensee's gross earnings for licence fee purposes assessed in the most recent accounting period before the issue of the notice inviting applications for the new licence. This is half the fee which will be charged to the new licensee, reflecting the fact that the new licensee is acquiring a new right to broadcast in addition to the new FM frequency. The incumbent is only supplementing an existing right to broadcast with a new FM frequency. Payment of the fee will be required before the technical conditions of the licence warrant are varied to authorise use of the new FM frequency. Licence Fee Increases Commercial radio licensees currently pay licence fees assessed as a proportion of their gross earnings each year. The fee scale is progressive with rates increasing from 3.5 per cent on gross earnings of $5m to a maximum of 5.5 per cent on gross earnings of $11.8m and above. The Bill introduces new rates for larger stations ranging from 4.4 per cent on gross earnings of $6m, 5.3 per cent on gross earnings of $7m, 6.2 per cent on gross earnings of $10m, to a maximum of 6.5 per cent on gross earnings of $12.7m and above. The new fee scale will apply to all payments of fees due on or after 1 January 1988. The scale was last increased in 1983. Establishment and Conversion Fee Successful applicants for new licences to be granted in this financial year are expected to pay around $11m under the establishment fee scheme. Incumbent regional commercial licensees converting are expected to pay around $5.5m under the conversion fee scheme. The precise financial implications in future years will depend on progress with the planning timetable and Tribunal inquiries. As explained earlier, the amounts paid by converting licensees will always be half those paid by the corresponding new licensees. Financial Impact These measures are expected to raise $1m in the current financial year, $1.2m in 1988-89 and $1.3m in 1989-90. Total revenue from radio licence fees is estimated at $11.7m in 1987-88, an increase of 31.2 per cent on 1986-87. Most of the increase reflects assumed increases in the earnings of the stations. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill and commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Smith) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Duncan, and read a first time. Mr DUNCAN(Makin-Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support)(6.35) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The last year has seen unprecedented change in Australia's media. We have witnessed a substantial restructuring of commercial television, radio and print ownership, the development of truly national commercial television networks, the beginning of the introduction of new commercial television and FM radio services to country audiences, too long deprived of the services available in the major cities, and the continuing expansion of public radio and the two national broadcasters, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service. These events mark this as a dynamic and exciting period for an industry which plays so central a role in our society, our culture, our economy, and our politics. Some of the changes have been prompted by economic imperatives in domestic and international markets. Many, however, are directly attributable to the Government's policy initiatives, particularly the major legislative packages introduced by my predecessor, the honourable member for Holt, Michael Duffy, and passed by this Parliament in the last session. In pursuing these initiatives, this Government has shown itself sensitive to the changing commercial, technical and social environment in which the various media operate, and prepared to adapt policy to suit new circumstances. But it has not been afraid to itself motivate change in the directions it believes appropriate to serve the needs and interests of Australians. This Bill represents a further significant step in the Government's reform of the media industry in this country. It provides for the introduction of an establishment fee payable on the grant of a new commercial radio licence, and for a prohibition on the transfer of control of a commercial licence within two years of its initial grant. The associated Licence Fees Bills, which will receive their second readings soon, will provide for a fee to be payable on conversion of a non-metropolitan commercial radio licence from broadcasting on an AM frequency to a higher quality FM frequency following the grant of a new licence in the service area in question. These Bills also provide for increases in the licence fees paid by commercial broadcasters. Some of these decisions were announced in the Budget. As a package, these Bills are designed to ensure that the revenue from the commercial use of those parts of the radio frequency spectrum available for broadcasting better reflects their true commercial value. We are seeking to ensure that the interests of all Australians in deriving a reasonable return from the exploitation of a public resource, the airwaves, are more equitably balanced against the legitimate commercial interests of those licensed to provide commercial radio services. This economic reform will be achieved while preserving the place of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in the licensing process. The Tribunal will continue to select the successful applicant for a new licence on the grounds of relative suitability so that competition for the new licence will be based only on the quality of services proposed by the applicants. The prohibition on quick disposal of a new licence will enhance the integrity of the licensing process itself. Establishment Fee In the Budget, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced that a tender system would apply to the grant of new commercial licences, with the licences being awarded to the highest bidding applicant whom the Tribunal determined to be suitable to hold the proposed licence. The Government has decided not to proceed with that approach. The Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) and I have had discussions with a wide range of groups and individuals from the public and the broadcasting industry, many of whom have expressed concern about the effect of a tender system on the licensing process, founded upon very significant questions of public interest. The Government has also reassessed likely revenue gains from the tender system in the light of necessary adjustments to the machinery of the scheme that have emerged during the consultation process, and the likely impact of recent stock market developments. On balance, the Government has decided that the gains in economic efficiency from a licensing process which allowed the market to determine the value of new broadcasting licences are outweighed by the desirability of retaining a process where applicants for new licences compete only through the quality of the service they will provide. Application In doing so, we have decided that the new establishment fee should cover only commercial radio licences at this stage. The method of calculating the new fee for radio licences would not be as readily applicable to other forms of licence as was the tender system. In particular, since the Government has no immediate plans to call applications for new commercial television licences, it would be inappropriate for any decision on the most appropriate way to allocate any such licences to be made at this stage. The new fee will apply to all markets where new licences are being granted under the Government's regional commercial FM radio planning program, including those for Geelong, Shepparton, Gosford and the Gold Coast, for which applications have already been called but the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal is still some way from making decisions on the successful applicants. This is essential to ensure equitable treatment of all new licensees and markets receiving licences under the Government's new planning program. The fee will not apply to the grant of the new Newcastle licence, where the Tribunal has already made a decision on the most suitable applicant but that decision has been successfully challenged in the Federal Court and is currently being reconsidered. The Tribunal has an existing discretion to permit the lodgment of further submissions if this is necessary for applicants for licences already called to reflect the new arrangements in their proposed services. Calculation of Fee In most markets where a new commercial service is currently proposed, the new licensee will be placed in direct competition with an existing solus operator with substantially the same service area. In these situations, the new licensee will be charged the incumbent licensee's gross earnings for licence fee purposes assessed in the most recent accounting period before the issue of the notice inviting applications for the new licence. Thus, a new licensee in the Gold Coast could be expected to pay about $4m and a new licensee in Gosford about $3m. If there is more than one incumbent licensee with substantially the same service area as the proposed new licence, the fee will be the average of their earnings. Thus, a third licensee in Hobart, were a licence to be invited today, would pay about $1.6m. The establishment fee is twice the fee which will be charged to the incumbent if it requests conversion from an AM to an FM frequency, under the new arrangements provided for in the Radio Licence Fees Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987. The higher fee for the new licensee reflects the fact that the new licensee is acquiring a new right to broadcast in addition to the new FM frequency. The incumbent is only supplementing an existing right to broadcast with a new FM frequency. Where the new licence is being introduced in an area which is not substantially the same as the service area of an existing commercial radio licence the fee will be calculated in one of two ways. Where more than 70 per cent of the population of the proposed service area at the most recent census is already served by at least one commercial radio service, the fee will be the gross earnings of that existing licence, or those existing licences, in the proposed service area in the most recent accounting period. The earnings of the existing licence or licences in the proposed service area will be assumed to bear the same proportion to the total earnings of the existing licensee(s) as does the population of the relevant part of the proposed service area to the total population served by the existing licensee(s). Thus, in the case of Ipswich, where a new licence is to be invited shortly, the fee will be based on the gross earnings of the existing Brisbane licensees to the extent that they were earned within the service area of the proposed Ipswich service. On this basis, the new Ipswich licensee could be expected to pay about $1.8m. Where less than 70 per cent of the population of the proposed service area is currently served by at least one commercial radio service, a fee calculated in this way is likely to understate the true value of the new licence. In these circumstances, the fee will be set at $15 per head of population in the proposed service area. This reflects the per capita earnings of regional commercial radio licensees in 1985-86, the most recent year for which data is available. These three different methods of calculating the fee are intended to employ the most useful data which is available for particular markets. Where there is already a licensee operating within substantially the same service area, that licensee's revenue will be the best guide to the revenue a competitor could expect. Where there is no direct competition but other overlapping licensees who have been broadcasting to most of the proposed new market, the revenue of these licensees will be the best guide. Where a substantial proportion of the proposed market currently is not served by commercial radio, the earnings of other licensees in similar service areas provides the most helpful reference point. If the fee is not paid within 30 days of the Tribunal's decision, the Tribunal will treat that most suitable applicant as having withdrawn his or her application, and re-open its inquiry to determine the next most suitable applicant. If there is no next most suitable applicant, the Minister will be empowered to extend the time for payment and charge a late payment fee similar to that applying to late payments of existing licence fees, and to reinvite applications for the proposed licence if the fee is not paid within the extended time. Alternatively, the Minister may immediately reinvite applications. Prohibition on Retransfer The recent change in control of the company which had been granted the third Perth commercial licence before the new service went to air highlighted a significant shortcoming in the existing licensing process. In deciding to preserve that process, the Government has also decided that its integrity will be enhanced by imposing a prohibition on the transfer of control of a licence within two years of its initial grant. The prohibition on retransfer will operate by preventing the Tribunal approving a transfer of a licence within two years of its grant, and making void any transaction within two years of the initial grant which the Tribunal finds to constitute a transfer of control of the licence. The provision refers to `provisional approval' which implies that a transaction may be approved for the purposes of the two-year rule, but subsequently be disapproved because it constitutes a breach of other rules such as cross-media or total numbers of licences. Transactions need not be share transactions but only `transactions in respect of shares'. Thus, other forms of transaction which give rise to beneficial interests in shares will also be subject to the prohibition. The provision is intended to give the Tribunal a broad discretion to prevent any transfer of control within two years of a commercial licence grant. The sanction of making any offending transaction void is different from the Tribunal's existing sanctions for breaches of the ownership and control rules. The existing sanctions of fining the contravening licensee once the Tribunal finds a breach to have occurred apply only after a six-month period of grace during which the contravention can be remedied. The only way a purchaser within two years of a licence grant could `remedy' the situation would be to resell to the original vendor or resell to another purchaser. The former would amount to the Tribunal compelling a commercial purchase, while the latter would cause a still further transfer of control contrary to the basic policy. The Tribunal will have a discretion to approve a transaction otherwise contrary to the prohibition where it finds that, by reason of exceptional circumstances such as death or bankruptcy, the transaction would be in the public interest. Where the Tribunal is satisfied that, although circumstances such as death or bankruptcy exist, the transaction is not in the public interest, it may still refuse approval. Financial Implications This Bill has no direct financial implications. While it covers procedural aspects and the method of calculating the establishment fee for new commercial radio licences, the related Radio Licence Fees Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 makes the amendment to the new Radio Licence Fees Act which formally creates the obligation to pay the fee. The Bill will create some additional work for the Tribunal through monitoring the prohibition on transfer of control of a new licence. Commercial Radio Ownership The amendments made by this Bill are part of an overall reform not only of the current arrangements under which broadcasting licensees pay revenue to the Commonwealth, but of the whole commercial radio industry. A new scheme which will affect the financial capacity of applicants and their rights once granted a licence is inextricably linked to other structural aspects of the industry. The changes to the existing ownership and control rules in the radio industry, which my colleague the Minister for Transport and Communications has announced separately today, are closely related to the financial and other reforms introduced in this package of legislation. Together, they will ensure maximum diversity of ownership of all media consistent with quality services and a more reasonable public return from the commercial use of a public resource. Most importantly, they are an important part of this Government's commitment to the quick introduction of the best possible new broadcasting services to all Australians. I table the explanatory memorandum to this Bill and commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Smith) adjourned. Debate resumed from 8 October, on motion by Mr Humphreys: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(6.50) —The National Health Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 is really an example of a measure by a government that is now desperate in its attempts to correct past mistakes. Never before in Australia has a government managed, by some means or another, to make a virtue of correcting its mistakes. Recently, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) gave us evidence in this place of how he believes Australia is ahead of the rest of the world. Yet newspapers tell us that overseas investors are deserting Australia for what they consider are more quality investments overseas. In making those claims, they overlook the fact that it was the Treasurer who got us into $24,000m worth of debt at the government level and some $80,000m worth of debt as a nation. This Bill sets out to rectify some of the previous mistakes and, as such, is worthy of consideration by this Parliament. That is what I propose to do from here on. The legislation covers two broad areas: firstly, it creates mechanisms to overcome the disaster that was Pharmpay and, secondly, it restructures the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) and increases the Minister's powers unilaterally to remove items from the schedule of pharmaceutical benefits. I have a number of remarks to make about the first item. Pharmpay was introduced by this Government in 1985 to overcome the then chronic record of delays in the reimbursement of pharmacists for the goods and services they provided to the community on behalf of the Government. Even the records of the Department of Community Services and Health show that between October 1984 and March 1985 delays in the payment time had increased from 28 days to 102 days in New South Wales and that there were lesser delays in other States. Unfortunately, the Pharmpay process, which guaranteed that no payment would be delayed for more than 15 days, was no more successful. In fact, as I said earlier, it was something of a disaster. At one stage during the Pharmpay debacle there was a backlog of 51 million unprocessed prescriptions in the system. It got so bad, and the delays were becoming such a disaster for the pharmacy profession-people were literally having their cheques bounced because they could not get further overdraft facilities-the Government commenced averaging payments. It made no calculation whatsoever; it literally threw a bundle of scripts in the air, went back to the last three or four payments that had been properly calculated for that pharmacy, averaged it and issued a cheque. One can imagine how inaccurate that system became, particularly in pharmacies that had seasonal business and so on. Let us study quickly the effect of such delays on the small business pharmacy. A typical pharmacy processes about 2,000 prescriptions a month and they will have a value to the pharmacist of about $14,000 or $15,000. That is what the pharmacist is obliged to collect for the goods and services that he has already provided. When the Government calculates the reimbursement to pharmacists on the goods they provide, it is very careful to calculate the net value to the pharmacy. It removes any discounts that the pharmacist might receive, for instance, for prompt payment. Of course, those rebates are earned only if the pharmacist can pay on time. When the pharmacy was waiting up to 60 days and, at one stage, up to 102 days for payment, it was very clear that the pharmacist did not have the funds to take the opportunity of getting a discount for prompt payment from his wholesalers. So the first thing that the pharmacist lost-remembering that it had been calculated into his reimbursement-was the value of that discount. Furthermore, pharmacists were running overdrafts to fund their business while they waited for payment and they were also subjected to the cost of the interest on those charges. It was costing small pharmacies many hundreds of dollars a year and, no doubt, the larger ones many thousands of dollars a year. That was one of the reasons that, as Opposition spokesman on small business, I brought to this Parliament a private member's Bill to guarantee prompt payment of government debt. The legislation did not just apply to the pharmacy profession, but the profession saw it then, as it does now, as a very necessary move and one that is not included in the legislation before us. The effect of my legislation was to override the inefficiencies of government departments. It said simply that if the Government could not pay on time it must pay interest to the small business which was waiting for the money. That is the solution to the problems of slow payment by government. When similar legislation was introduced in the United States of America, 99 per cent of government accounts were paid on time. Government, with its access to the printing press, is not necessarily short of money; it is usually just short of energy or efficiency. It is for those reasons that people were not getting paid. This legislation is a process of trying to overcome such problems. I expect that the new shadow Minister for small business will reintroduce my Bill for prompt payment of government debt. I do not think that the solution which this Government has found is as good as that. It contains some promise about using credit cards in particular areas. I think that the only force that will work is for the bureaucracy to understand that, if it does not pay on time, its budget and not the budget of its creditor will suffer. As I understand it, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), who was the previous shadow Minister for Health, was one of the first people to suggest using the electronic data transfer method which this legislation seeks to formalise and which is now the centrepiece of the Government's solution to the problem. The Opposition has been very active in resolving this problem for the pharmacy profession and, consequently, for the Government. The system is known as claims transmission services (CTS). It is, as the legislation calls it, the preferred method. It is a process of using electronic data transfer either by the mechanism of delivering a compatible floppy disk from the pharmacist's computer to a government office where it will be put directly into the computer system of the Department of Community Services and Health or, in a more sophisticated sense, where it is available, by using a modem where a direct transfer of data can be made from the pharmacy facilities through Telecom lines into the mainframe computer system. To encourage people to enter into this arrangement, the legislation makes provision for an incentive payment of 2.5c per script for a period of two years, provided the election has been made prior to 1 November 1987. Of course, most people would realise that that is only a few days away. I think it is a pity that that election period could not have been extended. The system has been operating for nearly a year and the option has been there for pharmacists to enter this arrangement. Nevertheless, the numbers are still increasing. The option has been available since July 1986 and, by August 1987, approximately 1,700 of the 5,000 pharmacies in Australia had opted for CTS. I understand that, since July 1987, the rate could be as high as 65 per cent. I might add that the Government estimated net government savings of $5.75m when only 50 per cent of pharmacies were operating under the CTS arrangements. I presume that the Government is ahead in regard to its Budget estimate. That is all to the good, although I place one caveat on it. One thing must be understood about the rush of pharmacies to use the CTS arrangement. Pharmacists are not taking up the scheme because of the 2.5c incentive: they are doing so in order to get paid. Fortunately, once the processing in these automatic arrangements is done, the cheque is paid. I understand that the Department of Health is now meeting the promise under this arrangement that if one submits one's claim under this system one will get one's money within 20 days. This legislation deals with two other systems. I understand that under the second option-what is known as the alternative method-a pharmacist should get his money within 25 days. But if he wants to use the old manual system, he will have to wait for 30 days. I do not think that the pharmacists believe that they would get their money within 30 days under that system. As I said, previously they have waited for up to 102 days, so they are pretty anxious to use this new system. We must look at the financial contribution that pharmacists are making to participate in this scheme, because they are losing financially in order to get their money on time. I guess that when they offset that against the interest they were paying to the bank and the loss of discounts that were available to them, they might think it is still a reasonable balance. But the fact is that the Government is getting most of the profit and the pharmacy has to take the losses. The reason is that a typical pharmacy will process about 2,000 prescriptions a month. At 2.5c per prescription, that represents $50 a month. That is not much money in this day and age. It is less money when one offsets it against some of the costs involved. The cost of a computer suitable for this requirement is about $8,000. The lease payments would be about $240 or $250 a month and there would be a residual value. I am told that the monthly charges for the software that is necessary to operate these computers is about $50 a month. So the cost of the software alone is equal to the remuneration, the extra incentive payment, to a typical pharmacy. The pharmacists are not getting much out of it. As I said, their desperation to be paid is the reason that they are prepared to accept this arrangement. Furthermore, a difference from the old manual system is that the computer gives every prescription a number at the time it is processed. The Department is demanding that before the pharmacists send in the prescriptions-by way of floppy disk or the other methods; they must still send in the scripts for checking, and that is quite proper-they must be sorted into numerical order. That, of course, is time consuming and represents another cost to the pharmacists. The Government says that it can save $7m by this arrangement, less $1.25m, which I presume is primarily needed to pay the incentive payments, et cetera. In other words, as I have mentioned previously, the net figure is $5.75m. One of the means, apparently, by which it will recover this money is that it proposes to close some of the processing centres. Before this debate is concluded, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys) might confirm whether there is an intention to close the Adelaide and Hobart processing centres. That might be a necessary reduction in cost, but the pharmacy profession is concerned that as these processing centres are lost, they cannot be used, as they were previously, to overcome log jams and strikes. That is a problem, because in the past claims were able to be redirected from one State to another. I think that the Minister should consider a better balance in regard to this figure of 2.5c. We have some other concerns about the second method. We will move an amendment, which has been circulated in my name, to the effect that the operation of that second method should be limited. The point is that we think that if the 2.5c was a little more generous and better reflected the costs to the pharmacy, and at the same time if it were extended a little longer, very shortly the Government would have practically every pharmacy using the preferred CTS method, and that would be in everybody's interest. I will now make some remarks about the alternative method. The Government estimates savings, once about 25 per cent of pharmacists opt for this arrangement, of about $2.9m net per month. The process is one of random sampling. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has been involved in structuring this random sampling method. Because some very costly items can be provided by pharmacists, they can still ask for a manual processing of the top 10 per cent of the scripts that they submit every month. In other words, a typical pharmacy could put in 200 scripts, have them manually calculated, and the random sampling process will apply to the other 1,800. We think that that is a very inexact method. I know all about random sampling. People are elected to the Senate by way of random sampling. But if one is spending taxpayers' money, the Opposition is of the view that, in the end, random sampling is not appropriate. We accept it as an interim measure because we know very well that alternatives to the Pharmpay system had to be found. Not every pharmacist will have the wherewithal or the need for a computer. So there are reasons. But we believe that, over time, there will be distortions in the payment system. We believe that some clever individuals in our community will establish a means of rorting that arrangement. We think, therefore, that it should be limited. In simple terms, the amendment we propose states that that alternative method would cease operation within two years, on 30 June 1989. Of course, under these arrangements and under future arrangements, the manual method would still be available. We think the Government would be better off giving a bit more encouragement in the area of the electronic CTS program, so that in two years time it does not have to rely on what is a random sampling, grab bag method of paying people. We do not think it is in the pharmacies' interest or in the taxpayers' interest. That can be further debated during the committee stage. That is how the system will work in terms of payment to the pharmacy profession. As I said, the other proposal is to make changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. These changes are not being made for reasons of efficiency or to better the lot of people who, unfortunately, have to use drugs; they are being made primarily to reduce the burgeoning cost of the so-called free health system that the Australian people have had imposed upon them. It is so free that the Federal Government is spending $8,200m, of which $800m plus will be spent on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme this year, after these savings have been made. The Minister said in his second reading speech that the Government's concern is that the average pensioner script has gone up by 24 per cent in the last year to $8. In fact, between 1985 and 1987, without severe Government restriction on the types of drugs that could be dispensed, it had anticipated that the total cost of the scheme would have gone up by 58 per cent to $970m. It is a lot of money. But the problem is not the amount of money or whether people should have this service; the problem is that the Government is finding that it is unable to finance the huge cost of this system. The other point, of which we must take notice, when we look at the total cost of health in Australia-that is, what is spent by governments and by the private sector-is that we are looking at a figure of about $16 billion. In fact, on a per capita basis one is looking at about $25 a week for every Australian. If one looks at it on a four-unit family basis it could be said that every Australian must find $100 a week for health cover. That is a huge amount of money. I am sure that some of the systems have contributed to that. Of course, someone who will speak after me will say, `Every Australian doesn't pay $100 a week in tax to get their health cover. We tax companies'. Companies, like everyone else, treat their taxation as part of their costs. It all ends up with the consumer. Even when our iron ore goes out of the country and a profit is made, Australians pay some of the tax that those companies earn when they buy Japanese motor cars. That is a cost to the Australian community. The Government says that this move will reduce the figure of $970m by about $100m. The means of achieving this is to increase the size of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee from eight members to 11 members; it is proposed that the three additional members will be doctors. That will mean that the make-up of the Committee will be 10 doctors and one pharmacist. I guess it is the doctors who know a lot about the drugs they are dispensing. It is probably a reasonable balance, although an additional pharmacist would have been of some value. Another point is that the Government proposed to enlarge the secretariat of the Committee so that it is better able to investigate the various drugs and so that there will be more opportunity to engage specialist consultants so they, too, can advise the Committee on what the Government's intention is. The Government's intention is to apply cost-benefit procedures to the distribution and the new listing of drugs. I will quote directly from the second reading speech of the Minister. He goes this far: The obligation- this is the obligation that is being placed by this legislation on the Committee- to consider comparative effectiveness and cost will require the PBAC to give consideration to alternative forms of treatment, for example surgery . . . I had four months in hospital and I well remember the fight between the surgeons and microbiologists over my knee-cap which I think is called a patella. The surgeons had a simple solution to my problem. They told me it was no better than an appendix and that they could whip it off for $100. The microbiologists said that for $5,000 worth of antibiotics, in 1976 dollars, they thought they could save it. I was left to make the decision. There was a little more to it than just $5,000 of taxpayers' money or another month in hospital for me. Having taken other advice, I opted for the knee-cap. I am pleased to tell the House that I still have it. It is a bit creaky but it is there. It was saved. It appears that in the future under these particular arrangements a person in hospital will have only the surgery option available. If they are elderly, it is not the cut that kills them; it is the trauma of the operation, the anaesthetic and everything else. I do not think that is a very good consideration. It is all right for the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to say that it will not be like that, but this legislation puts an obligation on the Committee: . . . to consider comparative effectiveness and cost and will require the PBAC to give consideration to alternative forms of treatment, for example surgery . . . If that is a high quality, affordable medical system I will go heave. I think it is disgraceful. I do not think it should be there. I criticise the Government for thinking that far down the track. We have wonderful inventions in pharmaceuticals today, and it is quite obvious that those pharmaceuticals should be used if they are available. For that reason I think the whole matter should be considered. I think the Minister can clarify a final point I want to raise. I have read the Bill and I have read the explanatory memorandum. In the second paragraph on page 4 of the explanatory memorandum it is stated: The Bill will empower the Minister to remove a drug from the list of Pharmaceutical Benefits at his own discretion without first having received a recommendation to that effect from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. The Opposition would oppose that arrangement. Nevertheless, it is stated in respect of clause 4: This clause amends section 85 of the Principal Act by inserting sub-sections (2AA) and (2AB). Sub-section (2AA) allows the Minister to declare, by instrument in writing, that a drug or medicinal preparation or class thereof ceases to be a pharmaceutical benefit for the purposes of Part VII of the Principal Act. Sub-section (2AB) requires the Minister to have regard to views previously expressed by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee relating to the drug or medicinal preparation or class thereof before he makes any such declaration. Paragraph 4(b) of the clause has the effect of applying certain sections-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! It being 7.15 p.m., the debate is interrupted. I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Humphreys-I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —The explanatory memorandum goes on to state: Paragraph 4(b) of the clause has the effect of applying certain sections of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 to declarations the Minister has made. Declarations made under new sub-section (2AA) must be notified in the gazette, tabled before both Houses of Parliament and made subject to possible disallowance. I think that is what was meant by this clause. It is clear there but it is contradicted by what is said on page 4 of the explanatory memorandum and I ask the Minister for an assurance in his response that the description of the Act, as we find it on page 7, relating to clause 4, is in fact the means by which this great power that has been put in his hands will be administered. In other words, he will take some account of the reasons. I guess when it says `reasons previously stated' it means the reasons the Committee first used to list the drugs. Even then the Minister will have the obligation of submitting that to the Parliament in the normal form, very much like regulations that could be subject to disallowance. Consequently, they are the final matters of concern to the Opposition. The Opposition feels that the Government is getting further and further into the mire with what it said was its health program. The big losers are ordinary Australians. Those with sufficient wealth either to meet the cost of drugs that will no longer be listed and those with sufficient wealth to take top cover private health insurance will continue to get the very excellent standards of medical treatment that are available in Australia. But many other people in the community who, because they pay only the levy-I ask the House to remember that they pay that levy which is substantial for many of them-are finding that the benefits they used to get are being reduced bit by bit. This legislation will certainly achieve that. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs would be aware of the great concern of pensioners about items that have been removed from the benefits schedule in recent times-antihistamines and drugs of that nature. These drugs are not inexpensive. If one happens to have a disease like emphysema and these drugs give one relief, one will buy them. It can hit the budget of a pensioner substantially. I am not sure whether that is my definition of free medicine or what the Government claims is a high quality and affordable health service. Both sides of the Parliament want to give Australians a high quality and affordable health service. We just happen to disagree on the method of delivery. We do not believe that we need to own the shop to deliver that sort of assistance to ordinary Australians. We would much prefer to reserve the Government's resources to give the financial assistance to those Australians genuinely in need and leave it to the very efficient and highly motivated private sector, wherever possible, to deliver the service. In this regard the Government has, as past governments have, left the delivery of medication and pharmaceuticals to the pharmacy profession. The pharmacists have been forced by successive governments to go more and more out of their profession into other sorts of things. As I frequently remind pharmacists, when I was a kid, one could go into a pharmacy to find it full of pharmaceuticals. A good living was made by the pharmacist in those days. Today one needs a map and a waterbag to find the dispensary. One has to fight one's way through the beachballs, the Dr Scholls, the gift crystals or whatever because that is what it needs today to make a pharmacy survive. As I have said to the medical profession, if it does not fight off Medicare, as I am sure it is determined to do, the day will come when it will have to fill the waiting rooms with pinball machines to make a living. That is not acceptable, either. We will not get high quality service unless we pay the providers properly and we give them some incentive to be innovative. The same thing applies to this legislation. Unless we are prepared to split some of the money we will save, we will not get all the pharmacists to comply and the system will be the worse for that. The Opposition does not oppose the Bill but we will propose the amendment about which I have hinted. Debate (on motion by Mr Mildren) adjourned. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has been advised that members of the Printing and Kindred Industries Union who are employed at the Government Printing Office ceased work this morning and that no typesetting or printing work will be carried out until further notice. Consequently, the production of Hansard will be disrupted. The printing of the Notice Paper for tomorrow will also be affected. Motion (by Mr Humphreys) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr COBB(Parkes)(7.21) —Ever since I was a small child I have been led to believe that white chicken meat is healthier to eat than the red meats such as beef or lamb. Now whether with friends at home, or dining in a restaurant, or reading articles in newspapers or magazines, the message keeps coming through: red meats are bad and chicken meat is healthy. Some so-called experts even peddle the waffle that red meats not only are high in fat and cholesterol but are even poisonous and sometimes carcinogenic. To a person like me who likes nothing better than a lamb chop or a T-bone steak to put between his pumpkin and mashed potatoes on the plate, it can be quite disconcerting to have these sorts of opinions constantly thrown around. Honourable members can imagine my surprise and delight when a study came out showing that all these opinions are bunkum. The study was undertaken by the University of New South Wales and the University of Sydney under the auspices of the Commonwealth Department of Health. It was conducted by independent scientists using strict scientific methods and their results are beyond question. It was the first study of its type in Australia since 1946. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a table showing some of these results. Leave granted. The table read as follows- COMPOSITION OF COOKED MEATS (per 100 g). Lean beef Fat (g) Cholesterol (mg) Iron (mg) Rump ... 6.7 82 3.9 Blade ... 7.9 66 2.5 Corned silverside ... 3.5 71 2.5 Chuck steak ... 6.0 82 3.8 Boneless sirloin ... 8.6 57 3.2 Round steak ... 8.2 67 1.9 Topside ... 5.7 62 2.8 Chicken Breast with skin ... 12.7 99 0.7 Breast without skin ... 4.8 92 0.6 Drumstick with skin ... 15.0 151 1.2 Drumstick without skin ... 10.6 154 1.2 Compiled from Food Technology in Australia Vol. 39, May 1987. Mr COBB —I thank the House. The table compares chicken and beef as people would eat it, namely, a serving of 100 grams of cooked beef, trimmed of its fat, with 100 grams of cooked chicken, both with and without skin. Most chicken, of course, is consumed with the skin on. The figures cannot be clearer. Lean beef, on average, not only has a lower fat content than chicken but its cholesterol content is markedly lower. The average beef cut has levels of cholesterol of only around 60 to 80 milligrams. However, chicken levels are much higher. Chicken drumstick levels are more than twice as high, being over 150 milligrams. Even chicken breast has significantly higher levels than beef, with levels in excess of 90 milligrams. Even if one removes the fatty skin from the breast, leaving what I used to think was the `purer than the driven snow' white meat of the breast, the cholesterol level is still markedly higher than with beef. But the story does not end with the fat and cholesterol levels. The iron content of red meat is far superior to white meat, too. For example, the iron content of a rump steak is five to six times that of chicken breast and more than three times higher than that of a drumstick. In fact, looking at this table, one could even end up getting anaemia if one ate just chicken breast, so low is the iron content in this type of meat. Iron, of course, is a necessary component of the haemoglobin in our red blood cells, and without it we cannot transport oxygen from our lungs to our muscles and brain and other organs of the body that need it. An adequate iron content is particularly vital for two groups in the community, namely, post-menstrual women and growing children. Sadly it is these two groups who have tended to steer away-no pun intended-from red meats towards white meat while following the food fads of recent years. As a woman needs 12 to 16 milligrams of iron per day she would have to eat about 20 meals of chicken breast every day just to maintain her iron levels, if that was her only source of iron. If she fell pregnant she would need at least 40 daily servings of chicken breast. Clearly women should have red meat included in their diet. I would also urge mothers to do the responsible thing and include sufficient quantities of red meat in their children's diets to ensure that their iron intake is adequate. It is time we got rid of the image that red meat is fatty. Certainly the American lot-fed meat with its heavy marbling may be to some extent. However, the Australian product is from an animal that is largely grass fed and of lighter slaughter weight, and is therefore much leaner and much healthier. These recent tests I have discussed here should have been done long ago to correct the misconceptions that the public has. Poultry meat in Australia is raised under intensive conditions, not dissimilar to American lot-fed beef. That is not to say that such meat, when eaten in moderation, is harmful-far from it. I like a piece of chicken as much as the next person. However, it has a higher fat and cholesterol content and a far lower iron level than red meat and therefore is nowhere near as nutritious as beef or lamb. Dr Thornton of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in Brisbane has also completed research backing these conclusions. He found lean beef contains 4.1 per cent fat while chicken with skin contains 12 per cent fat or without skin 7.3 per cent fat. Even comparing lean with lean, beef contains 44 per cent less fat than chicken. As most people now trim the fat from beef before eating it these findings are highly significant. The message is clear: if one is worried about one's health, beef is better. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(7.26) —Last Thursday night I represented the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) at the premiere of the film Link-up Diary. I recommend that all honourable members and, in fact, every Australian see this film. It deals with the work of an Aboriginal organisation named Link-up which is now in its eighth year of operation. In order to understand the work of Link-up it is important that we go back in history. It was a common practice, even as late as the early 1960s, for welfare organisations, both state and church, to seek the separation of the Aboriginal child from its parents. It is estimated that in New South Wales about 8,000 children were taken away from their natural parents or relatives. Although that was usually carried out by means of a court order, it was often done purely because of the belief that an Aboriginal child would be better off in an institution, or fostered or adopted out to a non-Aboriginal family. Certainly, some of the children were living in primitive conditions and some of them perhaps deserved to be removed from those conditions. But at least they had the benefit of parental love and guidance in those conditions. The effect of this separation was that the children grew up not knowing their natural parents, not knowing whether they had brothers or sisters and, even worse, not knowing whether they were Aboriginal. They grew up knowing nothing of their Aboriginal heritage or their culture and were brought up to think of themselves as different from other Aboriginals. The organisation Link-up has three main aims. The first is to find out information for people who want to know more about their family and the community from which they came. The second is to locate missing persons who have not yet returned, or the families of people who were taken away. The third is to help people who have trouble coming to terms with the experience of their early years or who want to resume close contact with their families. This film Link-up Diary produced by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Affairs is a graphic picture of both the trauma and excitement of the process of seeking out relatives and the emotional feelings which were displayed on both sides at these reunions. The producers, the distributors, the actors and the Playhouse in Canberra deserve praise for their efforts in producing a successful premiere. Coral Edwards, who appeared in the film, and is the co-ordinator of Link-up, did not find her family until she was 30 years of age. She and other members of the Link-up team deserve high praise for their efforts over the past eight years. I understand they have assisted something like 500 people to establish their links with the past. Again, I urge members of this House and the general public to see the film when it comes their way. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(7.30) —The Government finds itself in an unholy mess in regard to radio FM commercial licences. We know now that it has abandoned the latest plan for auctioning these licences. The Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) has been rolled by members of his Caucus who believe that power would be even more centralised in a few hands under the tender system. Where does the Government go from here? All we know is that whilst this matter remains within the charge and responsibility of the Minister for Transport and Communications, Senator Evans, and his understudy, the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support(Mr Duncan), there will be one disaster after another. This is the best duo since Abbott and Costello-the Ministers for making mistakes. They fumble and bumble their way through this complex area of government administration. In the meantime, applicants are losing hundreds of thousands of dollars, not to mention the time lost by the Ministers' incompetence. The honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham), my neighbour, now joins that famous duo, making them the Three Amigos. Honourable members should listen to the honourable member for McMillan. It is quite extraordinary in regard to a commercial FM licence-- Mr Goodluck —Where is he? Mr McGAURAN —Where is the honourable member for McMillan? I asked him to be here. I gave him plenty of hours to prepare a reply. It will be interesting to see whether or not he can possibly put together a reply. Here he is-the biggest impersonator of the style of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in this Parliament! During the election campaign when the issue of the need for an FM commercial licence in the Latrobe Valley got a bit hot, he issued a grand Press release promising an FM commercial licence within the next year or two. The honourable member followed that up on 31 August 1987 with the issue of another Press release. This time he went a little further and was a little more certain. He promised the people of the Latrobe Valley and Gippsland generally that there would be an FM commercial licence either at the end of 1988 or early in 1989. He said that the technical path had been cleared, that he had had discussions with the Minister for Transport and Communications and that the Minister had promised him an FM commercial licence. The honourable member also said-honourable members should listen to this-that he put it to the Minister that this matter had to be resolved. The Press release contained that sort of garbled language. Only two weeks later, the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support, acting on behalf of Senator Evans, wrote to the Traralgon City Council and stated: The Latrobe Valley clearly has a demand for FM services but there has been a technical constraint on the high power frequencies available which can only be removed by the clearance of ABC Channel 4 television services in Gippsland from Band II (this is scheduled for 1990). The year 1990 is the earliest that there can be a commercial FM service in the Latrobe Valley. In total disregard of this member and his supposed representations on behalf of his constituents, the Minister has cut the ground from below him. The Minister for Transport and Communications issued a Press release on 2 October 1987 which stated that in February 1990 planning information will be circulated for applicants in the Latrobe Valley and applications can then be made. So, at the very earliest in the middle of 1990-let us bear in mind that it is on the assumption, and not a very strong assumption, that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation will clear its television channel-people can apply for an FM commercial licence. So at least three years after the honourable member for McMillan, during the election campaign and since, promised the Latrobe Valley an FM licence one may be granted. But given the state of affairs at present, who knows when these commercial FM licences will be granted. The honourable member for McMillan cynically abused his public office, totally misrepresented his representation on behalf of his constituents, and tried to hoodwink the public and has now been clearly revealed for the fraudulent representative he really is. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(7.35) —I had a little note sent to me at Question Time today to say that the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) would raise this issue tonight and he challenged me to be in the chamber when he did so. It just goes to show how desperate the Opposition members can become, in particular, the honourable member for Gippsland, when they come into the House and raise issues such as this. The honourable member claimed that we are not going to get an FM radio station in the Latrobe Valley. Mr McGauran —Until 1990, three years after you promised. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member for Gippsland has been heard. Mr CUNNINGHAM —I remind the honourable member for Gippsland that for close on 30 years conservative governments ran this country and they did not make any move at all to improve the radio situation in regional Australia and the cosy situation that always existed. Mr McGauran —You lied to your constituents. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member for Gippsland to withdraw that comment. Mr McGauran —I withdraw. Mr CUNNINGHAM —Let us put a few of these facts into perspective. When the first statement was made by the Minister-it was then Minister Duffy-on this issue he announced those areas which were to be granted FM licences in the run up to 1990; that was 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989. It was clearly indicated at that stage that there were sections of Australia where, while they had a very good case for FM services, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) was occupying the FM band which was required to bring the FM licence on stream and that it would be 1990 before that was cleared. The first area of priority in the program was to be the Latrobe Valley and that is still the position. The Latrobe Valley, after solid representations from the honourable member for McMillan, was able to achieve the very first clearance of band IV. Of course, we had to go through a lot of procedures in the communications area because of this. We had television aggregation and we had television multichannel services and we had to work our way through all these changes in the communications system before 1990 when band IV or band II could be cleared around Australia. This follows 30 years of inaction by the conservative parties. We have brought the situation forward. The honourable member for Gippsland referred to promises tonight. I was approached by three companies which have shown an interest in putting a case to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. They said that they would like to have an FM radio station knowing full well that band II would have to be cleared and the ABC would have to be removed to another band. They did some homework on whether they could present a case to the Minister for a lower frequency, which was available but which would not provide a full service to the Gippsland area. I took up that case on behalf of all the companies and I said, `Look, some 100,000 people live in the Latrobe Valley central area'. For those honourable members who are listening tonight, we have 100,000 people in this area and another 60,000 people in the Gippsland end of the area. The honourable member for Gippsland represents about half those people. In looking at this issue, I clearly put a case to the Minister for Transport and Communications that we could go on a low frequency for a period if it were acceptable. The first person to jump up and down on the local television was the honourable member for Gippsland. He said, `This is not fair. You are not going to give a proper service to all the people in my electorate of Gippsland'. Mr Martin —He stopped it. Mr CUNNINGHAM —He stopped it. The very member who came into this House tonight has made representations on behalf of the people who would not get the full service on low frequency. Quite clearly, the Department of Transport and Communications would have gone ahead with the lower frequency had there been no objections from those who would have had to put up with the lower frequency for a couple of years. The honourable member for Gippsland deliberately set out to tell everybody that there would be people in the electorate of Gippsland who would not get the service when I put this suggestion forward. If anything is to be blamed for the Department and the Minister changing direction, it is the public outcry against what we were proposing. I am quite happy to keep pushing the case. I would like to have the support of the honourable member for Gippsland. We got a guarantee that the hearing will be held in 1990 and we shall certainly have FM. It is a disgraceful performance for an honourable member to come into this House and accuse me of not supporting my area when he was the one who torpedoed it. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(7.40) —As a very impartial judge, I can say that the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) won by a mile. I would like to see the male members of this Parliament dress up. Some of the old grey haired fellows want to look around a bit and get a few ideas from people. They are certainly looking a bit drab on the other side. Mr Chynoweth —Where did you buy your suit? Mr GOODLUCK —The arch-conservationist over there-I am going to give you a bit of a serve in a minute. Do not interrupt me, because I am just about to get going. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable gentleman to address his comments through the Chair. Mr GOODLUCK —Certainly, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Sheraton Hotel is opening in Hobart next Thursday. I got an invitation but, unfortunately, I will not be able to go. It is a magnificent addition to the scenery of Hobart, but it makes me mad to think of all the troubles that the company had constructing it, and all the obstructions from the conservation movement in Tasmania. Boy!-has Tasmania changed. I have noticed that my Party, the Liberal Opposition, has started to say that we should compromise with the conservationists. I will not compromise with them for one minute. I like to deal straight with people. I like to put my arguments, listen to their arguments and then decide which is the best path. The conservationists, particularly the ones in Tasmania, will not accept compromise. They want it their way, and they will not change. I am giving them a bit of a warning. While I am in Parliament-I do not know how long that will be-they will get no compromise from me, or the Opposition. It is nice to see the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) in here. He has a reasonable approach to things, but he knows where I stand on these matters. I am completely inflexible because I have dealt with the conservationists for so long. I will not give them an inch, so regrettably, our shadow Minister for the environment had better get the lesson quick and fast that Bruce Goodluck will not compromise with the conservation movement. Every day, I open the newspaper in Tasmania and it is either Bob Brown or some silly conservation movement member getting a headline. Not all of them are silly-I take that back-but some of them are, and every day the newspapers have what they say. They complained about the Sheraton Hotel, and we have only half the hotel on our waterfront that we should have had. It could have been better, but they did not like the bricks and they did not like the glass or this or that. Regrettably, the Tasmanian Government buckled under them, and we did not get the edifice that we should have got there. That is a good word. Mr McGauran —A bit like the State Bank. Mr GOODLUCK —Yes. A restaurant is opening on the waterfront shortly. Most of my colleagues have heard of Mures Restaurant in Hobart, which has become famous. Another restaurant is opening and will be an addition on the waterfront. Again, every time the company went to construct it, it had to do this and it had to do that. If we continually let the conservationists dictate the terms-- Mr Lamb —Oh! Mr GOODLUCK —You can sigh, or you can baa if you want to. If the conservationists continually knock, we shall never get anywhere; and regrettably, that is what is happening even to Tasmania. Today, the newspaper was talking about parochialism in Tasmania, and about north and south. I am not parochial. I know that we need to get ahead in Tasmania, and the only way that we can do it is to work together, not apart as they are trying to at the moment. We should not always listen to what the conservationists want or the northern and southern people want. There are 400,000 Tasmanians, and if we all work together we could make it the best State in Australia, because although it is beautiful, it needs many things. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(7.45) —Tonight I wish to raise an important matter and, in the good natured spirit that prevails in this debate, I think it is one that will enjoy support from both sides of the House. I am delighted that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys) is in the chamber because I wish to highlight to the nation, to the Parliament and to the Minister-and I ask that he might pass it on to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)-a glaring omission from the official national calendar of events associated with the Australian Bicentenary in 1988. This particular calendar appeared in a publication circulated this week. For example, yesterday it appeared as an insert in the Canberra Times and was printed by John Fairfax and Sons Ltd. It is not in itself an official Australian Bicentennial Authority publication; nevertheless it contains the official bicentennial schedule of events laid in calendar format, beginning on 26 December 1987 with the Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Ltd Sydney-Hobart yacht race and running right through to 31 December 1988. I know that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, maintain close contacts with the Returned Services League in your electorate, as I guess most members do, so you will be surprised to hear that a wide range of events are mentioned in this schedule drafted by the Australian Bicentennial Authority, including the Benson and Hedges Bicentennial Cricket, the Moomba festival, the Port Fairy folk festival, the Victorian football league grand final-but no mention of the rugby league grand final-the Melbourne Cup, the Australian National Field Days at Borenore, Orange, but there is no mention of Anzac Day, 25 April 1988. There is no mention of that as a national event on our national calendar in our national bicentennial year. I raise this matter in order to make an appeal, almost at the eleventh hour in terms of the preparations for the Bicentenary, and to warn the Authority that it is treading on thin ice if it continues to orient its programs away from our Anzac legend and ignore it as part of the commemoration of the Bicentenary. God alone knows, there are so many other things to which the Authority is alluding and which it is utilising and there are so many other aspects coming forward as part of the Bicentenary that surely a mention of Anzac Day-our remembrance day-should be made. Anzac Day is not something that should be celebrated, but it is always commemorated around the towns and cities of this great nation and it deserves a mention in this schedule of events and so-called bicentennial `highlights'. To be fair, the Authority in some of its other calendar brochures, particularly those circulating at State level, mentioned Anzac Day, Anzac Day parades and the like. The Authority should now review its releases of such publications as Australia: 200 Years and Beyond to correct the omission of Anzac Day when such events as the Port Fairy folk festival are included. The honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) tells me that that is a very important and successful festival and should be there, but equally Anzac Day should be included and I make no apology for raising this matter. I hope that the Minister will make an approach to the Prime Minister or, using his initiative, go direct to the Authority to check on this matter and perhaps report back to the House at a later stage to ensure that the bicentennial celebrations include an appropriate orientation to our fine Anzac legend. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(7.50) —This evening I would like to spend a few minutes talking about an area which it is fairly rare for anyone to visit, an area called Tibet. About 12 months ago I visited China and also went to Tibet. At the moment there is quite a discussion as to what is happening in Tibet. No one is quite certain, but it is believed that there have been a few problems in relation to Tibetan nationals complaining about treatment that could be the result of some disagreements with the Chinese. The Chinese naturally look on Tibet as part of China. We in Australia recognise that. In fact, Tibet is called the Autonomous Region of Tibet by the Chinese. The Chinese have occupied Tibet on and off for many hundreds of years. Tibet is an exceptionally beautiful country. I have always been fascinated with Tibet and I must say that when I went there I was really impressed. What impressed me the most was the Tibetan people themselves. Mr Cobb —Great people. Mr CHYNOWETH —They are great people. They are very friendly people. I have travelled to many places in the world and I can say quite openly that nowhere else in the world have I met a friendlier race than the Tibetan people. They are extremely concerned about their God King, the Dalai Lama. Everywhere one goes in Tibet, certainly most of the major cities such as Lhasa and Shigatse, the Tibetan people who can say a few words of English ask for photographs of the Dalai Lama. He was chosen by them many years ago as their God and their King. The Chinese have liberalised the country immensely from what it was many years ago. The Tibetans are now allowed to worship, whereas 20-odd years ago they were not allowed to. The Tibetan people have a certain amount of freedom which, according to the literature one reads, they did not have many years ago. However, there is a certain amount of control over them. It is still very hard for them to practise their old ways, live in the ways they used to live and practise the culture that has been passed down from generation to generation. As I said, it is an extremely beautiful and attractive area. It could have a close relationship with Australia because we could play a part in many of the agricultural and mining industries being developed in Tibet. When I was in Tibet I spoke to some members of the Ministry for Development and they were very interested in some sort of co-operative venture with Australia. One of the things that many people do not realise is that Tibet has the greatest exposure to sunlight of any area except the Sahara. Solar energy is a big business in Tibet. We are leaders in some areas of solar energy and I believe that there is a prospect for some of our equipment to go to Tibet. Communications are bad, especially in Lhasa and back down into China. We have made microwave equipment that is powered by solar energy. I believe that Telecom Australia could play a large part in promoting our products into this very beautiful country. When I returned I spoke to the then Minister for Trade, the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Dawkins), and raised with him several areas in which I thought we could be involved in some sort of trade. I believe that I am the only politician in this Parliament-certainly I am the only Government member of parliament-actually to have visited Tibet. I can say to other members, on both sides of the House, that if they get the opportunity they should go to Tibet to learn more about these very gentle and lovely people. Tibet is a magnificent land. It has huge forests. The physical beauty of the place is hard to describe. The buildings are beautifully decorated. The people themselves are excellent. I can assure honourable members that I will be keeping a close eye on what happens in Tibet. I trust that the people there will come to some amicable agreement and that all this trouble that seems to be building up will settle down very quickly. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(7.55) —Tonight I take the opportunity to refute some scurrilous accusations that have been levelled at me and my colleagues the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis), the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) and the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr West) by members of the Miners Federation in Wollongong. They concern our ability to represent fairly the interests of the Miners Federation during these very troubled times in the coal mining industry. It is my understanding that some time today a Press release was issued by those gentlemen in Wollongong which suggests that we are out of touch with the problems in our local coal industry and that, although we make all the right noises when we are in Wollongong talking to the coal miners, when we come to Canberra suddenly we are muted and we do not make any representations on behalf of our constituents regarding the problems in the coal industry. If any honourable member on this side of the chamber were to make the same sorts of accusations they would be very quickly dispelled. During my last three years as a member of parliament I have scrupulously gone out of my way to make representations on behalf of the coal miners, their families and the region that I represent, as has my friend the honourable member for Throsby, who has just come into the chamber. During the last six months in particular we have gone out of our way, because of the very serious problems in the industry, to communicate with the coal miners and their union representatives in the Illawarra. During the recent election campaign we made offers to talk at aggregate and delegate meetings of the miners. Our offers were refused, although not with the courtesy of a letter. We were simply given a telephone call saying, `No, you can't come'. During the election campaign, the then Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, came to Wollongong to talk to the mining communities about their problems. Three people turned up. They were outnumbered by the media. After the election campaign similar approaches were made to the Miners Federation by my colleagues and I to go and talk to them. Again, there was not even the courtesy of a phone call in response to our letters and phone calls. The Caucus coal industry task force had a meeting in Wollongong. An invitation, first by telephone and secondly by letter, was extended to members of the Miners Federation to come and talk to us about the problems of the local industry. Once again, we were not even given the common courtesy of a response. We come to Canberra and assiduously attend meetings of the Caucus coal industry task force every week. We consider the industry's problems. We meet very regularly with the National Liaison Committee of the combined mining unions. Its members have no trouble coming to see us. They respect the opportunity that we give them, quite often at very short notice, to come and talk to us about the very real problems in the industry. We ensure that Ministers are available to talk to the coal miners. We put very strongly the views, not only of our own constituents, but of the constituents of all the coal mining districts around Australia. There is a major problem in the industry. I have spoken about it many times in this House. We have made representations to the Ministry. We have prepared a paper, as members of the Caucus coal industry task force, which we have submitted to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) and asked him to take into consideration. During the last 12 months we have put up a number of papers and representations to him on such issues as national interest provisions in dealing with his power to veto coal contracts. Once again, he has taken them into consideration. I have had a gutful of the attacks that have been levelled at me and my colleagues regarding our supposed lack of action on behalf of the coal mining unions, their families and the local districts of the Illawarra. What I have said today I will say to the coal mining unions personally if we are given the opportunity to put our case to them. It is a funny thing, but in the Illawarra it appears that it is only the combined mining unions that do not want to talk to the local members. Quite frequently in the last three years there have been meetings between the local members and the South Coast Trades and Labour Council, which represents a variety of other unions on the South Coast. We have thrashed out some considerable problems, the latest being the problems in the steel industry. We have been available and the Labour Council has been available. The miners do not want to talk to their elected representatives but the elected representatives are quite willing to talk to them and will continue to make representations on their behalf, despite the things that they may say about us, put out in Press releases or put around to their members. Fortunately, their members do not believe anything the officials say about us. That can be attested to by our interaction with them at the coal face directly or through our Australian Labor Party branches. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 8 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Young to move- That, unless otherwise ordered, the House shall meet for the dispatch of business on the following days and at the times specified: Monday, 2 November, at 2 p.m. Tuesday, 3 November, at 3 p.m. Wednesday, 4 November, at 10 a.m. Thursday, 5 November, at 10 a.m. Mr Kerin to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Trust Fund Act 1984. The following paper was deemed to have been presented on 28 October 1987: Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act-Certificate pursuant to paragraph 9(1)(b), dated 28 October 1987.