Wednesday, 23 March 1988 The House met at 10 a.m. The Clerk-In the unavoidable absence of Madam Speaker, the Chairman of Committees will take the chair as Acting Speaker. Mr ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Leo McLeay) thereupon took the chair, and read prayers. Debate resumed from 22 March, on motion by Mr Holding: That the Bill be now read a second time. Ms JAKOBSEN(Cowan)(10.02) —In continuing my remarks of last night on the Trade Practices Amendment Bill, I reiterate my absolute support for the proposal contained therein to repeal section 65u which contains a sunset clause on the application of produce safety and product information provisions relating to food and drink for human consumption. As was mentioned yesterday, this clause will take effect on 1 July 1988 unless repealed. Failure to repeal section 65u will render the Commonwealth powerless to recall unsafe food and drink products sold in Australia. Honourable members will recall that the Opposition has circulated an amendment to this clause of the Bill which would extend the sunset clause for a further two years, supposedly to provide the States with more time to introduce their own legislation. This cannot be viewed as anything other than a stalling mechanism which may or may not receive the support of the Australian Democrats when the Bill reaches the Senate. Hopefully, the Democrats, who originally proposed the inclusion of this section in the Act two years ago at the behest of the food industry, will now realise that sufficient time has passed for those States which are dinkum about this measure to have introduced it. Even in the unlikely event of all States enacting legislation to cover this area, there would be little prospect of uniformity. There is no uniformity now between Queensland and Western Australia, for instance. National legislation is the only way that all Australian consumers can be adequately and properly protected from the sale of unsafe food and beverages. Food and drink are essential consumer products which are produced in most States and transported to most others. It is a national enterprise and is not contained within State borders. For instance, except for some localised products, generally of a perishable nature, such as eggs, butter, milk, et cetera, it is difficult to think of processed foods and beverages which would not have a market in more than one State. Even cheese, which is often seen as local, is traded among States and the milk which is used to make the cheese may have been an interstate product as well. Where a safety related recall is required it is generally national in character and national co-ordination is absolutely essential. If section 65u is not repealed, the Federal Government may be unaware of food safety problems and product recall may be conducted on a State-by-State basis, with little or no oversight to ensure that the protection of all consumers in the nation is a priority. Failure to repeal this section would have the effect of removing foods and beverages from the scope of division 1a of the Act, as I have said, and would effectively remove the Federal Government's power to prevent the supply of unsafe food products. This would mean that we would be unable to prevent the supply of a food product even where it can be demonstrated to be unsafe and a threat to the health and safety of consumers. The States have a legitimate role in food safety, particularly through the Australian food standards code and their own health and food inspection systems. The honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) made great play of the States rights arguments in his contribution to the debate yesterday. One can almost understand his view on this matter given the excellent record of the South Australian Labor Government on consumer affairs generally. Unfortunately, he totally overlooked the need for national legislation to ensure that life threatening foodstuffs and beverages are not sold in one State after having been banned in another. The reserve ability to protect consumers nationally from defective foods and beverages must remain with the Federal Government under the Trade Practices Act. The honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) used part of his time in this debate to attack the Australian Consumers Association (ACA) for having the temerity to test foodstuffs and comment on the results obtained in its magazine Choice. Why should the ACA not say that various brands of pate, for instance, contain too many bacteria if that is true and if that is what its tests have shown? Why should it not point out to its constituent group, the consumers of Australia, that preparation, storage and transport of this high protein food must be undertaken in conditions that prohibit the growth of dangerous micro-organisms? As a lover of pate in all its forms, home made and store bought, I took the comments of the ACA seriously when I read them in Choice. Hopefully, so did other consumers of that type of product, and also the manufacturers. The comments of the honourable member for Ryan against the Australian Consumers Association simply reinforced the view that the Opposition does not care about the rights of consumers, or their hardworking advocates. Although the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) implored us all to believe in the Opposition's basic integrity on consumer issues, the attitude of the honourable member for Ryan tends to bolster a contrary view. To conclude my remarks on this Bill I would like to make brief mention of another amendment which prohibits false representations of the value of goods or services. The amendment to section 53 provides that a corporation shall not falsely represent that goods or services are of a particular value and it is designed to remove any doubt that this section prohibits false representations as to the value of goods or services. There is a propensity, or appears to be, for cosmetic firms and others to advertise bonus offers of goods said to be of a certain value which can be purchased at a reduced price on the condition of the simultaneous purchase of other items of the same brand. Possibly the worst example of false representation of product value can be seen in the rash of television advertising of pearls and other items of jewellery on mail order basis. The value attributed to many of these items by the advertiser is seldom evident on receipt of the goods by the hapless purchaser, who has very little opportunity of obtaining redress. I have received a number of complaints about the shoddy nature of such goods and it is obvious that they, and the special offer items which frequently accompany them, are not worth the money paid, let alone the inflated value claimed for them by the advertiser. This type of sales pitch seems to be particularly targeted at women and I suggest to the House that it is an area that has definitely needed overhauling. I commend the Bill, I commend the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and I commend the Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples), who is currently at the table, the previous Minister for Consumer Affairs. I ask the House to accept this Bill and to reject the Opposition's proposed amendment. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(10.08) —The relatively moderate speech of the honour-able member for Cowan (Ms Jakobsen) and the speech of the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) last night, for those who have been following this debate-most of which took place yesterday-are in considerable contrast to the emotional and falsely rhetorical speeches of the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright), who led for the Government in this debate, and the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner). The whole impression that those Government speakers have managed to convey is that the Opposition, the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia, are not supportive of what the Government is trying to do in the field of consumer protection. This is a totally false impression. The Trade Practices Amendment Bill is receiving the support of the Opposition. The public, listening on a broadcast day yesterday, would hardly have got the impression that that is the case. In fact, the Opposition supports the Trade Practices Amendment Bill. There is a question relating to the second amendment in the Bill which relates to the so-called sunset clause, section 65u of the Act. The Government proposes that this section be repealed. The Opposition proposes that it be va-ried in such a way as to maintain the status quo that currently prevails. As the honourable member for Cowan I am sure would concede, the situation that currently prevails is one in which the Commonwealth does have responsibility. In the areas of product safety, product information standards and the mandatory recall of hazardous goods it has general jurisdiction. The existing sunset clause in the Act provides for that res-ponsibility to cease on 1 July 1988, that is two years after that provision was put into the Act in 1986. The Opposition's amendment proposes that that period be extended to 1 July 1990. The amendment proposes that section 65u be repealed and replaced with a new clause 65u which would read: On 1 July 1990 this Division shall cease to have effect in respect of goods which are foods and drinks intended for human consumption. In the interval one would expect that the States will move more specifically and definitely into this area and the matter can then be looked at in 1990. The effect of the Opposition's amendment is that the status quo, the present Federal responsibility which reposes under the Trade Practices Act, continue. So product safety, pro-duct information standards and mandatory recall of hazardous goods would remain within the purview of the Federal Trade Practices Act. The sorts of concerns expressed by the honourable member for Cowan particularly about the purchase of food products, say, in Brisbane and their consumption in Perth and discovery that they were hazardous or inadequate do not apply. It is clear that what the Opposition is suggesting in this respect is not that responsibility in this area cease but that the existing situation prevail for a further two years. With that aspect of the matter clear and despite all the emotionalism of the honourable member for Capricornia last night and the honourable member for Hughes, we can go on to the other two amendments proposed in this legislation which have the full support of the Opposition. The first is an amendment that relates to section 53 in division 1 of part V of the Act, consumer protection, and deals with false re-presentations. The amendment proposes to remove any doubts that that section will work to prohibit false representations as to the `value' of goods and services. This is essentially a clarification of the existing prohibition on false representations that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality or grade. So under the proposed addition to the provision, section 53, if a value at some multiple of the real market value is put on a good the issue is whether that is a false representation that the good is of a higher quality or standard that it actually is. Maybe this could be so in isolated or occasional cases and so there may be some scope for affirming that section 53 should prohibit false representations as to the value of goods and services. The Opposition does not oppose this. I am just set to wondering whether such a provision would have caught up the assertion that Barrie Unsworth is good value-there was a very clear demonstration at the weekend that he was not, or at least that the majority of electors in New South Wales did not think him so! Be that as it may, one may be sceptical about the view that false representation in relation to value or even these other matters would be a pervasive or common occurrence, and certainly where there is effective competition that could hardly be the case. That brings me to the main point I wish to make in this debate. The part of the Trade Practices Act that we are mainly concerned with, part V, dealing with consumer protection, is not the only nor even the most important way, mechanism, of affording benefit or relief to consumers. We have heard about so-called consumerism. The Liberal and National parties are fully committed to the consumer, every bit as much as the Australian Labor Party professes to be, but they are so committed in the context of their conviction that there is, generally speaking, no conflict between the consumer and the provider in the free enterprise system. The main thrust of our attitude is that we want to free up markets, reduce regulation and encourage competition, in the conviction, as I say, that the effective working of competition in the marketplace provides benefit and protection to the consumer most of the time. Yet when this debate was listed we saw a long list of Government speakers anxious to wield the stick on the comparatively few cases of malpractice that do come up, and hardly able to restrain themselves from getting into some direct action to control the situation. In some cases that is justified. I submit that the incidence of such malpractice is pretty minute compared with the millions of exchanges, transactions, which take place in the market every day to the complete satisfaction of both buyer and seller. Indeed, the central thrust of the Trade Practices Act as a whole and the way in which the Act contributes most to consumer benefit is not through its consumer protection provisions but through its provisions which foster and strengthen effective competition in the marketplace. The so-called consumer protection provisions are there in the Act, and I stress that no-one in the Opposition is suggesting that they be repealed, reduced or impaired. That is the impression that the Government speakers in this debate have managed to convey, but it is not so. But we do believe that there has been undue emphasis on this and that the central thrust of the Trade Practices Act as a whole has been lost sight of. I remark in passing that the last time I had any significant involvement with this Act was eight or 10 years ago in the context of the traumas, which are still occurring, in the petrol reselling industry, when there was indiscriminate discounting, dislocation, losses and widespread threats to the continued viability of many small resellers in that industry. I suppose what we had there was both a consumer protection and a fair competition issue. That issue is still with us. Only recently representations were made to me in this regard. I understand that the Trade Practices Commission is presently conducting an investigation into this whole area as it is concerned that the spirit of the measures that were then taken are not being observed. Those measures were, of course, the passing of a petrol reselling franchise Act and a sites Act. The passing of that legislation seemed at that time in the circumstances the most direct way to contain the situation. The sites Act in particular was a very rigid, specific regulatory measure, actually specifying the number of petrol reselling outlets to be permitted to each of the major oil companies and other wholesale suppliers and providing for their gradual reduction. I mention this because it seems to me that that was a very direct approach to the problem-more consistent with the sort of approach being taken and frequently advocated on the other side. I believe that as the problem is still with us we need to think about a less direct approach which I believe would have been preferable. I accept the need for the franchise Act, but what was basically required in the other area was legislation to deem a wholesale price of petrol in the case of company or commission agent operated sites where the only price was the actual retail price. In the cut and thrust of competition between the major oil companies the retail price is often cut below the wholesale price to other sellers. I believe that the best and most effective way to tackle this problem of only a retail price is to provide for a deemed wholesale price and then to look at the whole situation in terms of undue price discrimination under section 49 of the Trade Practices Act, the price discrimination provision. Then, under that safeguard, the market and open competition can determine the outcome. Another important way in which consumers can benefit is through privatisation. The Government is in something of a mess over privatisation and perhaps it does not want to talk about it. It is showing up all its factional differences in this area and has elevated the subject to an ideological confrontation. I say that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has only himself to blame for the situation. It was he who not so long ago referred to privatisation as economic and social vandalism, when he said: What in the name of reason is the justification for breaking up and selling off the great and efficient national assets, like the Commonwealth Bank, Telecom, TAA and Qantas . . . But as the people of Australia come to realise the extent of the economic and social vandalism proposed by our opponents-and indeed as part of the process of promoting that awareness-it will be necessary for us-Ben Chifley's heirs and successors- this is the Prime Minister speaking- to keep fresh and green the memory, the example and the experience of this great Australian. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) for his part has described the coalition's proposals in this regard as a `Thatcherite vandalistic splurge'. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer have had somewhat of a Damascus Road like conversion on this but the only result is total confusion in the Australian Labor Party on the issue. It has contributed to the whole disarray in the Labor Party, which has resulted from disgraced Ministers, jobs for the boys-as exemplified by Mr Young-the sleaze factor in the Harris-Daishowa (Australia) Pty Ltd affair, and so on. The electorate in New South Wales expressed its views decisively on those matters last weekend. What is important is what will benefit consumers. Undoubtedly malpractices will occur which should be attacked by these consumer protection provisions, that members on the Government side have placed great emphasis upon in their contributions. But the important feature of privatisation is that it is not a matter of ideology but of common sense. That has been overlooked. Privatisation is about asking whether there is a benefit to be had by consumers. Does it reduce the scope for undue political influence? Will it facilitate capital injections, which we all know are urgently required by a number of important public enterprises at the moment such as Australian Airlines and Qantas Airways Ltd? The Government has been constrained by the demands of overall economic policy and indeed has not pushed ahead as quickly as it should in relation to Australia's vast overseas balance of payments problem and massive overseas debt. Under those circumstances the Government is not really in a position to make such provision of capital. What I am saying is that in contrast to all the fulmination we have heard, particularly from the honourable member for Capricornia, consumers stand to gain more in this area where the Government does not act because it is in such disarray. For example, I refer to the airline industry. The industry should be deregulated, competition injected and privatised. When that happens who could doubt that prices will come down significantly to the lasting benefit of all consumers. In conclusion I reaffirm that the Liberal Party-National Party coalition is not opposed to the consumer protection provisions of the Trade Practices Act. It is not opposed to the present amendments with the exception that we wish to provide for the extension of the sunset clause as I set it out. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SNOWDON(Northern Territory)(10.29) —I thank the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards) for his interesting although completely irrelevant comments. I shall not seek to argue with him the question of privatisation. I am sure he realises that the views of members on this side of the House are markedly different, as they ought to be, from the views of members of the Opposition. I shall be addressing the issue of intervention in the market in the course of my contribution to the debate. Before turning to the specific nature of the amendments I wish to comment on consumer protection generally. Obviously the amendments relate directly to consumers. It is important to recognise that this Government has amply demonstrated the depth of its commitment to Australian consumers. It was the first government in Australia to establish a ministry for consumer affairs in its own right. This Government stands on its record of ensuring that the rights and responsibilities of the consumer and the business community are explained and protected. The Opposition has expressed some grave concerns, dismay and a great amount of angst about the efforts of this Government to protect consumers. They have recently undertaken a series of vitriolic attacks against the Government's price watch structure, headed by the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) They were attacking him and the price watch committee for the revelation of the fees that doctors were charging. I inform the Opposition of the need for us to protect consumers. After all, the people who seek the services of medical practitioners are consumers. We ought to be aware of some of the things the price watch committee and this Government are concerned about. Honourable members will recall in the debate which was going on some weeks ago about the honourable member for Canning and the role of the price watch committee in addressing the medical profession the outrageous fees that some members of that profession-the minority of that profession-have sought to charge. On 2 March 1988 on the AM program there was an interview with Hilary Russell from Health Call in Victoria and Ken Sleeman, President of the Australian Medical Association (AMA) in Victoria. The interviewer was Laurie Neville. In that interview Peter Thompson, who was introducing the program, said: Victorian doctors are resorting to the use of debt collectors to recover unpaid fees. Debt collectors are being used by the medical profession to collect fees. It is not so much the question of the debt collection but why they are using debt collectors and for what purpose they are using them that is of concern. Hilary Russell stated: . . . there's a marked increase amongst practitioners to charge in excess of the schedule fee and we have many, many complaints where doctors and diagnostic groups have charged up to 100 per cent more than the schedule fee. Laurie Neville, the interviewer, challenged this and said: But perhaps doctors have done that and they have simply come to the end of their tether and there's no choice. Hilary Russell responded by saying: There is little evidence to show that there's clear communication or information given to patients, prior to a person undergoing a consultation or hospitalisation. It simply hasn't been built in to the way we use and the way in which the health services are provided. Up to 80 per cent of a practitioner's income is subsidised by the public purse. That is something which seems to be overlooked by the Opposition every time it addresses this question. Then there was a response from the AMA. Ken Sleeman responded: Well, there's no doubt that accountants tell us that we should be more efficient in our business practice and that's what it is, improved efficiency in business practice. In other words, they are ripping off the consumers and then getting in debt collectors to retrieve the fees that they have charged exorbitantly. Mr Tuckey —That is a load of rubbish. Mr SNOWDON —The evidence is in front of the honourable member. Mr Tuckey —Of course it is not in front of you. You don't even know what you are talking about. What is the schedule fee, you drip? Mr SNOWDON —I know a great deal more about what I am talking about than the honourable member does. I suggest that he listen to the rest of what I have to say. This Government stands on its record in the area of consumer affairs and consumer protection, much to the chagrin of the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). I can assure the honourable member for O'Connor and the honourable member for Berowra that this Government will endeavour to maintain the way in which it approaches the question of consumer protection and ensure that consumers are protected wherever they are and regardless of who they are getting a service from-whether it is doctors, lawyers or other professionals. I should like now to address myself in general to the comments made by the honourable member for Berowra in terms of deregulation of the market. When we talk about regulation and enforcement of consumer legislation we are, in effect, talking about the minimisation of harm to individuals. Ralph Nader, perhaps the world's foremost consumer advocate, has said, `Regulation saves lives'. How right he is. In a recent interview Nader claimed that since the passing in the United States Congress of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in 1966 more than 150,000 lives had been saved. I ask those members who are gung ho advocates of deregulation and believe that consumer regulation is merely red tape designed to frustrate the business community and build unwieldly Public Service bureaucracies to consider a world without consumer regulations. There would be no product recalls, no seat belts in motor vehicles, no checks on our children's toys for safety or toxicity, and no safety standards for food additives. In addressing this matter Ralph Nader said: Regulatory agencies help to protect our long term safety and health: enhance equity in the marketplace: empower consumers and workers: spur new and socially useful technologies: provoke greater academic and journalistic inquiry; and provide some measure of democratic control over privately developed technologies that violate our society's ethical norms. There is no doubt that consumer regulations restrict some aspects of the free market. But even free market champions such as Adam Smith, in this seminal work entitled The Wealth of Nations, could see the sense in setting limits on what he termed `the simple system of national liberty'. Smith conceded that there were conditions under which the state could and should intervene to correct faults in the system, as I am sure the honourable member for Berowra would acknowledge. I am not seeking to lecture such an eminent person. Mr Smith also allowed that the private sector was not necessarily the best provider of all social and public goods. I am sure that the honourable member for Berowra, especially, is conversant with the following statement-and I hope that the honourable member for O'Connor is, too; if not, he will be shortly-by Mr Smith: Whenever you get more than two capitalists together there is a conspiracy against the consumer. The history of the consumer rights movement is littered with stories of rip-offs, fly-by-nighters, deception and unscrupulous business practices. To be fair to the business community, it would not be responsible or just to allow to proliferate from State to State and from Territory to State a series of laws which created a nightmare of differing regulations which produced uncertainty, speculation or added cost. That is why this Government has made it clear that it is committed to having uniform legislation throughout Australia. It is also clear that the general community wants consumer regulation and protection. It has been shown that consumers who are aware of their rights often provide positive feedback to retailers and manufacturers, who can then tailor their services accordingly and offer an improved service or product. Last week the Trade Practices Commission opened an agency in Darwin which will provide a closer watch on any illegal or unfair trade practices in the Northern Territory. This move is to be highly commended. Previously in the Territory there have been some difficulties in providing advice and keeping people up to date with consumer information. There is no doubt that the agency will give Northern Territory business and consumers alike greater protection, with access to staff trained to advise in trade practice matters. Certainly, the new Darwin agency will contribute to the Commission's ability to enforce the Trade Practices Act in the Territory. I believe that both this Government and the Northern Territory Government are to be commended for the establishment of the agency. Whilst on the subject of the Northern Territory and the need for consumer awareness and consumer education, I would like to address briefly the matter of consumer education amongst Aboriginal Territorians. To its credit, this Government is in the process of developing, a Consumer education program for Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. These people are the ones who are ripped off most often by unscrupulous dealers in the marketplace. There are numerous examples of the way in which the business community has used its position in the retail and other industries to exploit the inability of some of my Aboriginal constituents to read and write English or to understand the intricacies of the marketplace. One of the most outstanding areas in which this happens is in the retailing of second-hand cars. There are numerous examples of people involved in the used car industry in the Northern Territory who have used every trick in the book to exploit my Aboriginal constituents. I am sure that this does not happen just in the Northern Territory. I am sure that it also happens in Western Australia, Queensland and, no doubt, South Australia. It is also true that there are stories of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory being charged twice the cost for goods in shops. An instance was related to me this morning of a person being instructed by an employer to charge Aboriginal people double the price. That is why consumer protection is needed in this country and why we must look carefully at the way in which members of the business community are addressing the question of providing services to the public. Whilst we look at the marketplace and the retail industry, it is important that we recognise the role of professionals in that area. I return to what I said at the commencement of my remarks in this debate: it is important that we recognise that there is not a single area of the business community that does not bear scrutiny. I have highlighted the concern expressed by consumers of medical services in Victoria of the need to be wary of the role of some members of the medical profession who use their office and their position, in circumstances where they have overall control of their clients, to demand exorbitant fees. In a recent debate in the House we heard how ophthalmic surgeons or ophthalmologists in the Hunter Valley, and orthopaedic surgeons in Wollongong, were using the system to rip off people in the way I have mentioned. Those are matters that the price watch committee, chaired by the honourable member for Canning, has been seeking to address, much to the chagrin of some members of the Opposition. I am sure that the honourable member for Berowra is not one of those and shares my concern that those people in private enterprise who seek to rip off consumers should be controlled. While we are talking about regulation and deregulation, I suggest to members of the Opposition that the market can be deregulated as much as one likes, but the important thing is to recognise that the marketplace will operate to the best advantage of those who sell commodities. That is what has happened traditionally in this country, and that is why this Government is interested in consumer protection and will fight for the interests of the consumers. In the time left to me in this debate, I wish to address the main aspects of the Trade Practices Amendment Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to make three amendments to the consumer protection provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974, each relating to developments since the last major revision of the Act in 1986. This Government attaches great importance to ensuring that the Act is effectively achieving its aim of providing consumers and business people with an appropriate measure of protection against unscrupulous traders-the type of person I have mentioned. The first amendment provides that a corporation-and in some cases an individual-shall not, in trade or commerce, falsely represent that goods or services are of a particular value. This amendment should remove any doubt that section 53 prohibits false representation as to the value of goods or services. The second amendment proposes the repeal of section 65u of the Act. As the honourable member for Berowra said, that section deals with a sunset clause and the application of the product safety and product information provisions of the Act relating to food and drink for human consumption, which will take effect from 1 July 1988. As the House has been told, this section was originally enacted in the belief that uniform State and Territory legislation would be passed, but unfortunately that has not occurred. I would like to know why that is so. The repeal of section 65u will enable the Commonwealth to coordinate any national safety-related food recall. Without the repeal of this section, the Commonwealth will lose the power to ban the supply of unsafe food and beverages, to set safety or information standards in respect of food and beverages, and to require suppliers to take action to protect consumers from a hazardous food or beverage if voluntary action proves unsatisfactory. Division 1a of part V of the Act is concerned with product safety standards, the banning of unsafe consumer products, and the recall of consumer products with safety-related defects. It is essential that this nation have a uniform system of food and beverage recall. It is a fact of life that food and beverages are distributed and marketed nationally. For instance, in the Northern Territory one has only to drive along the Stuart Highway from Alice Springs to Darwin and witness the hundreds of road trains which truck in the Territory's food supply to realise that State and Territory borders are meaningless when it comes to food distribution. If there are unscrupulous traders who want to move, from one part of the country to another, products which should have been recalled, without the authorities being informed, they are able to do so. If we are to safeguard the public, it is imperative that we have in place an assured national protection mechanism which provides for a coordinated approach to safety-related food recalls. In relation to food recalls, what happens now is that only when it appears that the voluntary system of recall is not working-the State and Territory departments of health, in conjunction with the Commonwealth Department of Community Services and Health, regularly monitor the situation-the Federal Minister for Consumer Affairs advises whether, and what, powers will be used to protect the public interest. To date the Minister has never had to use his power of recall. All food recalls have been done on a voluntary basis, which is commendable. Since July 1986 there have been four national recalls involving products such as ice confection, tuna, dried food and desiccated coconut. In several States, items such as baby food, cheese, brown sugar and ricotta cheese have been recalled voluntarily during the same period. In consultation with the States and Territories, the Commonwealth has recently established the Uniform Food Law and Interpretation Committee to administer the uniform laws. At its last meeting, it recommended that some form of uniform Commonwealth recall legislation be introduced. The amendment before this House is a result of that recommendation. For instance, if the Northern Territory wanted to ban a particular product, this Committee, which has representatives of every State and Territory department of health, would consider and make recommendations to the Minister for a national recall. Two observers from New Zealand also attend these meetings in order to harmonise food laws across the Tasman. What will happen in the future is that the national recall system will be coordinated by the Uniform Food Law and Interpretation Committee secretariat and, naturally, will be oversighted by the Committee. In order that this system of national food and beverage recall works effectively, it is imperative that the Trade Practices Act have the power to effect such recalls. The amendments before the House have been seen by the Business Regulation Review Unit, which is set up to examine all proposals which may impose new regulations on business, and have been given the all clear. None of the amendments imposes any additional regulation. These amendments are a perfect example of administrative housekeeping by the Federal Government and demonstrate, as I have said, our concern for consumer protection. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr KERR(Denison)(10.48) —I do not propose to discuss at length the machinery provisions of the Trade Practices Amendment Bill, which have been so well dealt with by previous spokesmen for the Government, including, most recently, by the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Snowdon). But let me just say two things about them. Firstly, they show the careful process of attention to the trade practices area that the Government has been following for a number of years. Trade practices legislation has become the cornerstone of consumer protection. The provisions in the Trade Practices Act form the basis of a secure understanding by consumers that they have certain rights that they can enforce in law throughout Australia. Without that broad national framework, we would go a long way backwards in protecting consumers. It is particularly important to note the extension and preservation of the food product provisions in the Trade Practices Act, which, it was originally thought, would be areas adopted by the States. Because of the failure of the States to take up that challenge, it has become essential that the Commonwealth proceed to maintain the provisions in its own legislation and to provide for a national scheme of recall and food standards, which is so important. The rest of the Bill essentially contains tidying up provisions. Let me say some things about the generality of this debate. There are issues that ought to be drawn to the attention of the public very widely. We heard from the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards) a claim that the Liberal Opposition is as committed to consumer protection as the Government. That is a very easy thing to say. I would like to see a copy of the Liberal Party's policy on consumer affairs. I certainly have not been able to find one. It may be such a popular document that it is out of print, but I suspect that the reality is that no such document exists. In this debate the Government is addressing a series of specific, concrete issues. The Opposition is responding in generalities, with no concrete policy framework in place. That is very sad. It is sad for consumers and it is sad for the political process. This process of debate and discussion should be about the contest of ideas, about two sets of policy prescriptions matched up so that the public can say, `We prefer that world view' or, `We prefer another way of seeing the situation'. Unfortunately, only one side in this debate has put forward prescriptions that can be tested and measured. If one wants to look at where the Liberals perform in consumer affairs, where better to look than the one State which has had a Liberal administration for a considerable period. I refer to Tasmania, my home State, and a very pleasant State. One thing it does not have is any effective consumer affairs protection whatsoever at a State level. The Australian Consumers Association recently produced a document called Consuming Interest, a three-monthly newsletter. Consuming Interest has conducted a survey and made its assessment of the effectiveness of consumer affairs Ministers throughout Australia. It is interesting to note that in that assessment the Tasmanian Minister for Consumer Affairs, Mr John Beswick, is rated eighth out of nine Australian consumer affairs Ministers in terms of effectiveness. From my knowledge of Tasmanian consumer affairs, which is basic because, apart from the sale of goods Acts and one or two pieces of minor poisons legislation there is no Tasmanian consumer affairs legislation. My knowledge suggests that whoever came in ninth out of nine must represent the bottom of the bucket. To indicate the impact that the Tasmanian Minister made in consumer affairs it is worth noting as an aside that Consuming Interest even got his name wrong. He was referred to as Richard Beswick, in the same way, I suppose, as John Fraser made an impact on the Americans when he descended to impart his wisdom to the United States. So, too, Richard John Beswick obviously has made very little impact in terms of his capacity to stamp his mark on Australian consumer affairs. That is the situation with the Liberals in the State they govern. In the State they govern there is no consumer legislation, no mechanism to protect the interests of those who are ripped off, no system to look after those who are weak and unable effectively to bargain strongly in the marketplace. We have the platitude that the Liberals are as concerned as the Labor Party. They may be as concerned but they do nothing about it. They put no mechanisms in place. They have no national policy. At the State level in the State they administer they have enacted no laws, despite their having been in government for many years. That is a very strange claim, therefore, to make, is it not? It is a claim that cannot be supported. Before I close my remarks, I want to say something about regulation. Of recent times a perception has been growing in the community that regulation is bad per se. That cannot be true. We regulate our affairs by laws, procedures, to ensure that we conduct ourselves safely and with care for others. Without some framework of safety and health regulations we would live in a very brutish and unsatisfactory society indeed. At a very simple level, we have traffic laws that ensure that people do not drive on both sides of the road, so that they respect each other's rights to use the roads. We insist that people driving in one direction use one side of the road and others driving in another direction drive on the opposite side. That is obvious and very straightforward. We do it to protect the public good. In the same way, there are many areas in the consumer field where regulation is appropriate and must be implemented. It is not only in consumer fields; it is in areas where health and safety standards in the work place are important. Too simplistic analyses are sometimes made about the cost of consumer protection and regulations. Certainly, it is the case that we need to make sure that we do not have unnecessary regulation. The Government has moved by way of establishing the Business Regulation Review Unit to ensure that unnecessary regulations that impose greater burdens than benefits are cast away. But let us not throw out the baby with the bath water. There is a legitimate case for pointing out the social benefits that accrue with some processes of regulatory frameworks. Take the very simple example of the asbestos industry. It is notoriously difficult for individual litigants to prove damage as a result of exposure to asbestos. Cases are before the courts at this very time in which the plaintiffs have been seeking damages. They claim that they have been injured by exposure to asbestos at the work place and as a consequence have suffered a diminution in their life span, that they have had various effects in their lungs. Some instances of that kind have been before the courts for years. Unfortunately, those claims are vigorously defended. I understand that at present only one such case has proceeded to a successful conclusion and that obstacles for plaintiffs in such cases are manifold. For example, there may be alternative exposures other than at the work place. There may be instances where people have smoked and therefore some of the symptoms in their lungs might be attributable equally to the smoking as to the asbestos. So there is this long, protracted situation in which those who have been exposed to harm have found it enormously difficult to battle individual cases through the courts. The upshot is that almost everyone who is familiar with this area believe that many people whose health and life spans have been significantly reduced by the asbestos industry will never be able to claim compensation from that industry. My experience with such claims arises out of the Baryugil litigation. For some short time I was associated with claims being pursued by a community of Aboriginal workers who had claimed that they had been affected by asbestos exposure in the north of New South Wales. It is a very sad case. It had been given the attention of the Houses of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal affairs and the Caucus Aboriginal affairs committees in years past. That case has been pursued in the civil courts over many years. The length of that protracted case seems to be an instance in which the long, slow process of individuals seeking redress is not an appropriate or effective mechanism. Instead of just saying that we will leave this to the market, we need to set up some form of health and safety controls to make sure that mining is conducted in a safe and non-hazardous way. Although those controls impose certain cost burdens on the industry, the cost to us as a society is minimised because the controls avoid the personal tragedies of the people who have been exposed and also reduce the health costs and the various social costs that go with looking after people whose health has been affected. So there are always two sides of the regulatory equation. On the one side we must weight up the costs to a particular institution or industry and on the other we have the cost to the community of not regulating, and having to pick up substantial costs spread over a number of years-health costs, social costs and costs that are involved with coping with the effect of an unregulated work force, unsafe products or contaminated food. It is important to realise in weighing up our response in the overall framework of regulation that it is not a one-way street, that it is not simply an imposition of costs on industry but also a measure that is designed to ensure that the impact on society of the costs of an unregulated industry which it would otherwise impose is reduced. Where those costs are too extreme and where health and welfare risks are so high as to be unacceptable they should be eliminated. We are slowly realising with products such as asbestos that the risks of using them effectively means that their use has to be eliminated. All I wish to say in conclusion is that there is a real challenge in terms of our thinking in this debate for us to focus on regulation not only as a cost to service providers but also as a benefit to the community as a whole to make sure that we do not pick up in the future all the additional social costs. The Government has put in place a very balanced framework. It is conscious of the need to continue a strong front on consumer affairs. Its legislation is in place and its record is one of which it can be proud. The consumer affairs provisions of the Trade Practices Act are a very important element. The amendments proposed in the Bill will streamline the provisions of the Act and make them work more effectively. By contrast, the Opposition has no claim in justice to say that it has any concern in this area. It has no policy and in the State in which it holds government it has taken no action in this area. So the contrast should be clear to those who are concerned to ensure that the health and the interests of consumers throughout Australia are safeguarded. The message should be clear to those who wish to make a judgment between the respective claims of the two sides that have put arguments before this Parliament. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga-Minister for Housing and Aged Care)(11.03) —I appreciate the debate on the amendments contained in the Trade Practices Amendment Bill. In many cases the speeches have been relevant to the amendments, and that is quite an achievement. There were a few digressions regarding privatisation, cigar smoking, mergers, the Harris-Daishowa affair and the New South Wales election, to name a few, but generally the debate centred on the amendments and brought out some of the important issues involved. It also highlighted the difference between the two sides of this House on issues relating to consumer affairs. The honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards) said that both sides of the Parliament had a shared concern for consumers but, with due respect to my friend the honourable member for Berowra, I would hope that people would not get the impression that we share concern in the same way. I think this debate, particularly on section 65u of the Act, would show the difference between the two. I am sure we will be coming back to that discussion in the committee stage. I thank all honourable members for their contributions and commend the Bill to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(11.05) —I move: Clause 4, page 2, omit the clause, substitute the following clause: Extension of section 65U ``4. Section 65U of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section is substituted: Cessation of Division in respect of food and drinks `65U. On 1 July 1990 this Division shall cease to have effect in respect of goods which are foods and drinks intended for human consumption.'.''. I would like to respond to an attempt to mislead totally those who are listening to the debate about the position of the Opposition in relation to consumer affairs. I think the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Snowdon) said this morning that this Government was the first to have a Minister for Consumer Affairs. In 1975 the Fraser Government created a new ministry called Business and Consumer Affairs. For those who have that quaint idea, I point out that the Trade Practices Act was brought about in an effort to make the position of the consumer paramount in the business sector and goes back to the Menzies Government. So there is nothing quaint, novel or innovative about the Australian Labor Party Government having such a ministry. It is highly erroneous to put that idea forward. If the Government wants to talk about consumer affairs it should look at what its Department of Community Services and Health is dishing out to the consumer. I have letters from people who have not been able to get medical attention for years because of the activities of this Government. Some emotive rubbish emanated from the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) about the Opposition supporting the three amendments proposed by the Trade Practices Amendment Bill. In moving an amendment to clause 4 we are saying that, by repealing section 65u of the Act and not replacing it, the Government has moved to pre-empt the rights of the States in relation to consumer affairs. Presumably, agreement was reached by the Minister for Consumer Affairs (Senator Bolkus) with the States to bring in mirror legislation. Western Australia and Queensland have done it, and the other States have not, which reflects on the Labor Party governments in these States-except Tasmania. It is not a problem as far as we are concerned; it is a problem of consumer affairs amongst Labor State governments. Mr Kerr —And Tasmania-Liberal. Mr MOORE —And Tasmania, but the vast majority-New South Wales, Victoria, and South Australia-have Labor governments. They purport to be great crusaders of consumerism. The States that have fallen down are the Labor States. In moving this amendment we are proposing that the sunset clause be extended for a further two years-not dropped, as the Government is doing. We are putting pressure on the Minister for Consumer Affairs-a ministry which was brought in more than a decade ago-to ensure that the people who he spoke to, his Labor mates, act accordingly. To mention one's Labor mates is like using a dirty word these days, but he should be talking to them. I wish to raise two other matters. The presumption is that by making its amendment to the Act the Federal Government will move into consumer affairs on its own account. I assume that there is no other reason for this provision. Otherwise it would have extended the sunset section itself. Repealing section 65u will enable some fairly pre-emptive activity by the Government. The Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples), the former Minister for Consumer Affairs, who is at the table, practised a bit of this recently in relation to smokeless tobacco. He acted, when the American trade envoy was here, to ban that product. I would have thought that had more to do with areas of health, but the then Minister for Consumer Affairs stepped in with a weighty contribution when a leading trade negotiator from America was here. Such moves lead to court actions; they certainly do not lead to trade improvements. It seemed to me to be wholly outside his area of responsibility. Mr Staples —What has this got to do with 65u? Mr MOORE —It relates to 65u because by dropping the sunset provision the Government is apparently taking unto itself the authority to act unilaterally in an area which is predominantly a State area. I have drawn out the double standards which the Government has embarked upon. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga-Minister for Housing and Aged Care)(11.10) —Section 65u of the Trade Practices Act relates to food recall. It is worth while bringing to the attention of the Committee the fact that food, of all consumer goods, is the most important because of its impact on people's health. The food industry in Australia is very competitive and essentially it is a very efficient industry. In my brief time as Minister for Consumer Affairs I had the opportunity to get closely involved with the industry and, I believe, to develop a very good relationship with it. The competitive and very sophisticated food industry is very much aware of the problems that can be caused to a particular manufacturer in the industry or, through spin-offs, to other manufacturers producing similar products if a product produced by one manufacturer proves in some way or another to be defective and worthy of recall. That is why the food industry takes this issue very seriously. In the time I was Minister for Consumer Affairs there were few examples of this type of problem and they were handled most efficiently. Unfortunately, there have been instances in the past, despite the fact that there has been no need for mandatory recall, where the procedures have not gone smoothly. Part of the problem is that we are dealing with an issue in which the manufacturers as well as the distributors are involved. Once food leaves the factory and moves through the distributors and retail outlets into the homes of consumers the distribution process is far more diffuse and the difficulty of retrieving unsafe food becomes far more difficult. Because of the relationship of food to health, safety, and so on, it has a great impact on the consumer and, in effect, on the retailer, or more particularly on the manufacturer. The food industry is very concerned about this, as well it may be, and I appreciate the work it has done in ensuring that the processes work well. In talking about food standards and food as a consumer item it is worth while going back about 85 years to when we as a Commonwealth started talking about food standards, model food Acts and related issues. For 85 years, in one way or another, we have been trying to get some form of uniformity in Australia in food standards and matters such as we are dealing with in section 65u. It has taken us that long. Why should we be wanting to extend for another two years, as has been suggested by the Opposition, the time for the States to introduce uniform food standards. I know that the sun has been going down on the Liberal and National parties for a long time but I did not think they liked sunsets so much that they should want to bring in another one through this amendment. I appreciate the acceptance by the Opposition of the spirit and the letter of two of the amendments proposed by the Trade Practices Amendment Bill. I also accept the spirit of the Opposition amendment seeking to extend the sunset provision. But let us face it; there is quite a difference between the spirit and the letter of this amendment. Section 65u was inserted into the Act in 1986 at the insistence of Senator Haines in the Senate. Her intentions were good. Basically she said that it was to give the industry time in which to pressure the States into introducing consumer protection legislation in the area of food and drink supply and sale which was uniform and incorporated all the requirements contained in the Federal trade practices legislation. That intention, quite simply, has not been realised and nor is it likely to be in the foreseeable future. Of all the requirements in part V, division 1a, of the Act, only the mandatory recall of goods has been proposed for adoption by the State and Territory authorities, and only two jurisdictions-Queensland and Western Australia-have in fact made the necessary regulations. As honourable members would realise, there is quite a difference between bringing in the Act and promulgating the regulations that in this case would require the recall of food. Even so, that has not been done in a uniform manner. The honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) commented on that. I have no problem accepting his comments; I think that that should have been done. The States have had plenty of opportunity to introduce legislation but they have not, and certainly not in a uniform manner. That is one of the things raised by many members on both sides in relation to the transport of food across State boundaries. That is one of the problems we have. The food industry, of all industries in Australia, is a national-based industry. It is not related to just one State; it is a national industry and an international industry, and that needs to be considered. The presence of a Commonwealth Act of mandatory recall provisions is in any case desirable to ensure that hazardous goods banned in one jurisdiction are not dumped in another and can be withdrawn from sale simultaneously throughout Australia. Costs to the industry are also minimised when compared with the costs of complying with various State and Territory provisions. If the honourable member for Ryan, as I am sure he does from time to time, talks to people in the food industry he would know that one of the biggest problems that the industry has, whether in relation to packaging, labelling or whatever, is having to comply with the various regulations from State to State instead of being able to deal with a national approach. That is what it wants and that is what we are suggesting here. That will give it security. If this provision were not enacted costs to the industry could possibly increase. The other point that needs to be noted, because the Government is concerned about efficient industry and costs to industry, for the benefit of the industry, exporters and the consumer, is that this amendment will not impose any further regulation upon the food and drink industry as appropriate regulation currently exists. I believe the industry is quite happy with what exists. We have heard a lot of talk about States rights in relation to section 65u but we have not heard much about the things that go with such rights, that is, responsibilities. We have been talking about this whole general area for 85 years. I see no point in extending if for another two, another two after that and another two after that. That is the way it would go. I appreciate the Opposition's acceptance of the Government's Bill and the principles it has espoused but the Government cannot accept the proposal to extend it for a further sunset period of two years. If the States have not taken it up now there would be no incentivation, if you like, for them to take it up within another two years. It is a bit like Old Man River-it just keeps rolling along. People will realise the potential danger of any uncoordinated acts of recall. This legislation does give a national approach. It gives protection to the consumer, it gives protection to industry and I believe it gives protection to good government. For that reason I am afraid the Government will have to reject the amendment put forward by the Opposition. Amendment negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Staples)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 24 February, on motion by Mr Punch: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(11.20) —The Opposition fully supports the Norfolk Island Amendment Bill 1988, which will enable a further increase to this Territory's self-government powers. This legislation amends the Norfolk Island Act of 1979 to enable the Norfolk Island Government to appoint its own auditor to audit the public accounts of the Territory. While this Bill refers specifically to Norfolk Island, the Opposition is pleased to see legislation being brought before the House which enables our other Territories to have a greater sense of independence. The Norfolk Island Administration has proved to be very effective and efficient. I understand that there is a lesson to be learned by governments of a larger nature as far as budget deficits are concerned. Norfolk Island has had very few. In fact, some of its annual funding is received, to the extent of $300,000, from interest on its investments. That would indicate that its foreign debt is probably not as great as ours, nor is its government debt. This is the case even though we might call it a tax haven, as I understand that the maximum tax imposed on the inhabitants is a $200 a year works levy. So all in all I think this particular Administration can give a lesson to its mainland cousins. Therefore, it makes sense that it be given greater powers over its own affairs, as suggested by this Bill. The amendment itself is a Norfolk Island initiative, and obviously it would be quite happy to see the Bill passed. Under the Norfolk Island Act 1979 the accounts of the Territory were subject to inspection and audit by the Auditor-General of the Commonwealth. This amendment will enable the Norfolk Island Administration, on advice from the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly, to appoint its own auditor, whether it be a firm or an individual, and to determine the auditor's terms and conditions of employment. However, this does not prevent the Norfolk Island Administration from appointing as its audi-tor the Auditor-General, and of course the Auditor-General may accept that appointment. The Bill ensures that the person or firm appointed as auditor must be registered as an auditor under the Companies Act 1981 of the Commonwealth or the Companies Act 1985 of the Territory. The Territory's accounts must be audited at least once a year and the auditor must provide the President and the Administrator with a report on the inspection and audit. The definition of `accounts of the Territory' is: the accounts and records of financial transactions of the Administration and records relating to assets of, or in the custody of, the Administration; Provision is made for the Legislative Assembly to set auditing standards to be complied with by the audit and for the auditor's report to be tabled in the Legislative Assembly and sent to the Minister. The proposed amendments have no direct financial implication. As shown in the legislation, suitable safeguards are built into the amendments. While the Bill may seem a minor one, it is an important step towards the Norfolk Island Administration gaining greater responsibility and independence in the long term. I would like also to deal with the position of some of the other assemblies of our Territories. In particular, the Northern Territory has a problem. Even though it is self-governing, it lacks residual powers in certain respects. I understand residual powers could be passed to it, almost in the same way as these audit powers are being passed to Norfolk Island, that would enable the Territory itself to become economically independent, as this Government would want it to be, by way of making funding available to it on the basis that it is in effect a State. This economic independence would mean that it would have to have power over certain areas within its own jurisdiction. For instance, in relation to uranium residual powers have not yet been transferred to the Northern Territory Government and yet uranium mining must be seen as one aspect of the growth of the Northern Territory economy. Also, Kakadu National Park and other parks in the Territory are still under the control of the Federal Government in Canberra. Powers over the parks have not been transferred. Similarly, the land rights question is firmly in the hands of the Government and not the Territory, although the Territory Government would like to have such power. That is also the case with the other two areas I have mentioned. Transferring further residual powers in order to provide better government in the Territory would be more than appreciated. The other matter is one of industrial affairs, not a major one I believe, but one that should be considered also in that transfer arrangement. I also point out to the Norfolk Island Assembly the dangers that it faces being an assembly under the direct control of the Federal Government. In September of last year, the Christmas Island Assembly, only two weeks after re-election, was discharged from its responsibilities. That is putting it mildly; perhaps I should say that it was sacked by this Government. All control was taken from it despite the fact that it had been encouraged to hold that election only two weeks earlier. Mr Moore —They don't believe in democracy. Mr BRAITHWAITE —The Government does not believe in democracy, unless it operates in the way it defines it. If that can happen to the Christmas Island Assembly, I suggest that for one reason or another it could happen to any of the other assemblies in the Territories. I suggest that the assemblies in the Territories and Norfolk Island proceed cautiously with this as a reminder as there are still jurisdictional problems. I mentioned earlier that the task of the auditor is to examine records relating to the assets of Norfolk Island. The assets of great significance at the moment are the artefacts from the historic shipwreck, HMS Sirius. Whilst I know that the Minister at the table, the Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Punch) has given certain reassurances, there are problems, so I think it would be worth while reiterating them, particularly in our bicentennial year. There was an article in the Age of 2 February by Mr Kevin Childs, which brought attention to the problems faced in this regard. I think it is important to give a bit of the background of the shipwreck as it is probably one of the most significant assets owned by the Norfolk Island Assembly. What probably is not recognised in this bicentennial year is that HMS Sirius, which was one of the ships in the original fleet-we witnessed the re-enactment of its arrival on Australia Day 1988-was shipwrecked on Norfolk Island in 1790. The wreck remained untouched for quite a while, although it was known to be there. It was thought to be too dangerous to take too much off the ship, but certain provisions and artefacts were taken off at the time of the actual shipwreck. As I say, the wreck has great significance. People tend to believe that the Sirius is a wholly Australian-owned possession, being shipwrecked in our waters, although I understand that it would be debatable as to whether it was shipwrecked in Australian waters. I have not had the benefit of visiting Norfolk Island. I might suggest to the Minister that, if I am to discharge my duties properly, a visit to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Christmas Island and Norfolk Island, should be well within the order of things of this Government. Anyone who wants to visit Norfolk Island has to have his or her passport stamped with a visa before entering and leaving. One must question whether HMS Sirius was shipwrecked in Australian waters. The Norfolk Islanders certainly have much pride in this. The dispute centres around the fact that the Australian Bicentennial Authority-I cannot give the date-bought into this matter by funding three expeditions to the Sirius wreck. These were headed by Mr Graeme Henderson, who I believe is the curator of the Western Australian Maritime Museum. There was a preliminary expedition in December 1983 under Graeme Henderson. There was a full expedition in February-March 1985, and then a further full expedition in January-February 1987. Because the Australian Bicentennial Authority did buy into that as far as funding was concerned, probably with the assistance of the Western Australian Maritime Museum, there was some expectation that as a result the artefacts recovered belonged to the Australian Bicentennial Authority or perhaps the Australian Government and did not lie within the possession of Norfolk Island. The significance of the find can be assessed from the following comments that Mr Henderson made, which were widely quoted at the time: These artefacts throw new light on the flag ship of the First Fleet. Historically the Sirius can be described as Australia's most significant shipwreck but it has long been considered archaeologically barren. Now it has been revealed as a rich archaeological site. We are gathering a collection of great national importance and it is evident that there is a wealth of more material on the site. In fact some 600 artefacts were recovered at that time and there are indications that a significant number remain on the site. An initial agreement was then entered into between the Norfolk Island Government and the Australian Bicentennial Authority to allow some of these artefacts to be loaned to the travelling exhibition that is going around Australia at the moment. There is also an arrangement for conservation treatment to be given to the artefacts in Western Australia. Subsequent to all of that a loan was agreed to by the Norfolk Island Government to the 1988 Australian Bicentennial Exhibition, the travelling exhibition, and they also agreed in principle for the Government to loan specified relics to the International Cultural Corporation of Australia Ltd. The Norfolk Island Government perceived distinct changes in this attitude by the various mainland agencies and the rather extreme comments as to its right of possession, custody and control of the Sirius's relics. However, there was an assurance given by the former Minister for Territories, the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen), having been written to by the Administrator and by the Government, that the assets did belong to the Norfolk Island Government. But again the stress was there to make these relics and other things available for viewing on the mainland. In that respect we do have an assurance. I will later deal with the fact that the Minister has given a further assurance, which is welcomed, but perhaps I can explain later on that it is felt to be qualified, and there may be reasons for that. An assurance was given in 1984 by the Minister at the time that the relics were in fact Norfolk Island assets. The 1983 expedition report suggested that a Sirius museum should be established on the island to bring together as far as possible all material which was in the hands of some private collectors and also on the mainland. There, with appropriate stories and displays, the link between the history of the Island and the First Fleet could be on show. The 1985 expedition report also proceeded on the assumption that Norfolk Island would be the home of the Sirius collection, and this assumption was, of course, based on the Minister's assurance. Everything was going okay until then. The bicentennial loans then developed a character of their own. The Bicentennial Authority and the International Cultural Corporation of Australia seemed to be insisting on that greatest of all things that one can get from the Government, a non-repayable grant. Having received agreement from Norfolk Island to the loan of certain artefacts, agreement on a more permanent basis was sought in the form of an extended loan to both authorities. On 22 October 1987 at a Senate Estimates committee hearing in Canberra, Senator Richardson was asked by Senator Puplick about the status of the wreck Sirius and about who should have control of the artefacts that were disco-vered as a result of the work carried out on the wreck. The pertinent part of Senator Richardson's reply was that, given that the vessel went down in 1790, it presumably comes within the definition of a declared shipwreck. Senator Richardson said further: We are in the process, as you may know, of establishing a national maritime museum in Darling Harbour which would be able to present the artefacts from the Sirius in an appropriate location. People who live in Sydney and are close to the centre of power offer the argument that those artefacts would then be viewed by the greatest number of people. Others may have sympathy for that argument, but I suggest that Sydney would not be the best place to exhibit such artefacts. I refer not only to these particular items but also to other maritime artefacts that have been discovered around the Australian coastline. It may be that four million Sydney-siders would find that remark argumentative, but I believe there are other places of greater stature than Sydney. Obviously the residents of Norfolk Island believe that these historic artefacts could provide the base for a tourist industry at a resting place within view of where the Sirius went down and within a short distance of the pier itself. Senator Richardson then passed the matter over to a Mr Sergi. I understand Mr Sergi was the secretary to a Minister in the Federal Labor Government and that he transferred to the Australian National Maritime Museum. Mr Sergi suggested that by the artefacts being placed in Sydney the objects could be preserved in a professional way. This suggests that there is no professionalism on Norfolk Island to maintain the artefacts. I became interested in this matter when the name Sergi was first mentioned. In relation to the Pine Island lighthouse off Mackay, which has a 100-year history in the area, the Government made a concerted effort, through the Minister of the day and the Australian National Maritime Museum in Sydney, to take the Pine Island lighthouse from the Barrier Reef and place it in the middle of Sydney on the reasoning that more people could view it there. I could not think of anything more out of character than a lighthouse in the middle of the Darling Harbour complex or at the maritime museum. The lighthouse belongs on the Barrier Reef. In this regard I congratulate the former Minister, the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren), on his efforts. He gave an undertaking that the Pine Island lighthouse would remain on the coastline at Mackay and that it would not be transferred to Sydney. However, in spite of that assurance there is lingering doubt about what will happen. The mechanisms and lenses associated with the lighthouse are subject to a loan-this famous old method of transfer of possession-which has to be renewed every 12 months. I can see some reason for that but while ever they are subject to a loan to the Mackay lighthouse museum doubts remain as to whether they will always be in that position. Since that time, another lighthouse was taken away by stealth from the Cape Bowling Green area. The lighthouse was unmanned and was dismantled without any notification being given to me as the local member. That lighthouse was used to replace the Pine Island lighthouse in the museum. The then Minister, the honourable member for Robertson, said the artefact would remain the asset of the Norfolk Island Government. However, things have changed. The statement of Senator Richardson and the comments of Mr Sergi suggest that there was a determination to have those assets transferred from Norfolk Island to Sydney. Things got to such a state that the government of Norfolk Island refused to contemplate a fourth expedition to raise further artefacts because it was not reassured of the continuation of the commitment by the Minister in 1984 that the artefacts would remain on and in possession of the island. That fear was substantiated by the Australian Bicentennial Authority wanting to introduce itself at some stage of the proceedings as the borrower of those assets. In a letter to the Legislative Assembly of Norfolk Island the Minister for the Arts and Territories, on 18 February 1988, wrote, after discussions with departmental officers, of whom I think Mr Blunn was one: As my officers have indicated to you, I am prepared to reaffirm Mr Cohen's assurances, subject to the provisions of the Historic Shipwrecks Act . . . Norfolk Island will be the home of the `Sirius' relics, it needs to be resolved how this can be realised under the Act. There was, therefore, a slight qualification. Later in that letter he removed that qualification to a large extent. He said: I have no reservations in confirming that, subject to the Act, custody of the relics will be with the Norfolk Island Government. He said that the Sirius had significance for the 16 million mainland residents as well as the residents of Norfolk Island. The following qualification appears in the final paragraph on the first page of the Minister's letter: I must, however, have assurances of your expertise and financial commitment to preserve and exhibit that portion of the artefact which remains in Norfolk Island. The qualification is that if the 2,200 residents of Norfolk Island do not have the financial wherewithal, and they may have some limitations on their financial capacity, in spite of their good government and good budgeting, they might fail in this respect. I believe it is for the Government, if any financial deficiency exists that might not meet the Government's expectation in this regard, to give every assistance to the Norfolk Islanders to ensure the artefacts are preserved in a fashion appropriate to such important relics. I have a great belief that there is as much expertise in the far-flung outposts of Australia as there is in the heart of metropolitan capital cities. I believe also that that expertise would be available in a voluntary capacity. The Sirius artefacts must command the attention and support of all Australians in this bicentennial year. I welcome the reply of the Minister for the Arts and Territories. It is a departure from the half-hearted assurances that were given last year. I am pleased the Minister has made such a firm decision so quickly in this regard. I have no doubt that honourable members acknowledge that all auditors are honourable people and I trust that in this case the auditor concerned will be called to account for what is the survival of the most precious of the assets of Norfolk Island: the Sirius artefacts and relics. The Norfolk Island Amendment Bill is fully consistent with the Opposition's attitude of giving the Territories direction in their own affairs. The Opposition wholly supports the legislation. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(11.45) —I am pleased that the Opposition has chosen to support the Norfolk Island Amendment Bill. Obviously it is non-controversial. As the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) has just indicated, it proposes to appoint an auditor to look after the affairs of the Norfolk Island Government and, therefore, to remove the responsibility of the Commonwealth's Auditor-General for that particular task. The honourable member for Dawson raised a number of points not only in connection with this Bill but also in respect of issues generally within the portfolio of the Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Punch), who is at the table. I am sure that he will respond to a number of those points. Therefore, I will decline from making any comment myself. I would like to refer principally to the Bill itself and to the whole question of Norfolk Island self-government proposals. I think it is important that we look at the historical context in which we are examining the Bill before us today so that we do have a full appreciation of some of the difficulties which are obviously experienced in an outpost such as Norfolk Island not only by the Legislative Assembly but also by the Commonwealth Government in administering that particular area. The Norfolk Island Act 1913 declared that Norfolk Island be accepted by the Commonwealth as a Territory. In its historic context there is a deal of common ground between the Territory and Australia. It was governed by the Commonwealth initially under the provisions of that Act and subsequently under the provisions of the Norfolk Island Act 1957. Until the advent of the Whitlam Government, however, Norfolk Island was the victim of chance legislation and attitudes, but had very little interest taken in it. I think that is a sad reflection on what I understand to be a particularly beautiful area off the coast of Australia. I think it says something about a range of governments, up until the Whitlam Government in 1972-75, that that lack of interest dominated. The Minister for the Capital Territory in the Whitlam Government, Kep Enderby, visited Norfolk Island and demonstrated an interest in it in the early days of that Government. As a result, the Whitlam Government was very much aware that Norfolk Island was a fragile community economically, socially and environmentally and that in some way the Government, therefore, had to have a greater responsibility for its maintenance. In an attempt to find solutions to this situation, in 1975 the Whitlam Government gave Sir John Nimmo a royal commission to recommend on the future status of Norfolk Island and its constitutional relationship with Australia and on other associated matters. The report of the Royal Commission into Matters Relating to Norfolk Island containing 74 recommendations was presented to the Fraser Government in October 1976. In November 1978, some two years later, the Minister for Home Affairs, Bob Ellicott, presented the Norfolk Island Bill 1978 to the House on the basis that the Fraser Government `recognised the special relationship of the . . . descendants of Norfolk Island and their desire to preserve their traditions and culture . . . and considered it to be desirable and to be the wish of the people that Norfolk Island achieved, over a period of time, internal self-government as a Territory under the authority of the Commonwealth'. Indeed, these sentiments are shared equally on this side of the House. It does concern me though that once the Royal Commission report was tabled it took two years for the legislation on this matter to come forward. Indeed, it was some additional time before anything further was done on it. It should be noted that whilst the Minister in presenting the legislation admitted in his second reading speech that in drafting this legislation the government of the day-that is, the Fraser Government-had departed from the Royal Commission report's recommendations in certain respects, it would be fair to say that the political interests of the Fraser Government rivalled the interests of Norfolk Islanders for priority in the legislation. When the second reading debate resumed in April 1979, the Australian Labor Party made clear its position on the legislation and on this issue of self-government for Norfolk Island. It fully supported self-government for Norfolk Island. It opposed the legislation because it believed it did not give self-government, in the true and complete sense, to the island. The Labor Party claimed that the legislation failed to accommodate fully the wishes of the islanders in regard to their future mode of government. Consequently, the Labor Party proposed amendments to the Bill which provided for a greater control over machinery matters of government for the proposed Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly. It proposed a number of other measures. These included control over a much wider number of matters of government; a reduction in the Australian Government's powers in the Bill; the provision of social security and an industrial court for Norfolk Island; the extension of Australian taxation legislation to Norfolk Island; a Bill of Rights to be included in the Bill; and the proposed Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly to be elected by the method of proportional representation. It is sad to report that the amendments proposed by the opposition of the day-the Labor Party-were defeated along party lines. However, the resulting Norfolk Island Act 1979 foreshadowed that within a five-year period consideration would be given to extending the powers conferred on the Legislative Assembly and other political and administrative institutions. Fortunately for Norfolk Island, the Labor Party was again elected to office in that five-year period. The Hawke Labor Government, not surprisingly, fully endorsed the principle of transferring more functions and responsibility to Norfolk Island in an effort to promote an increase in the degree of self-government. After appropriate consultation and negotiation, which of course is the hallmark of the Hawke Government, the following additional powers have been transferred to the Legislative Assembly: Public Service of the Territory; public works; lotteries, betting and gaming; civil defence and emergency services; Territory archives; and matters incidental to, or consequential on, the execution of Executive authority. We now have before the House the Norfolk Island Amendment Bill 1988, which proposes to allow for Norfolk Island to appoint its own auditor-yet another step towards total self-government. Mr Braithwaite —Very respectable people. Mr MARTIN —I agree with my colleague the honourable member for Dawson and his comments about auditors in general. He has suggested that reputable firms and so on will perhaps be approached in order to occupy this position, which is again in keeping with this Government's approach to the appointment of auditors of this nature. The proposal is, therefore, entirely appropriate in respect of the appointment of an independent Auditor-General. The moneys involved belong to Norfolk Island. I think that needs to be pointed out at the outset. They are collected through customs duties and the sale of stamps, et cetera, and are used to provide services such as roads, schools and civil defence to residents on the island. It could be argued that the moneys are not Commonwealth moneys as such. What interest does the Commonwealth Auditor-General have in Norfolk Island moneys? It is an argument which I suppose could be debated at length; nevertheless, I think it is an appropriate one, given the commitment that this Government has to self-government of that island. The Norfolk Island Minister for Finance has posed this question with respect to what interest the Commonwealth Auditor-General has in Norfolk Island moneys, and has proposed that the island should have the power to appoint its own auditor. The Auditor-General, the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) have agreed, provided that certain safeguards are applied. Therefore, the legislation has come forward. It is yet another example of this Government's and the Labor Party's commitment to self-government for Norfolk Island. As I have indicated, and as the honourable member for Dawson indicated in his speech, this is not a controversial piece of legislation. It adds further to the autonomy that is so necessary for Territories such as Norfolk Island. It is an appropriate piece of legislation for the times. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr PUNCH(Barton-Minister for the Arts and Territories)(11.55) —in reply-The Government welcomes the support of the Opposition for the Norfolk Island Amendment Bill 1988. I thank the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), and the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) for their contributions to the House, both of which were excellent. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Norfolk Island Act to enable the Norfolk Island Government to appoint its own auditor to audit the public accounts of the Territory of Norfolk Island. As both honourable gentlemen have said, that is a very important issue to the people of Norfolk Island and the Norfolk Island Government. This Bill enables me to touch on a number of issues, some of which the shadow Minister has raised. I am sure that there is a good deal of bipartisan support for a substantial number of those issues. I take this opportunity to say that, with a couple of notable exceptions, such as Christmas Island, there is a fair deal of bipartisan support between us on external territories matters. Given the nature of external territories, that is a good thing. The first matter I mention to the House concerns the sewerage scheme. The Commonwealth has agreed to contribute $2m to the cost of a new sewerage scheme on Norfolk Island. We think that this will reduce the risk to health on the island and any potential danger to the tourist industry which, of course, is the mainstay of the island's economy. In regard to the Kingston and Arthurs Vale historic area, the Commonwealth has contributed $4.5m to the restoration of the historic buildings in the area. These buildings represent one of the finest collections of colonial buildings in the Commonwealth. They are listed in the Register of the National Estate and they are some of the major tourist attractions on the island. Norfolk Island has benefited quite significantly from various bicentennial programs on the island, to the tune of $416,700. From this amount $284,000 has been allocated for an interpretive plan, including the establishment of a visitors information centre. The amount also includes a local government initiative grants schemes and money for the local and regional heritage program. An amount of $120,000 has been allocated for conservation work on the All Saints Church and $6,000 for a sport and recreation program. An environmental program around Bucks Point-a scenic walking trail-has been allocated $2,900. That total of $416,700 includes some other matters which I did not spell out. It is a significant Commonwealth contribution to Norfolk Island. There is an ongoing commitment by this Government concerning the transfer of powers to the Norfolk Island Government. Since the Norfolk Island Act was passed in 1979 the powers of the Norfolk Island Government have been extended. I am pleased to report to the House that negotiations are at an advanced stage to extend a further range of powers to the Norfolk Island Government in the near future. These include customs duties, social services, education and telecommunications. Mr Braithwaite —Citizenship? Mr PUNCH —I will come to that. In regard to employment, the Commonwealth has been assisting the Norfolk Island Government in the development of employment legislation for the island. At present there is none. A Bill has been passed by the local Assembly which will provide for workers compensation, minimum wages and conditions, machinery for conciliation and adjudicating disputes, and safe working practices. That will require our consideration as well. One matter that I should turn to for a few moments relates to the Sirius wreck and the relics. There has been some disquiet about this matter in the past. The Sirius is an important issue to the people of Norfolk Island. I am also pleased to report to the House that the Commonwealth is at what we consider to be an advanced stage of negotiations with the Norfolk Island Government about the arrangements for disposition, conservation and display of those relics from the Sirius which, as the honourable member for Dawson quite rightly pointed out, was the flagship of the First Fleet. Norfolk Island will be the home of the relics but, according to the Commonwealth, the mainland will need to have access to those relics from time to time. We think that that is very important. The honourable member asked why some matters were still outstanding. I thank him for the opportunity in this debate to talk for a few moments about that. Essentially there are two very important points. Having reaffirmed that Norfolk Island will be the home of those relics it has to be said also that because this ship was the flagship of the First Fleet there should be access to the relics from time to time-they are of very great historical and cultural import to this country-for the other 16 million Australians. Whilst Norfolk Island will be the home of the relics, other Australians need to have access to them from time to time. That is one of the central points of negotiations that are going on at the moment. We believe that the negotiations will be completed with a mutually satisfactory outcome. The second and, I think, most important point in this regard is that under the Historic Shipwrecks Act, I, as the relevant Minister, have a duty to see to the conservation, preservation and display of the Sirius relics and other relics of that import. When we discuss with the Norfolk Island Government-as we are-the need for access by Australians on the mainland to some of the relics from time to time, we need to be satisfied that the conservation and preservation of those relics will be done, and done properly. We are really doing no more than undertaking the obligation bestowed on us as a government and, in particular, myself as the Minister, under the Historic Shipwrecks Act. In that light, since I have pointed this out through my officers in clearer terms, the Norfolk Island Government is seeing the necessity of our position as well. They are two very important points. I say to the honourable member for Dawson that they are important. They are obligations as opposed to predispositions. We are now quite convinced that there will be a mutually satisfactory outcome, as I said earlier, in these negotiations between the Commonwealth and the Norfolk Island Government. I say to the shadow Minister that I will be going to Norfolk Island early next month to talk to the Norfolk Island Government, the Administrator and, more generally, the people about a range of issues on Norfolk Island, but in particular about the Sirius relics. I know, as the honourable member has pointed out, how important the issue is to many people on Norfolk Island. It remains only for me to again recommend the Bill to the House. I thank the Opposition for its support. The provision for the Norfolk Island Government to appoint its own auditor to carry out the auditing of the island's public accounts is an important milestone for the people of Norfolk Island and an important contribution by this House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Punch) read a first time. Debate resumed from 24 February, on motion by Mr Holding: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr REITH(Flinders)(12.06) —The Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill proposes amendments to the National Crime Authority Act and the Telecommunications (Interception) Act. I intend to confine my opening remarks to the amendments proposed to the National Crime Authority Act. At the outset let me say that the National Crime Authority (NCA) has the full and wholehearted support of the coalition parties. Accordingly, we support the principal amendment, which is to repeal the five-year sunset clause so as to place the NCA on a permanent footing. To put my remarks in context, it would be useful to retrace the origins and development of the NCA. The initiative for the establishment of a permanent national law enforcement agency in Australia came from the coalition parties. It dates back to the Fraser Government and was reflected in the National Crimes Commission Act 1982. That Act was passed when the Fraser Government was in office but was not implemented by the Labor Government. In the late 1970s and the early 1980s, Australia was faced with ever-growing signs that traditional methods of law enforcement, based on police forces and occasional royal commissions, could not cope adequately with the increasing sophistication of organised crime and drug trafficking with worldwide tentacles. That position was clearly identified in the reports of three royal commissioners-Mr Justice Williams in 1980, Mr Costigan in 1982 and Mr Justice Stewart in 1983. I quote briefly from a report delivered in 1983 by Mr Justice Stewart: A crimes commission that is continuously looking for patterns of action and association is far more likely to identify crime as organised crime than is the ordinary law enforcement agency. A national crime commission has the opportunity of monitoring activities which take place anywhere in Australia. In the Williams National Crimes Commission in 1980 it was said that criminal law in Australia is ill equipped to deal with any organised basis for illegal activities. That was the rationale behind the National Crime Authority Act. In the early 1980s the then Attorney-General, Senator Peter Durack, undertook an extensive study of international law enforcement methodologies. To this end Senator Durack had consultations with top law enforcement officials in the United States of America and the United Kingdom. In addition, a study was made of initiatives taken in Hong Kong and other places. Last but not least, Senator Durack initiated a series of consultations with the States at ministerial and senior officer level in the hope of achieving national agreement on an appropriate body with the necessary expertise and powers to make an effective attack on organised crime. That was a good example of the cooperative, federalist approach adopted by the last Fraser Government, which is unfortunately in some instances in marked contrast to the confrontationist approach adopted by this Labor Government in some areas of policy. The end product of the activity to which I have referred was the National Crimes Commission Bill, which passed through the Parliament at the end of 1982. History shows that the Commission had not been established by the time of the 1983 Federal election. It is a matter of public knowledge that the incoming Labor Government, though accepting the need for a new vehicle to fight organised crime, did not fully embrace the concept of a national crimes commission. The main voice of dissent appeared to favour a standing or permanent royal commission. The proponents of this view pointed to the apparent successes of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, and other royal commissions. The Government put the issue to a summit by convening the National Crimes Commission Conference in the Senate chamber in July 1983 with a broad spectrum of representation including Ministers, members of parliament, royal commissioners, judges, police commissioners, and senior public servants, drawn from both the Federal and State spheres, together with other interested groups and individuals. I do not propose to canvass the debate which ensued; it is a matter of public record for all to read. Suffice it to say the conference came to the coalition's view that Australia needed a new approach to combating organised crime, generally along the lines of the National Crimes Commission. To illustrate this point further I quote in part from the Government's second reading speech in this House: One of the most difficult policy questions with which the Government has had to wrestle is whether it is necessary or desirable for the kind of body to which Mr Costigan refers to be established with full traditional royal commission powers. After considering carefully the contrary viewpoints, the Government has taken the position, as did the Fraser Government before it with the National Crimes Commission Act 1982, that there are basic differences between the role of a royal commission and that of an ongoing Crime Authority, and that this should be reflected in the make-up of that Authority. On 10 December 1983 this Government introduced the National Crime Authority Bill into the Senate. Shortly thereafter, on the initiative of the coalition, the Bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. The Committee's report, tabled on 1 May 1984, consisted of a majority report, a minority report by the late Senator Alan Missen, and to which I shall later refer, and several dissenting reports. In the event, the Government accepted 39 of the 49 recommendations of the majority report. The Fraser Government's initiative finally became reality with the passage into law of the National Crime Authority Act on 1 July 1984. When people speak about the Fraser Government and its record, and they ask me about some of the good things that the Government achieved, I point to the history of the development of the concept of the NCA. That achievement is not often heralded, but the concept was initiated by the Fraser Government and is very much to the credit of Mr Fraser and Senator Durack. History will record that this legislation has been an important turning point in Australia's fight against organised crime. For the first time Australia has a twentieth century custom-designed organisation to combat a twentieth century problem. The NCA, combined with more recent legislation dealing with the proceeds of crime, mutual assistance, pecuniary penalties, telephone tapping powers for the States, a new Extradition Act, and later this year the Cash Transaction Reports Act, has at last armed us with an impressive array of powers and machinery to turn the tables on organised crooks. I acknowledge that finally the Government has made available this array of weapons for the law enforcement authorities. The Opposition gives credit where credit is due. However, success is not guaranteed and we must be ever vigilant to identify and to combat new and complex methods as they are developed by ingenious crime bosses. The Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority is playing a leading role in that regard; I shall return to that issue later. I also note that the State governments have a continuing role in the whole area of law enforcement. I congratulate Mr Greiner on his victory in the New South Wales election last Saturday. I am sure that a factor in the minds of many voters was Mr Greiner's determination to establish the independent commission against corruption, and that the new Attorney-General for New South Wales, Mr John Dowd, will do a good job overseeing the creation of that body. At this stage I wish to refer to the Liberal Party's policy on the NCA enunciated in the 1987 Federal election. The policy states: The Liberal Party acknowledges the part already played by the National Crime Authority in the fight against major crime in Australia. To ensure that the NCA can act in a manner appropriate for such an organisation, the next Liberal Government will amend the National Crime Authority Act to allow the Authority: to have stronger powers to require answers and production of documents, to operate free of political direction and veto, to extend the definition of what constitutes a `relevant criminal activity', to act on its own initiative, without requiring references from State or Federal sources, to remove the present `sunset clause' and ensure its continued operation- a matter which is before us today- to apply in its own right for judicial warrants for telephone interceptions . . . Every effort must be made to ensure that there is enough contact with other law enforcement agencies to ensure maximum use is made of the specialist qualities of each and that there be no duplication of effort. Because of the small number of members and the more limited scope of the NCA, this is more applicable here than with other bodies. These are very useful proposals which have been very carefully put together by the former shadow Minister responsible for this area, my predecessor, Senator Archer. I am currently reviewing all aspects of our policy as we move to finalise policies by the second half of this year. I am certainly looking at all of these matters. Our policy will certainly contain a strong commitment to the retention of the NCA. I therefore do not foresee any major changes in this area. But I believe that it is important that we retain some flexibility in our policy so that we can be free to adopt any of the sensible recommendations which, I am sure, will emanate from the NCA's monitoring committee report. The current Bill removes the sunset clause. On this point I note that in its 1986-87 annual report the NCA refers to the Government's election commitment and Opposition statements to the same effect to put the NCA on a permanent basis and suggests that a review of the legislation in the light of operational experience be undertaken so that proposals for changes can be considered in time for inclusion in the amending legislation. The Opposition supports this approach. Indeed, who could gainsay such a rational proposition? However, what has happened? We have the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Holding) bringing the Bill into this House without the benefit of a general review. Why is this so? It is simply because the Attorney-General's Department has suddenly realised that the term of the Chairman is due to expire on 30 June and that, unless quick action is taken, the NCA could find itself without a chairman and a leader. Fortunately for the Government, the Parliamentary Joint Committee has come to the rescue by announcing, on 5 March, its intention to conduct `an evaluation of the performance of the Authority to date'. For this purpose it has called for public submissions. Not surprisingly, the Government is breathing a sigh of relief to have been let off the hook on this issue. However, the reality is that the Parliamentary Joint Committee is unlikely to report until late April or early May at the earliest. Against this timeframe it is unlikely that the Government's reaction to the Committee's report could be endorsed and legislation drafted, introduced and passed before the Parliament rises on 26 May. At best it is possible that the Committee will issue an interim report on the issues raised in the Bill. To return to the Parliamentary Joint Statutory Committee on the NCA, the coalition takes the view that it provides the ideal mechanism for review at the Commonwealth level. Unfortunately, the Parliament has failed fully and effectively to make use of this mechanism. Whilst acknowledging the initial difficulties in arriving at a modus vivendi between the Committee and the NCA which was finally achieved because of the goodwill on the part of both bodies, only two reports, 1985 and 1986, have been issued. I exhort the Committee to press on with the job and, in so doing, say that I regard the Committee's terms of reference to identify new mechanisms for law enforcement as equal, if not more important, than the NCA monitoring function. Two matters on which the Committee's views would be of particular interest are a strategy for witness protection and an examination of trends and changes in criminal trends. The Committee has had witness protection on its agenda for a couple of years. In my view, its report is long overdue. I trust, therefore, that the Committee will complete its deliberations and bring forward proposals for a positive strategy in the near future. The Opposition's position on the repeal section is abundantly clear. We are for permanency for the NCA and the consequent repeal of the sunset clause. We introduced such a measure in a Bill, not once but twice, in the Senate as far back as 1986 and certainly since the election. What was the Government's response to those Bills? It said, `The Opposition is jumping the gun. Before we introduce such a measure we must await a full review of the legislation so that the sunset clause repeal and implementation of the review can be finessed in a coordinated fashion'. At one stage the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) went so far as to say, `We will introduce it but we need time to draft the Bill'. He said that when we already had the Bill drafted for him, sitting on the table in the Senate. The Government seems to be too busy talking at the people to listen to what it is saying itself. Given the history of this Government, we have long since ceased to be surprised by such inconsistencies. As to the proposed extended tenure for members, when the NCA was established in 1984, four years was set as the maximum period of appointment. A regular turnover of membership was seen to be an important safeguard against any possible abuse of power or corruption of the members. This view was based on overseas experience. I hasten to add that my comment is not intended to reflect adversely on any present or past member of the NCA. On the contrary, I am pleased to be able to say that Australia has been very fortunate to have had members of the highest calibre and integrity. In my view, there are reasonable grounds for the Chairman to be given an additional year to extend his term from four to five years. It is not a proposal that we would expect to have to face year in and year out. It is a one-off situation. The factors supporting the extension are the need to establish a new organisation, requiring accommodation and staff, in Sydney, which meant that it took some time for the NCA to get fully under way, and the fact that the existing members were appointed only within the past 12 months or so. Accordingly, the Chairman's extension should ensure continuity of operations and facilitate a smoother transition to a new chairman in due course. I also note from a Press release by the Minister for Justice that the extension has the support of the Ministers on the NCA intergovernmental committee. I further understand that the proposal has the support of the Parliamentary Joint Statutory Committee on the NCA. The other two current members, other than the Chairman, are replacements for original appointees and because of the sunset clause could not be appointed for full four-year terms. The amendment will overcome this problem. In regard to the amendments to the Telecommunications (Interception) Act-the proposals for judges issuing warrants to have the same indemnity from prosecution as sitting High Court judges and for certain procedures relating to telegram interception warrants to be brought into line with procedures for other warrants-are both desirable and, to my mind, non-controversial. Both in a special report on Operation Silo released late in 1987 and in its annual report for 1986-87, the NCA has identified two amendments that it has recommended to the Government. These are, firstly, to overcome difficulties in determining what is a `material particular' for the purposes of a prosecution under section 33 for giving misleading evidence to the NCA and, secondly, to enable persons required to produce documents under section 29 to receive appearance expenses along the same lines as witnesses who appear before the NCA under section 28. The recommended amendments have not been taken up in the current Bill by the Government for reasons which are known only to the Government. I am concerned at the level of administrative efficiency within the sphere of government when these sorts of issues are not being dealt with. It was the Opposition that put up suggestions about how these matters ought to be dealt with. I am pleased that the Government has taken up one of the suggestions, which will be moved in committee. In respect of the other suggestion, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has provided me with a short discussion paper outlining arguments which suggest that if such an amendment were to go ahead it should be coordinated with like amendments to State legislation underpinning the NCA Act. The discussion paper also raises other peripheral issues. In the circumstances, it seems to me there would be merit in leaving this matter in abeyance on the basis that it can be taken up again when Parliament considers legislation to implement the Parliamentary Joint Committee's report on the NCA's operations. I see that the Chairman of the Committee is in the chamber. He may have a look at that matter as well. It also occurs to me that the issue of `materiality' would probably arise in the review of the Commonwealth Crimes Act being undertaken under the direction of Sir Harry Gibbs, the former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia. If this is the case, I would request the Attorney to make Sir Harry's views known as part of the longer term review of the NCA Act. The Government has accepted the payment of appearance expenses for persons producing documents to the NCA and, as I said, I will move such an amendment in the committee stage. The Government should have been addressing both of these matters and giving the NCA a proper and considered response. It should not have been left for the Opposition to raise these matters, although I am happy we have come to a sensible conclusion on one of them. I reiterate the coalition's support for the repeal of the NCA's sunset clause. It is long-standing coalition policy. We initiated such a Bill on two occasions in the Senate only to see our Bill not debated. We support the continuation of the NCA on a permanent basis. it was a coalition initiative. I am happy to give the Opposition's support to the Bill. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen)(12.27) —I am pleased to rise to support the Government's proposals outlined in the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill. Of course, the National Crime Authority was established under this Government and, whilst it might be properly argued that during the Fraser years there were discussions on establishing such a body, the body did not eventuate during those years. I guess it was a case of the Opposition just saying what it would do. It talks a lot about anti-crime and law and order but, as with much of its policies, it is only rhetoric and there is no action. The response of the Fraser Government to the actions of organised crime in its time was to establish a royal commission under Mr Costigan, the Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, to attack the trade union movement. That inquiry was not established by the Fraser Government to look at organised crime; it was an attack on the trade union movement. It took political action to establish the inquiry against trade unions. We all know what happened: the Fraser Government got a very hot potato dropped in its lap when the extent of the criminal use of the taxation system-and indeed criminal it was-was exposed by the Costigan Royal Commission. Even knowing, as a result of the evidence given to the Costigan Royal Commission, the extent of criminality and the extent of crime involving taxation fraud, the Fraser Government did nothing about it. So I find it surprising in debates of this kind when any member of the Opposition talks about law and order and conservative policies involving law and order and organised crime. The truth of the matter is that in the Opposition's 30-odd years of government in the postwar period it never did anything about this area except talk. That can be well contrasted with the performance of the present Government, which since 1983 has, by legislation introduced and passed by this House, mounted the greatest attack on organised crime in this country's history. That is an unarguable proposition. The legislation is through the Parliament, it is on the books, it is working, it is effective. Despite the Government's attack in this area there has been opposition from the conservative parties. I suppose the Cash Transaction Reports Bill is a great example of that. It is designed to follow the money trail so that criminal actions cannot be operated through banking systems. It is designed to stop the cash flow coming from criminal activities being laundered through the legitimate use of banking facilities. While that legislation was going through we heard speeches about the effect on banks. I recall that in the debate on the Bill the shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), referred to the cost to banks. He said that the banks should not have to keep records. It is a nonsense to suggest that it would not cost the community to stop organised crime. Organised crime costs the community a great deal of money; legislation to stop organised crime has a cost factor attached to it. As I said earlier, I am often surprised at the rhetoric I hear about the attack on organised crime and what the Liberal Party of Australia do in government. I simply draw the House's attention to its record. It never did anything by way of legislation. That contrasts greatly with what this Government has done. The National Crime Authority was established because of the perceived failure of existing police forces in this country. That is not to say that the existing police forces, be they State or Federal, have not been effective in dealing with community crime; that is, crime which involves offences against the person, street offences and drug trafficking at a minor level. The State police forces and the Federal police force have never had the capacity seriously to handle organised crime in this country. I guess that is understandable. Their resources have been limited. Indeed, community pressures on State police forces are for them to handle the day to day community criminal activities which are constantly reported to local police stations. A second factor is that in our traditional methods police are reactive in their approach to crime; they are not proactive. Police respond to complaints that offences have been committed and regard their task as being completed when the person who has committed the offence has been apprehended and placed before the courts. To tackle organised crime seriously we need an organisation which has a far greater and very specific role which will home in on the major intrastate and interstate activities of organised crime. We know from the Williams, Stewart, Woodward and Costigan royal commissions, among others, that the extent of organised crime in this country was never recognised by government. It was never recognised by the major police forces of this country. From my experience as Chairman of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the National Crime Authority I have had a window opened to me in the last four months which has enabled me to look into an area which I never believed existed in this country, and that is despite my serving 10 years in the Victorian police force. Having that window open to me, I have been astonished at the high degree of involvement, the organisational structure and the extent of organised crime in this country. I guess the great problem we as a Parliament and as a nation not only face today but will face increasingly in the future is the increasing internationalisation of crime. In a country with 16 1/2 million people, a high per capita income and a high standard of living, and probably because we are surrounded by the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean, we might have thought we were exempt from the Cosa Nostra, the Triads and the other organised groups well known overseas. For many years we laboured under false premises in thinking that we could always escape the attention of such organised criminal groups. Yet we know increasingly today that we have not escaped their attentions. For example, we know now that there are in Australia groupings of people ethnically organised, family organised, who have immediate and strong links with their international cousins in their countries of origin. We know that money flows are laundered through Australia to international locations. We know that money derived from criminal activities is being placed in legitimate investments through banking systems. We know that those people, having moved into legitimate market areas, are then protected by that legitimacy and by their use of normal banking and financial systems and we know that, having achieved that status, they become harder and harder to track down. We know that if one is involved in one of the major crime organisations in Australia today one's life is not worth a crumpet. We know that there is an increasing number of bodies found in dark lanes. These people have died because of their awareness and knowledge of organised crime in this country. Recently in Sydney there has been a large number of deaths of well-known criminals. They have been slaughtered in the streets of Sydney, which has become fashionable when organised criminal groups fall out. We, as politicians, are constantly being asked by constituents to stop crime. We are constantly being asked that the Parliament pass laws which will ensure that such activities cease. We would be less than honest with ourselves as politicians and less than honest as a parliament if we did not spread the message to our constituents and to Australia as a whole that it is too late to say that we can stop organised crime in this country. Past governments have failed to recognise the extent of organised crime which has enabled the criminal tentacles to get through the system in this country. It is too late to say to the people whom we represent that we can stop organised crime. If we are honest with ourselves, we can only say as parliamentarians that we can only do that which is possible to ensure that the growth of crime is limited. We can say as a parliament that we will pass those laws necessary to hinder and to impose restraints upon criminal activities. We can say that we will pass those laws necessary in order to establish commissions such as the National Crime Authority and which will give such bodies sufficient powers to lift the veil of secrecy, of legitimacy, that many of these people have and to expose them for what they are, criminals. Having had that window of organised crime exposed to me in the last few months as Chairman of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority it has become apparent that the only way the problem can be solved is through a national approach. The State police forces are internal in thought and local in operation. Because of the history of curruption and crime in this country there is in all State police forces a degree of suspicion about other police forces. I guess that is understandable in the context of the history of this country. Without referring too much to the events that are currently occurring in Queensland, one only has to read the newspapers on the evidence being given to Mr Fitzgerald to understand why State police forces have been hesitant and cautious about their dealings with other State police force bodies. That includes the Australian Federal Police who operate under the same difficulties. It seems obvious to me why a body such as the National Crime Authority had to arise in this country. It is also obvious that unless we maintain and continue to strengthen the operation of that body the State and other existing police forces will not be capable of having much effect on organised crime. I say that without wanting to criticise the operation of the State police forces. I have nothing but the highest respect for my former colleagues in the police force in Victoria who are still in the police force whom I know to be men and women of integrity. They are doing their best within the laws available to them to stop crime. They are the first to recognise that they cannot go beyond State boundaries. They cannot do the sorts of things the National Crime Authority does. I agree with the critics of police forces generally who argue that we cannot as a parliament-and I believe State parliaments cannot-give State police forces extensive powers until such time as those police forces can demonstrate to the community that they are beyond corruption, that they will use fairly any extended powers that many now seek and that they will not use those powers wrongly. Until the police forces can demonstrate that, the need is emphasised for an overriding National Crime Authority body operating over and above the existing organised police forces of this country. There are other matters on which I will speak more fully when the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority brings down its evaluation report, which we are hoping to do in May this year. We have set ourselves a fairly heavy task in that the Committee concurrently has running an inquiry into witness protection. I am pleased to report to the Parliament that we have probably finished taking all the evidence we need to take on witness protection and we hope to start drafting that report shortly. The evaluation report on the National Crime Authority is in draft form at the moment. We hope to have hearings early next month. At this stage there appear to be very few submissions coming in from people who are prepared to comment on the effectiveness or otherwise of the National Crime Authority. We hope that those people who have a view on the National Crime Authority, favourable or otherwise, will take steps to approach the Committee. They can either put their views in writing or they can approach the Committee to seek to give evidence before it so that we can bring down a report which fully reflects the views of all the groups in Australia who have that interest and which is a full report on the current operations of the National Crime Authority. Mr Reith —Do not rush it just because of this repeal Bill. Mr CLEELAND —My colleague the shadow Attorney-General suggests that we do not rush it. I can guarantee that we will not rush it. For the honourable member's information we wrote late last year to all of the bodies which gave evidence to the Senate hearing seeking their viewpoints three years down the track. We got very little or no response. We have again written to all those groups seeking further responses, and again I am disappointed with the response we are getting. We have also advertised in Australian newspapers for submissions. There is nothing more we can do as a committee to make the various groups in Australia aware of the desire of the Committee to seek that information. Perhaps one can say that that lack of interest, if I can call it that, is an obvious response from the community that it is satisfied with the operations of the Authority itself. We still intend to speak to several people in order to get their viewpoints. Earlier I said that as a member of the Government I have nothing but pride in standing in this House whenever the subject of crime is debated. Our record is exemplary. I am proud not just of the National Crime Authority but of the Proceeds of Crime Bill-again a first in this country's history-the Cash Transaction Reports Bill, with which I have already dealt, and the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill. For many years the need for telephone intercepts and powers has been discussed in this country. I recall that back in the 1960s when I was a serving policeman this subject was discussed in Victoria. Yet it took a Labor government to introduce such legislation. There was no rhetoric, there was no talk about it, we just did it. We also introduced the Proceeds of Crime Bill. Why did it take so long to pass legislation which takes away from a criminal the proceeds of that criminal activity? It took a Labor government to do it. I suggest to the shadow Attorney-General that policies are simple to draw up and words can be very shallow. All political parties can use words. They can make them flowery and they can make them politically attractive, and that is what political parties like to do. As a citizen and as a political opponent of the honourable member for Flinders I will say that his words are shallow no matter how he says them, until he can demonstrate to me and to the rest of the community that he will not just talk about the problem but will support this Government's approach to anti-crime legislation. As a member of this Government I have not had it fully demonstrated that he will support us. His actions on the telephone intercept legislation and the cash transaction legislation are two examples of that. It will not be proved to me until, if by some bad chance the Opposition manages to win government one day, his Government brings down legislation because, as I said, words are cheap. Standing in this House and saying what he wants to do stands against his record of having done nothing when he has had the chance. I do not think it is ever fair for any member of the Opposition to stand in this place and suggest that the Government is not taking the bit between its teeth. It has acted better and more fully than any government in Australia's history on the attack against major organised crime. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —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. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Treasurer. In the light of the failure of the Treasurer to rule out changes in the tax treatment of superannuation, does he accept that a tax on superannuation fund income would discourage savings at a time when a major priority of the Government is to increase the level of private savings? Mr KEATING —What did the jokers opposite ever do about the tax treatment of superannuation? They seem to forget that it is this Government that is lifting the level of savings by providing 3 per cent awards as occupational superannuation. Opposition members interjecting- Mr KEATING —We can hear all the cacklers up the back, but that means $10 to $12 a week will be placed into superannuation fund accounts on behalf of employees under the 3 per cent award negotiated between the Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Perhaps that more than anything else will lift the level of savings available through superannuation. Again, one has to look at the experience of other countries when considering changing savings patterns. Savings patterns are quite hard to change. The fact of the matter is that, as the Prime Minister and I have both said, whatever the Government decides in relation to superannuation after this review of the taxation system, superannuation will remain a concessionary area and therefore I should expect that its attractiveness will be such that it will continue to be an area for the accumulation of savings within the economy. Mr MARTIN —Is the Prime Minister aware of suggestions that Labor's fringe benefits tax, capital gains tax and assets test should be scrapped? Can he advise the House of the proceeds of these measures and of the consequences of their abolition? Mr HAWKE —It is well known that when Labor came to office in 1983 the tax system was being rorted mercilessly by the privileged of this country. Tax avoidance, as we know, had become, in the words of the Opposition's own royal commissioner, the fastest growing industry in this country. I doubt whether there has ever been a greater indictment of any government in our history than its own royal commissioner saying of it that in the previous five years, the period of its government, the tax avoidance industry had been the fastest growing industry in the country. Those were the words of its own royal commissioner. When we came to office we took a series of steps, virtually all of them opposed by the Leader of the Opposition and those behind him, to take money from the pockets of the privileged-the privileged who had rorted the system for so long-and put it to work for the ordinary people. The estimated proceeds of the Government's measures directed at stopping the rorts and the pensions for the millionaires exceed $2 billion. That is the extent of the receipts from the measures we introduced to stop the rorts of the privileged in this country. Of course, as always, the one thing that this gaggle opposite hates is the facts, which expose the bankruptcy of its government. The Leader of the Opposition has pledged the abolition of the fringe benefits tax, the capital gains tax and the assets test. Anyone, even perhaps the Leader of the Opposition if he sits down and gets his abacus out, knows that if we do those things, if we abolish the measures this Government has brought in, the proceeds of which have exceeded $2 billion, we will leave a huge hole in the Budget. The only way of filling that hole and financing the tax bribes of the Leader of the Opposition, to which he remains fully committed, would be through the introduction of a broadly based consumption tax. It is interesting that today we have again had exposed the fact that the President of the Liberal Party, Mr John Elliott, who covets the position of the Leader of the Opposition, understands the fact of that gaping hole, as he confirmed on Melbourne radio this morning. Mr Elliott said this morning that the Leader of the Opposition knows it, too. When he was asked whether he had a different view from the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Elliott said: I don't think so, actually. So once again we see the John Howard problem emerging-the John Howard problem which was so graphically demonstrated and alluded to by Mr Greiner in New South Wales. In other words, Mr Elliott, the Federal leader of the Liberal Party, has exposed the political opportunist in the Leader of the Opposition. He is saying that the Leader of the Opposition will not come clean on the consumption tax question. While the Liberal Party indulges in this internal bickering as to whether it is going to come clean on its intention to introduce a broad-based consumption tax, Labor is putting the proceeds of its crackdown on the rorts by the privileged into providing cash assistance for the poor families of this country, giving children from poor families a better chance to stay on in the education system, doubling funds for public housing and boosting the real value of pensions. All that the Leader of the Opposition offers in this context is a refusal to come clean and a promise to return this country to what I have termed the dark side of politics. Mr CONNOLLY —Does the Prime Minister recall the response given by the Minister for Social Security to my question on 17 March as to why he had accused superannuation contributors of being tax cheats and why he saw a tax on income as being inevitable? In his reply the Minister said that the Cass review of retirement incomes policies will be completed by mid-year. In view of the significance given to the Cass report by the Government in the development of a comprehensive retirement incomes policy, which after five years still seems to have eluded the Government, why does the Government intend to continue examining changes to the superannuation taxation arrangements before it has the benefit of the Cass review? Mr HAWKE —The answer is quite simple. Without recollecting all the details of the answer given by the Minister to the question to which the honourable member referred, both my friend and colleague the Treasurer and I have made it clear in regard to the question of taxation generally that one cannot have-I understand that the Opposition has never questioned this-a review of the total business tax system without looking at superannuation. I understand that the honourable member himself said this in Adelaide. Let me make it clear at the outset that there is agreement across this House that we cannot have a review of business tax in this country without sensibly having a look at the question of superannuation. In preparation for the May statement we will be conducting such a comprehensive review. Mr Howard —The Cass report? Mr HAWKE —I do not need any prompting from this temporary Leader of the Opposition. Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAWKE —Very sensitive, very sensitive, and so they should be because he will not be there when I fight the Opposition mob at the next general election. May I say parenthetically and quite honestly that last Saturday was a bit of a black day for Labor. If people have any sense and any intelligence, when they have had a black day they look for a silver lining, and I found one. The silver lining that I found was that there was a presumption that, as a result of the black Saturday for Labor, John Howard was assured of retaining the leadership of the Opposition. So one good thing has come out of black Saturday. I only hope that that assumption that is being made, that this fellow here will stay Leader of the Opposition, is true and that when I lead the Australian Labor Party into the next election I will have him again as an opponent. I have to say, as a pretty clever and intelligent interpreter of the political situation, that I would bet London to a brick that I will have another opponent and, whoever that is, we will beat him like we have beaten the last three. Mr HOLLIS —My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. Has the Minister seen media reports this morning regarding coal settlements between Canadian companies and the Japanese steel mills? Can the Minister inform the House on the current status of negotiations on Australian coking coal exports to Japan? Mr KERIN —I thank the honourable member for his question and for the close interest he pays to coal industry problems. Yes, I have seen the report. Negotiations between Japanese steel mills and Australian exporters for coking coal sales for the Japanese fiscal year 1988-commencing 1 April-are at an advanced and delicate stage. Australian producers have been seeking a significant price increase this year, the first after five successive price reductions. The reason for this is that the demand for steel worldwide is strong, and the Japanese mills have achieved a dramatic resurgence in profitability, and this is expected to be sustained throughout Japanese fiscal year 1988. The impact of strong demand for coking coal by the steel industry around the world has been accentuated by diversion of lower quality coking coals into equally strong domestic steaming coal markets, where the coals are used for power generation. On the supply side, output of both steaming and coking coal has been constrained by management decisions to curtail recurring financial losses by closing mines or limiting operations. These output constraints are evident in all major coal exporting countries and are the natural consequence of the cost-price squeeze that has afflicted the coal industry in recent years and cost so many jobs in New South Wales and Queensland. Coal prices achieved in recent international spot sales and open tenders have reflected this tightening of the market. Opposition members interjecting- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! There is far too much conversation in the chamber. Mr KERIN —The Opposition is not interested in the coal industry, and that is pretty obvious. It is important for me to emphasise that coal supply negotiations, and particularly pricing terms, are matters for the commercial parties. I should stress also that coal prices to the Japanese market are almost invariably denominated in United States dollars, and any price increase achieved in fiscal year 1988 would need to be substantial to equate to the Japanese fiscal year 1987 price converted into Australian dollars. Since last year's settlement, the exchange rate has firmed from 0.65c to around 0.73c or 0.74c, a move requiring a price increase of more than $US5 a tonne to compensate. Of course, the fiscal year 1987 price was markedly lower than in previous years and clearly inadequate to provide an appropriate return on investment. The current firmness in the market therefore does not diminish, in any way, the imperative that the industry persevere with efficiency improvement and cost reduction in order to retain its competitiveness. The annual negotiations in Japan are proceeding towards a conclusion. I am hopeful of an outcome that is fair and satisfactory to both sides, having full regard to current market realities. I can confirm that there have been recent developments in negotiations with certain North American producers. As we understand the situation, the absolute price increases being quoted do not reflect anything like the full value of the offers that evidently have been made by the mills, as substantial reclassification of coal qualities is also involved. For example, the Canadians have been offered `incentive tonnage' totalling just over one million tonnes. However, there is some question as to whether the Canadian firms involved are in a position to supply such increases. We understand that the Canadians have, to date, refused to settle on the terms offered unless they receive a written assurance that any higher price negotiated by the Australians will flow on to them. No settlement has yet been signed or agreed. I gather the Japanese offer to the Canadians has, if anything, strengthened the resolve of the Australian exporters to pursue their original claims, the offer being a clear confirmation that the steel industry recognises that substantial turnaround in market conditions. I thank the honourable member for his question and those people on my side of the House, as opposed to the Opposition, who take an interest in the coal industry and in our bids to get higher prices for coal. Mr HOWARD —I ask the Prime Minister: Does he support the partial sale of Qantas Airways Ltd as proposed yesterday by the Minister for Transport and Communications? If so, does the Prime Minister agree with the view expressed by Senator Evans that the question of the sale of Qantas, partial or otherwise, may well be `the only really serious case that the Government has to confront' on the issue of privatisation? Mr HAWKE —I preface my specific answer to the specific question from the Leader of the Opposition by once again reminding this House of the vast differences that exist between the two sides of the House on the question of public ownership. On that side of the House there is a gaggle of people who have an ideological obsession against the concept of public ownership, that there is something intrinsically wrong-- Mr Tuckey —Mr Acting Speaker, I raise a point of order. I am not prepared to have the Prime Minister continually use the word `gaggle'. I find it unparliamentary. If he does it again we will have a fight. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. There is no point of order. Mr Tuckey —Don't do it again. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! Mr HAWKE —As I was saying before the intrusion of this irrelevance, on that side of the House there is this ideological obsession that there is something intrinsically bad about public ownership and something necessarily intrinsically superior about the private sector. On this side of the House we have no such obsession. We have the view that there has been, is and always will be, as far as we can see into the future of this country, a significant role for the public sector in Australia. There is no division on this side of the House. We are concerned to ensure that we have the most efficient use of resources in the public sector and in the private sector. We on this side of the House will have an intelligent and rational discussion about those issues. In that respect, as in so many others, the Government side of this House will be distinguished from the Opposition, which has no capacity to look at the great issues confronting this country in terms of economic rationality in the best interests of this country, but is obsessed with its internal squabbles and its ideological insanities. Mr Howard —What about answering the question? Mr HAWKE —It follows, I should have thought, that the honourable gentleman could see from the general observations that I made that I had no intention of making any comment upon the debate and discussion that will proceed in a rational way on this side of the House. Mr KENT —I ask a question of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. I draw his attention to remarks by the Leader of the Opposition in the House on 17 March 1988 in a personal explanation in which he said: I will always assert the right anywhere in the world to criticise the policies of my country's Government. Does the Minister accept that this is a legitimate approach for an Opposition leader to take? Does it smack of reckless indifference to Australia's national interests abroad? Mr Sinclair —On a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker, I draw your attention to Standing Orders as they relate to the nature of questions that may be asked in this place and suggest that the question asked by the honourable member for Hotham, which calls for an opinion from the Minister, is totally out of order and should be ruled out of order. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member for Hotham to ask the question again. Mr KENT —I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade a question and draw his attention to remarks by the Leader of the Opposition in the House on 17 March 1988 in a personal explanation in which he said: I will always assert the right anywhere in the world to criticise the policies of my country's Government. Does the Minister accept that this is a legitimate approach for an Opposition leader to take? Does it smack of reckless indifference to Australia's national interests abroad? Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Hotham is asking the Minister to comment on a statement in an area that falls within the Minister's portfolio. I find the question in order. Mr HAYDEN —I did note that comment of the Leader of the Opposition and I was seriously disturbed by it. It was a glaring and very serious violation of a longstanding convention in this national political system. Very simply, one does not go abroad and engage in cheap party political squabbles to score cheap points for domestic purposes, thereby embarrassing host countries that one is visiting. More important, to do so would not only undermine the credibility and influence of the Government of one's country but also impair the reputation and standing of one's country. The fact is that one's Government is recognised as being the representative of the people of the particular country. Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAYDEN —I can understand the Leader of the Opposition hopping about. He knows he has been caught out on a serious indiscretion. I can well understand also the reaction of the right honourable member for New England, who moved quickly to try to stop discussion on this matter. It must be serious. It is one of the few occasions in his political history in this House that the right honourable member for New England has been embarrassed. What I am saying very simply of the Leader of the Opposition is that by his conduct he is guilty of an indiscretion and of partisanship. He has flagrantly flouted the convention of not playing party politics while abroad. He has indulged in a cheap headline grabbing performance. On his travels he has denigrated Australian attitudes, institutions and policies. He is guilty of careless disregard for the substance of our relations with the region and shows a brashness and remarkable insensitivity to regional issues. The Leader of the Opposition does not think much of those words. Let me tell the House where they came from exactly. They came from the honourable member for Kooyong. The honourable member for Kooyong said all of those things on 1 July 1978. The fact is that he was justified in saying them. At that time a member, and a prominent member if I may say so, of the Opposition had made some criticism of the Fraser Government while he was overseas, indiscreetly and unthinkingly. He was rebuked by the then Foreign Minister, the honourable member for Kooyong. That member of the Opposition learnt his lesson and accepted his medicine. He never did such a thing again because he recognised that what the honourable member for Kooyong had said was correct. The double standards of the Opposition are now evident. The Opposition has a history of upholding conventions when the Australian Labor Party should be adhering to them, but it violates those conventions when they stand in the way of opportunism. Let me tell the House what the honourable member for Kooyong said of Mr X, as I shall call him: If Mr X believed party polemics should be part of the travel kit of politicians, he should be disabused. The Leader of the Opposition ought to be disabused. The convention has been of long standing and it is one that I certainly respected throughout most of the period that I was Leader of the Opposition up until the election in 1983. I have respected that convention since. Until this indiscretion by the Leader of the Opposition it had been respected also by the Opposition. The undeniable fact is that no other country's representatives go abroad and engage in these cheap party political squabbles and point scoring exercises. They have some maturity and have respect for their country. They know how such behaviour undermines the credibility of their country, not just their government. Later I shall take the opportunity to post to the Leader of the Opposition a copy of what the honourable member for Kooyong said on that occasion. Mr PORTER —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. I refer the Minister to the question I asked on 18 February regarding a report about fraud of $4 billion against the Commonwealth. The Attorney-General recalled a report on fraud involving a sizable amount of money and he undertook to table the report if he had it. The Minister for Justice has now confirmed in a letter to me that the report prepared by Mick Young's Department of the Special Minister of State and the Australian Federal Police in October-November 1985 exists within the Attorney-General's Department and is held by the Minister for Justice but it has not been tabled. Will he now comply with his undertaking to table the report? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I understand that I have written to the honourable member for Barker about this matter. There were a number of reports. The report concerning a sizable amount of money, $4 billion, was tabled by me. The honourable member for Barker shakes his head, but the report was tabled by me and it clearly indicated that there had been a report that looked at how to overcome problems associated with fraud. A further report could well have come from the Australian Federal Police to the Special Minister of State well prior to that. That is the report, obviously, that the honourable member is anxious to know more about. That report was encompassed in the report that I tabled. The report that I tabled clearly indicated that what was needed, particularly from the point of view of preventing fraud, was to overcome the administrative deficiencies that exist, particularly in the tax, social security, and customs and excise areas. If the honourable member for Barker were to read that report, he would see it is identified clearly that $4 billion may be the amount that has already been lost. The question is not whether the money can be collected. The money has been already defrauded by individuals over a wide area of administration. The recommendation from the permanent heads who dealt with the report was to tidy up administrative practices and procedures. On the eve of the last Federal election a suggestion was made that $4 billion could be got back. In fact, at one stage the Leader of the Opposition said that that $4 billion could be used to try to budget for his party programs. He suggested that $4 billion could be found. The fact is that it is $4 billion that is gone forever. The issue is to try to get the crooks and frauds who were involved and to try to prevent future fraud by adopting better administrative procedures. A task force has been established to work on those matters, basically in the areas of social security, and customs and excise, and it is seeking the co-operation of the Australian Taxation Office. It is to prevent the continuance of that fraud. That report has been tabled. Mr Porter —No-- Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, it has. Mr Porter —We are talking about a different report. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —If the honourable gentleman wants to see me later he will find that I can give him the date. I am surprised to think that he has not got correspondence from me that clearly indicates that it was tabled. That report identifies the overview of the fraud. Mr Porter —We are talking about a different report. It did not talk about money. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —That is the report that was given to me. That report has been tabled. That is the issue. The task force has been established. Mr Porter —The 1985 report-will you table it? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —There may well have been a report from the police to the Special Minister of State way back in 1983-84. That is the issue that ought to be dealt with. I have not got the report. I will make further inquiries as to whether there is a report available. Mr Porter —You have got it. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, I have not got it. The report was given to the Special Minister of State, not to me. On that issue, it is a matter for him. On that basis we can say that the report has been tabled. The honourable member does not even want to acknowledge that it does identify the extent of the fraud. He is talking about something from the point of view of fraud that no longer exists in the terms of money available to be collected. It is fraud from the point of view of administration and until such time as the honourable member identifies that matter we will just continue to argue this proposition. Mrs HARVEY —Can the Minister for Industrial Relations advise the House what steps the Government has taken through its wages policy to protect the position of low wage earners in recent years? Mr WILLIS —The Government is concerned about the position of low wage earners. I thank the honourable member for Hawker for her question which indicates her interest in this topic along with that of all other members on this side of the House. The Government has put into effect its concern about low wage earners in pursuing a wages policy in difficult economic circumstances which has necessarily involved overall some real reduction in the level of wages. But in that context we have been concerned to ensure that low wage earners were protected as much as possible. That is demonstrated by such things as the first tier increases in the current wage system which have involved a $10 increase and a $6 increase, both obviously flat money increases rather than percentage increases and providing higher percentage increases in pay to low wage earners than to high wage earners. It has clearly been a greater protection to lower paid workers than to higher paid workers to have it in that flat money form. Secondly, the second tier increases that apply under the present system have generally been of the order of 4 per cent. But some industries have been biased towards looking after low wage earners. For instance, in the Commonwealth Public Service, although the average is 4 per cent, the top paid public servants have received only 3 per cent. At the bottom end there has been a 5 per cent increase. Indeed, for the very lowest paid public servants on the lowest classification there has been over a 10 per cent increase. In some industries there have been supplementary payments introduced as part of the second tier increase. Supplementary payments are a form of minimum over-award payment, in effect, and they have increased the position of lowest paid workers in the industries where they have been introduced, such as the transport industry, the timber industry and manufacturing grocers. They will also apply probably in the near future in such important industries as the retail trade, the furnishing trades and the textile and clothing industry. The Government has also supported the spread of occupational superannuation. Generally that has been around the 3 per cent mark but in some industries that has applied in a way which again has given greater increases to lower paid workers on a percentage basis. Thus, in the Australian Government employment area we have, for our own employees, provided an overall enhancement of superannuation of 3 per cent. However, for top paid public servants and other Australian Government employees, the amount is only 2 per cent while at the bottom, for lower paid public servants and other Australian Government employees, there is a flat money amount of $11.50 or around 4 per cent. All this has to be put in the context also of changes to the tax system. A couple of cases have been deliberately biased towards low paid workers. Changes to the social wage, which the Prime Minister elaborated on yesterday, greatly enhance the position of low paid workers in this country, particularly the dynamic family assistance scheme which is greatly increasing the position of low paid workers. I will just quickly indicate the effect of those provisions. I will give a few examples. An adult male worker without a family, receiving average earnings in the fabricated metals products industry, who has received a superannuation payment of 3 per cent along with the wage increase from the current wage system has had a real increase of one per cent in his real after tax income since this Government has been in office. Let us take the case of a machinist in the furnishing trades who has a dependent spouse and two dependent children, and is also receiving superannuation and is entitled to the family assistance scheme. That person has received a 16.9 per cent increase in real after tax income since this Government came to office. Take the case of a woman working in the textile industry, who is receiving average pay from that industry, who has no dependent spouse but has two dependent children and who also receives superannuation and is entitled to payments from the family assistance scheme. The increase in real after tax income for that woman is 18.6 per cent. Leaving aside the enormously important family assistance scheme, one can see that because of the various ways in which we have sought to assist low paid workers they have, in large measure, been protected from the reduction in real wages which has occurred overall. But on top of that, with the family assistance scheme there has been an increase in their real after tax income of extraordinary proportions. Honourable members should remember that on top of that we have to take into account other improvements in the social wage. There is no doubt whatever that this Government's concern about low paid workers in this country has been well and truly put into effect. Their position has been greatly enhanced when they have dependent children. Even when there are no dependent children their position has been maintained and even enhanced. Mr IAN ROBINSON —I direct a question to the Prime Minister. I refer to reports that Telecom Australia has introduced charges when telephone subscribers require repairs to be carried out to telephones which go out of service and that Telecom is considering raising home telephone rentals to $350 per year and increasing local charge calls by 50 per cent. I ask the Prime Minister: Is he aware of the denial of this by the Minister for Transport and Communications, which is an exact re-run of a similar denial that there would be the introduction of timed charging on local telephone calls? I ask the Prime Minister to tell the House where he and the Cabinet stand on this important issue. Mr HAWKE —Yes, I am aware of the reports. Yes, I am aware of the denials and what the Minister says is correct. I am also aware of the fact that in their desperation those on the other side of the House continue to peddle untruths, scurrilous rumours, in regard to every conceivable area, whether it is personal behaviour or whether it is in regard to canards about what will happen to Telecom charges. They are incapable of dealing with the truth. They would not recognise truth or a principle if they fell over it. It is not in their currency. It is not their area of concern. There is no basis to the rumours. The statement of the Minister is very clear on this matter. We are witnessing this week in the lead-up to the Port Adelaide by-election a desperate attempt to confuse the electors of Port Adelaide with lies about me and with canards about Telecom. I simply make the point, particularly to the honourable member and to the constituents that he represents, that, if they have anyone in politics to fear about the charging by Telecom, it is honourable members opposite-not necessarily members of the National Party of Australia, but their Liberal Party cohorts. National Party members, of course, have a pretty keen sense regarding where their interests lie; that sense of where their best interests lie is never very far away from them. Because they have that keen sense, they will make sure that they do their best to try to stop a policy of charging by Telecom which encompasses that user pays principle. They know that it would represent devastation for people in the country. As usual, and particularly in more recent times, honourable members opposite have neither the courage nor the capacity to stand up to the John Elliotts. I am not talking about the honourable member who asked the question; I am talking about John Elliott. The John Elliotts of this world are committed to a principle of making country people pay the earth. Under this Government the people of rural Australia can be assured-- Mr Lloyd —Mr Acting Speaker, I raise a point of order. Under this Government country people have already had to pay more for telephone calls, with Countrywide Calling. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the National Party has no point of order and will not use that mechanism. Mr HAWKE —The Deputy Leader of the National Party has a terrible concern about the truth of what I am saying, because the truth is that under this Government the people of rural Australia can be assured that there will be a continuation of the principle of cross-subsidisation so that the people of rural Australia will not have to pay the full real costs either of installation or of the running of their system. We are committed to that principle, and we are the only party in this Parliament that is committed to that principle. The people in rural constituencies face a very real risk. That risk will not be from members of the National Party, because they will have enough sense to know where their interests lie; it will be from the other mob opposite, members of the Liberal Party. I warn honourable members opposite: beware of John Elliott. Let me say this to the honourable member: the National Party has a cuckoo in its nest. If I were the honourable member, I would subject Senator John Stone to a grilling. Honourable members opposite know what I mean, because he does not really represent rural Australia. He represents the far way-out Genghis Khan territory of politics. John Stone, the National Party senator, if given half a chance, would line himself up with John Elliott and make sure that National Party constituents paid the earth. I say to the honourable member and to the constituents that he and the other reasonable people around him represent that they should make sure that they get on to John Stone and John Elliott because they are the ones who represent the threat to rural Australia. Under this Labor Government, rural Australia will continue unqualifiedly to get the benefits and advantages of cross-subsidisation that they deserve. I thank the honourable member for his question. Mr SNOWDON —Is the Minister for Defence aware of recent statements by the Opposition spokesman on defence in which he claims that Australia's only operational fighter squadron has only seven pilots? Can the Minister inform the House of the true state of Australia's fighter forces? Mr BEAZLEY —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. I am aware of those statements, although I think the figure mentioned by the Opposition spokesman on defence regarding the number of pilots was five, not seven. Those statements come on top of an election campaign when the one saving identified by the Opposition in the defence area, to uphold a massive plethora of promises which were totally unfunded, was that it would slow and, by implication, cancel the thrust of this Government's policy, which has been to move defence assets to the north and west. Mr Sinclair —That is rubbish. Mr BEAZLEY —It is not the policy of the National Party of Australia. It had a separate policy, as the right honourable member will recollect, in the last election. It is true that the policy of the National Party did not state that. However, the policy of the Liberal Party in the last election suggested a slowing of the move of our Defence Force assets to the north and west. This commitment to the defence of Darwin that he has suddenly discovered is very new for him and for the Liberals. The point which he ought to understand and which we have been trying to make clear to him, but which he clearly does not understand, is that the manning of the fighter squadrons has been dependent on the introduction of the Hornet aircraft and the planned state of manning has been a product of planning on personnel that has been in place since 1984. Obviously, at some point the various squadrons that currently operate Mirages will have to be run down. We will make a sensible judgment about that when the time is reached when that has to be done. Personnel from No. 75 Squadron will have to be moved to Williamtown to be trained on the Hornet. As that process proceeds, naturally there will be fewer pilots manning the aircraft in Darwin. Of course, were the unanticipated to occur-and the Opposition shadow spokesman has yet to identify the war he anticipates we are going to have to fight over the next couple of weeks, and the attack on Darwin that will take place in the course of that war-it would be a relatively simple matter to move the fighter pilots out of training in Williamtown back to Darwin to deal with the problem. He persists with this furphy and with this total lack of understanding about how defence forces are sensibly planned. He persists with ignoring the real needs of the defence of the north and west. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I wish to add to an answer to a question asked by the honourable member for Barker. The thrust of the honourable member's question was: What had happened to a report on fraud? I indicated that the report that I had dealt with was tabled in this House. I am now able to tell him that the report, entitled Review of Systems for Dealing with Fraud on the Commonwealth, was tabled on 6 October last year. Mr Porter —I rise on a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. I repeat that that is not the $4 billion report that I requested. The Attorney-General said that he would table the $4 billion report. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —On a matter that might be dear to members' hearts-- Mr Tim Fischer-Or stomachs. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Or stomachs, as the honourable member for Farrer has reminded me, honourable members are advised that the Parliamentary Catering Service resumed its duties at 2 p.m. today. The Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees Union is still in dispute with the Joint House Department. Parliamentary Catering Service staff have resolved to continue lightning strikes. This afternoon the Department is notifying the dispute to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Mr COHEN(Robertson) —I seek your indulgence, Mr Acting Speaker, on a matter of some sensitivity. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) asked a question of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). He asked him whether he had telephoned senior members of the Jewish community. The rest of the question is irrelevant. I am not having a shot at the Leader of the Opposition. I do not believe that he intended to offend, but I think the practice of referring to people's ethnic or religious origins in a question is irrelevant to the-- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I thought the honourable member for Robertson was attempting to make a personal explanation. I draw the attention of the honourable member and other honourable members to the fact that they have to indicate where they as individuals have been misrepresented rather than-- Mr COHEN —I am seeking indulgence from you, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I think this is an important question that needs to be considered by this Parliament. I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition did not mean to offend. The point is that there is an inference that the Prime Minister was contacting these people-or was not contacting them-because they were Jewish. I personally find the practice offensive. I hope that in future no member of the house will refer to a person's religion or ethnic origins unless it is relevant to the matter under discussion. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —With your indulgence, Mr Acting Speaker, I appreciate the spirit in which the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) raised this matter. I am sure the honourable member would accept that my credentials as an Australian who is very pro-Israel and most sensitive and sympathetic to the Jewish people in this country are without challenge. In fact, it is one area of foreign policy where my views and those of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) would be very close. I used the expression referred to by the honourable member for Robertson-it had been used in a question asked by the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale)-not in any pejorative, insensitive or discriminatory sense. Though I understand why the honourable member for Robertson raised the matter, I certainly had no intention of using the expression in any improper way. I assure the honourable member that I would be the last person in this House ever to seek to introduce matters that may raise any suggestion of hostility to the Jewish people. Mr Mildren —Why did you use it? Mr HOWARD —If members of the Government are trying to assert that in some way I used the expression in a discriminatory sense, why do they not have the guts to move a substantive motion? The expression was used in the descriptive fashion, based on information given by the honourable member for Deakin. Mr Humphreys —Apologise. Mr HOWARD —I do not have to apologise about anything. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie) —Mr Acting Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented most grievously. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr CAMPBELL —The matter to which I refer occurred on Friday night. An obscure senator, Senator Knowles, said that I obtained confidential information from the Department of Transport about the Coastwatch tender and had conveyed this information to Skywest Airlines Pty Ltd. That is a total falsehood; it has no substance whatever. I have checked my files and I have never had any correspondence from the Department alluding to this matter. However, I did telephone Mr Amann and put to him certain suggestions given to me by Skywest. Mr Amann told me that his finances were in place with the Westpac Banking Corporation through Australian Guarantee Corporation Ltd. I conveyed this information to Skywest in an attempt to stop the falsehoods which it was spreading. I might add that both parties to the Coastwatch tender were so disreputable and they told so many lies-- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has gone beyond the stage where he can claim to have been misrepresented. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —Yes, most grievously by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden). Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr HOWARD —During Question Time today the Minister sought to allege that in some way I had breached a long-standing convention relating to criticism of government policy by Opposition spokesmen while overseas. In the course of answering a question, the Minister quoted very selectively from the personal explanation I had made in the House and, inter alia, he completely omitted to give a balanced account of what I had said. He drew on one phrase, and I repeat it: I will always assert the right anywhere in the world to criticise the policy of my country's government. The Minister did not go on to say that I also said, and these are the critical words: The idea that compliance with Hayden-Hawke policies is synonymous with patriotism is a doctrine that I totally reject. The whole thrust of what the Minister said in his answer, to which I take exception, was that in some way it was unpatriotic of me to criticise the policies of his government. There is no convention known to the Westminster system that stipulates that if one goes overseas and criticises the current policy of one's political opponents, in some way that is un-Australian or unpatriotic. It is a nonsense for the Minister to suggest that that is so. Mr Campbell —Mr Acting Speaker, I call for a little even-handedness. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Does the honourable member for Kalgoorlie wish to make a further personal explanation? Mr Campbell —In a matter where I was accused of a very serious crime I was terminated while I was attempting to make out my case adequately. You have given the Leader of the Opposition two bites at the cherry. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition claimed to have been twice misrepresented. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie was beginning to debate the point that he had in disagreement with Senator Knowles. That is out of order. If the honourable member can come succinctly to the position where he claims to have been misrepresented, he may proceed. Mr Campbell —It seems to me, Mr Acting Speaker, that there should be some form of redress when I have been so grievously misrepresented without any basis at all. I was making the point that the two companies I mentioned probably represent admirable company for Senator Knowles. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House) —I present the National Agenda for Women report A Say, A Choice, A Fair Go. I move: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The dramatic impact on Australians of the Hawke Government's proposed changes to the tax treatment of superannuation. 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 CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(2.57) —Some five weeks ago we had a debate in this House as a matter of public importance on the Government's proposed changes and increases in taxation in the field of superannuation. Since then two most important events have occurred. Last Saturday's election results demonstrated right across Australia that the policies of this Government have been absolutely repudiated by the Australian people. The voters took this course of action because they are sick of having governments which constantly put their hands in the pockets of the people. They voted the way they did in electorates such as Minchinbury because they can no longer survive in a social and economic system brought upon the nation by five years of Labor Party government. Next Saturday in the Port Adelaide by-election the Government will see yet again a repudiation of its policies, when the people will have the opportunity to determine whether or not they want to pay more tax on superannuation. But the situation did not end at that point. The other day I asked a question of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) about why he believed that those who had superannuation were tax cheats, and by implication those who sold superannuation cover were tax cheats; why he believed that the entire system had to be changed; and, above all, why he said that taxation on superannuation was inevitable, despite the earlier comments by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). What has taken place in this House over recent weeks demonstrates conclusively that as at May 1988 the Government will have only one fundamental objective-to take from superannuation every possible tax cent it can get its filthy hands on. That is what the Australian people are sick and tired of. On the one hand the Government says, `Join 3 per cent superannuation productivity schemes. Get into superannuation. We want people to save for their long term financial security in retirement'. They are all perfectly valid objectives, but beneath the reality one detects the snake-like appearance of a Labor government that really only wants to say to people, `Join a superannuation scheme so we can tax you more'. We are told that the purpose of this tax is to rationalise the arrangements for corporate taxation. As the Prime Minister said today at Question Time, `We have to look at taxing superannuation so we can rationalise the whole thing'. The part of my question the Prime Minister refused to answer was: if that is the case, why has the Government bothered to ask Dr Bettina Cass to involve herself in a very expensive and detailed inquiry into retirement incomes policy, the results of which, the Minister for Social Security told us the other day, would be available in June? `Mid-year' is exactly what he said. I do not think that May, in terms of the May mini-Budget, is mid-year. The Government has two inquiries concurrently into the same area of policy and has the effrontery to come into this House and claim that it has a properly co-ordinated retirement incomes policy. There is no way known to man or woman that one can possibly say in the context of taxation reform what should be done to superannuation unless a much wider perspective is taken of the role of superannuation reform in the totality of retirement incomes policy. What are we going to have? We are going to have new taxes on superannuation in May and, in June or later, we are going to have a report from Dr Cass telling us how superannuation can fit into retirement income policy. She will probably make the most obvious observation, namely, that taxing superannuation at too high a rate will force people out of superannuation and not into it. On the basis of the Government's comments over the last five years, especially the comments made by none other than the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in May 1983, I would have thought that this was precisely the opposite direction to which the Government wanted to go. In Port Adelaide there are 22,000 superannuants. But they are now all cheats. We will be telling the people of Port Adelaide, as we have done for some weeks, that they are all cheats because the Government and the Minister for Social Security claims that they are so. Thousands of people around Australia are selling superannuation schemes because they thought-and the Opposition believed-that they were working in the context of the law as it stands. But the mob of charlatans opposite prefers to regard these people as taxation frauds and cheats. Like many others, the people of Port Adelaide are joining the 3.2 million Australians who want to be financially independent in their retirement. That independence is one of the objectives emphasised by the Government's own Economic Planning Advisory Council report entitled Economic Effects of an Ageing Population. The evidence in this report is clear. If Australia continues down its present road, where only 47 per cent of the work force has access to superannuation, we face not only the inexorable reality that within 20 years we will have an ageing population but also the very real difficulty, on the present level of economic growth, of being un- able to maintain pensions at their current levels. Any government planning for the future-a theme we hear so often from the Prime Minister and his stooges opposite-would have said, as I am saying now, `We want to encourage people to look for alternatives outside the government funded pension system'. Nobody disputes the fact that it is the role of the Government to provide a safety net, an underpinning, so nobody falls into poverty in retirement. That is a principle with which I hope all members of this House would agree. To then say, `We do not wish to make superannuation attractive enough for a long term investment' is outrageous. It is absolutely contrary to the principles of what superannuation is meant to be all about. For the benefit of the House and as a basis for this debate, let us agree on what we are talking about. I said in this House some weeks ago in the debate on the superannuation legislation that superannuation is a system of deferred income for genuine retirement purposes. Designed to maintain an adequate standard of living after retirement, it should also result in decreased dependence on the social security system. They are the objectives of superannuation. Independence from the social security system and adequate income in retirement are the objectives for which we work. When we talk about self-provision in retirement, what do we mean? We mean that the long term objective must be to encourage the entire work force, not just the rich, but the ordinary blue collar workers in places like Port Adelaide, to feel that the door is open, that they are being encouraged to save for their retirement so that they will have a degree of financial dependence, which this Government wants to deny them. Underneath it all what the socialists opposite really want is to have everybody locked into a pension system by which government, and government alone, can determine the capacity of people to have financial independence in retirement. No other reason can justify the direction of the Government's current policy and approach. If the Government were honest, it would face the fact that it cannot talk about reducing personal income tax, on the one hand, and increasing the rate of superannuation tax, on the other hand. One does not need to be a genius to know that suddenly the point is reached where it is no longer marginally worth while for the average Australian worker seriously to consider superannuation. Instead of seeing a growth in superannuation what the Government will guarantee will be a constant flow-out of existing funds, and making it very difficult for people to join new funds. The Government, under its new regulations-which the Opposition supports on this point at least-is asking people, who are meant to be saving for long term retirement, in 30 or 40 years, to deny themselves income but not to expect to get any reasonable taxation support. Most people today have to spend their income. Because of the declining standard of living in this society over the last five years, the ordinary people of Australia, the ordinary people who used to vote for Labor, can no longer survive. They certainly cannot afford superannuation if they lose the capacity to consume, without taxation support at an adequate level. In May 1983, with the aura of change and the need for a long term policy, the Government introduced various administrative arrangements under which it was able to hide a significant increase in superannuation taxation. It was a 30 per cent lump sum tax, equivalent to 19 per cent on the current marginal tax rates. The Government is now saying that it will increase the tax rate even further. That will produce the conflict I referred to. The ultimate result will be that far fewer people will take out superannuation than has been the case in the past. The Prime Minister came in here and said that he was making three promises. He said that the Government would not consider any changes which would impact adversely on already accrued superannuation benefits. What does that mean? Does it mean that the changes will not be retrospective? I sincerely hope so. The Opposition will not accept retrospectivity in this regard-ever. I make that absolutely clear. The commitments that people have made over 10, 20 or 30 years should be respected by whoever is the government of the day. The Government has no right, at any stage, to change the game upon which those people have made their decision in the past. Let us remember this: even if the Government draws a line on its ledger and says, `We will not tax anything prior to that date and will only tax investment income after that date', it should not kid itself. There is a degree of retrospectivity in that. No fund manager can discriminate between the decisions he made five or 10 years ago and income which is still being generated in the future. The Prime Minister also said that the Government would not make any changes which would stop people from taking lump sum superannuation benefits. What does that mean? Does it mean that the Government will still allow people to take 100 per cent lump sums? Does it suggest that lump sums will be cut down to 50 per cent? Does the Prime Minister realise the impact this could have on people who are trying to pay off their houses, their commitments, so that they can enter retirement on at least a level playing field? The correlation in all the evidence is clear: if one does not own one's own home when one goes into retirement poverty is a reality at the front door, a reality which will continue because of the policies of this Government. When one relates it to issues such as the capacity of Australians to save, it is clear that the rate of household savings in Australia is now falling at the fastest rate since the war. One of the obvious reasons why it is falling is that people cannot afford to eat, and if they cannot afford to live they cannot afford to save. Yet it is in that environment that the Government once again is looking for $1 billion or, if it is lucky, $2 billion to tax out of superannuation fund investment accounts. It has not said anything about the 30 per cent tax on lump sums. Are we to have that as well? Of course, the people of Port Adelaide, the people of New South Wales and the people of Western Australia-even the people of Kew in Victoria last Saturday-had these thoughts in their minds. There is no doubt that anybody over the age of 45, in an environment of relatively high inflation, has every reason to be mortally afraid of his future in retirement. The one thing such people ask of government is stability and the financial, social and economic environment in which to save for their future and be independent of government. They want the Government to provide the ultimate fall-back position if a desperate situation occurs, because the sad fact is that, even with superannuation, if inflation continues as it is through the rest of this decade and to the end of the century, many people who have superannuation today will still ultimately have to go in to the social security system. But the longer we encourage them to stay out of that system the greater the benefit to Australia. Above all, those people will have the degree of financial independence for which they have worked and saved. That is their right and the Government has no right to take it from them. Mr PRICE(Chifley)(3.12) —This proposal for the discussion of a matter of public importance is no more than a cheap attempt at a fear campaign before the Port Adelaide by-election. May I remind the House of the Liberal coalition policies over the 30 years of its reign, or more accurately 80 years. In the speech made by the shadow Minister for Social Security, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), where were the Liberal Party policies about social issues or superannuation? The truth is that this Opposition is bereft of ideas. It is bereft of policies. It has been beaten three time successively at the elections and it will be beaten again. It is typical of the Opposition that it should adopt two tactics: one is personal attacks on members of parliament and the other is unwarranted fear campaigns against all Australians such as we have witnessed here today by the shadow Minister for social security. When the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in my electorate of Chifley launched the family package in November of last year the shadow Minister reported to the House that the Prime Minister had launched the package in Campbelltown in the western suburbs of Sydney. The two towns concerned are something like 30 kilometres apart. That shows how much this Opposition cares for the ordinary men and women of Australia, particularly those who live in the western suburbs, particularly the workers or the underprivileged. Those are the credentials the honourable member brings to this debate. Let me go over some of the points that have been made. The Prime Minister has made the Government's position on superannuation clear in three respects. The Government is completely committed to superannuation as a means of people preparing for their retirement. Superannuation will continue to receive concessional tax treatment. That is a commitment by the Prime Minister. It is outside the scope of the review. Secondly, the baseless rumours and scaremongering spread by the Opposition that the Government will stop people taking lump sums is completely untrue and refuted here today again. The Prime Minister has affirmed that people will continue to be able to take lump sums if they wish. Lastly, the Prime Minister has also said that no person has any reason to respond to the Opposition's shocking fear campaign seeking to encourage people unnecessarily to retire early in order to protect either retirement benefits. Changes will not be made retrospectively. (Quorum formed) As the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) has pointed out, not only do Opposition members abuse the forms of the House but they also have so little real interest in this discussion of a matter of public importance on superannuation that they have proposed here today that they call quorums during the debate. It is obscene that this matter should be brought forward on a day when the Australian Bureau of Statistics has published figures highlighting the coalition's legacy in not providing superannuation for all ordinary Australians. All it is really interested in is the highest income earning people that are currently on superannuation. It has never been interested in Mr and Mrs Average. It has never been interested in extending superannuation benefits to all Australians, particularly workers. One of the most historic decisions we took as a Government, which had a dramatic impact on superannuation, was extending through the wages system the 3 per cent wages decision to make superannuation available to all workers. Once again, this decision was opposed by the toffs and silvertails opposite, who are interested in providing benefits only to their super-rich friends. Superannuation cover for all Australians will bring about a massive and historic change in benefits for all Australian workers. I referred to the statistics. Let me run through some, highlighting the inequality of the current provision of superannuation. The figures show that at August 1987 only 40 per cent of all workers received superannuation. They show that whilst 50 per cent of males receive superannuation only a quarter of females do. What, might I ask, did the coalition do about this when it was in government? Absolutely nothing. It showed its real concern by the policies that it implemented, which did absolutely zero in this area. Contrast that with what we have done. I also point out that the statistics show that it is the people in the most highly paid professions who overwhelmingly benefit from superannuation. According to the statistics, three-quarters of male managers, administrators and professionals get superannuation cover but only 30 per cent of labourers and related workers get superannuation cover. The proposition on this side of the House is that superannuation should be extended to all. We started it and we are doing it for male and female; young and old. The statistics also show that 70 per cent of people who earn more than $520 a week get superannuation cover but that only 30 per cent of people who earn less than $440 get superannuation cover. That highlights the hypocrisy of the Opposition's stand. Let me go over the points that have been made. The Prime Minister made those three commitments on superannuation. We are sticking by them; we are not walking away from them. No-one who is currently a member of a superannuation scheme needs to be terrified by the gutter tactics of the Opposition. We are extending superannuation. The point about superannuation and why there should be a review of it is that superannuation tax concessions cost the Australian taxpayer more than $3 billion a year. We have pledged to continue the concessionality of superannuation, but the Opposition is saying that we should not review it. It is saying, in the light of the business tax review, that we should not review it, that we should leave it out. What sheer and utter hypocrisy! The Opposition spokesman suggested that we have filthy hands in relation to superannuation. I say that the Opposition has a filthy record on taxation per se. The Opposition, when in government, got into bed with its mates and allowed tax avoidance to grow. It allowed Mr and Mrs Average Australian to bear an unfair burden. It did not give a damn about salaried workers, it did not give a damn about wage earners, and it did not give a damn about Mr and Mrs Average. That is its record, yet it accuses us of having dirty hands in relation to superannuation. The real point about the matter of public importance raised by the Opposition is that it is miffed about the real progress that I mentioned earlier, that has been achieved through the accord and by the Government's economic strategy to create more jobs and combat Australia's balance of payments. Opposition members are buoyed by the results of the New South Wales State election on Saturday, and perhaps they should be. But since the Opposition's defeat at the last Federal election what policy has it brought in? It claims to have a new policy, a new vision for all Australians, a new vision for the average worker. Where are the policies? After nine months of a defeat where are they? Where is the economic policy of the Leader of the Opposition? Where is the taxation policy? Will the Opposition spokesman table the policy? Of course he cannot table it-because it has not been produced. The real difference between the Government and the Opposition on economic and management issues is that we have made the changes with the least impact on all Australians. We have sheeted home a phenomenal increase in the number of jobs. It is true that we still have unemployment, but to us on this side of the House that is a challenge to overcome. For the Opposition the unemployed are merely fodder, whose numbers are to be increased and decreased at whim in order to manage the economy. We have restructured the economy the Labor way-by increasing jobs and by increasing our commitment to social justice. Look at some of the things we have done in our five years in office and that we are pledged to continue to do. We introduced the family assistance package that the shadow Minister for Social Security got the location of so wrong. It is probably one of the most radical reforms to help those really in need ever introduced, and it was introduced in recent times by a Labor Government. We have looked after pensions in difficult times. The Opposition when in government provided pensioners with a real decline in living standards. Their living standards went down under the Fraser years. We have increased their pensions from 22.7 per cent of average weekly earnings to the 25 per cent that it is today, and this has been done in hard times. I said that the tax system has been reformed. Apparently the Opposition finds it somehow objectionable that we should continue to want to reform and lift the tax burden of all Australians. Mr Connolly —Where are they? Where are your mates? Mr PRICE —Let me say that it is interesting to note that on industry policy and assistance to industry, before the last election the Opposition supported every Government proposition, but during the election the Opposition decided that it would wipe out all forms of government assistance to industry, one of the potential engine-rooms under Labor for increasing employment. That is how the Opposition's policies can backflip right in the middle of an election campaign. Where are the Opposition's policies? When is it going to bring them down? Let me turn to health issues. Perhaps one of the most shameful things about the Opposition is that in every avaricious campaign by specialists that we get locked into where does it stand for the ordinary men and women of Australia who need medical attention from specialists? It comes down on the side of the specialists every time. It has the gall to table in this Parliament a legal opinion that was given to the specialists. It did not even have the decency or the honesty to commission a legal opinion itself; it tabled the opinion without saying for whom it had been sought. That is the sort of thing for which the Opposition stands. In summary, the Government rejects this matter of public importance. We have made undertakings and the Prime Minister has made undertakings on superannuation which I have repeated here today, that this review will not affect current entitlements. It will not be retrospective and we are not stopping people from taking lump sums. We reject all the humbug that went into the debate. It was a fear campaign, a smear campaign, a down in the gutter campaign-a place where the Opposition finds itself today. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(3.28) —This debate has been most interesting and revealing. Here we are in the Parliament of Australia talking about superannuation, which is vital for the future of millions of Australians, hundreds of thousands of Australian families and the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones), who is at the table, is the only Minister in the chamber. Where is the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe)? This is the indication of the level of interest by the Government. This is the indication of the real care and concern it has for this matter. This is the indication of where the Government really stands on this matter. The honourable member for Chifley (Mr Price) responded to the matter of public importance and all he did was provide a smokescreen for the Government to hide behind. He practically foamed at the mouth as he talked about what he called Opposition's gutter tactics. He did not speak on superannuation for the short period of 10 minutes that he had to debate this matter. He got off the track and spoke about the family assistance package. He then talked about health and about legal opinions. He accused the Opposition of hypocrisy. How can we believe that the Government is concerned about this matter when we look around this chamber and see every one of the Government benches, front benches and back benches, empty. The Government does not care. Mr Braithwaite —We cannot compete with them on hypocrisy; they know all about it. Mr NEHL —They certainly do. I want to speak in the limited time available to me about superannuation because it is a vital subject for the future of so many of our fellow Australians. I do not believe that superannuation is a question for discussion under the subject of business taxation. Superannuation is the property of the individual worker, the individual Australian, the individual businessman. That is what superannuation is about. It is not a subject of business taxation. In fact, superannuation has for many years been the most tax advantaged form of investment available in this country, and it should stay so because superannuation is where the ordinary men and women of Australia put their dollars to provide for their future. The thing is that they need to provide for their future themselves. Australia needs Australians to take action now to start providing for their future because this is the most effective way of accumulating sufficient funds to meet the post-retirement needs of most Australians. If we change our system so that superannuation is taxed on a similar basis to other investments, this will act as a positive disincentive to our fellow Australians making provision for their own retirement. A situation where there are too many people needing social security and too few taxpayers to provide it is on our doorstep. We cannot ignore it. We cannot put up a smoke- screen, like the Government speaker has done. We have to take action now. We have to be concerned, we have to be caring and we have to be very careful to take the right action. As those born in the postwar baby boom begin to reach the age of 65 years, in the year 2011-and that is not that far away-there will be a great increase in the number of retirees. If most of these people still need to be supported by public pensions, it will place an incredibly severe strain on public finances. I say to the Government that destroying superannuation will not solve the problems of over-high taxation. Destroying superannuation will only create problems for the whole of Australia. I was particularly interested in the reference of the honourable member for Chifley to superannuation for women, because the Hawke Government's recent announcement on improving access to superannuation for women fails to help part time and casual workers-one of the major reasons why 75 per cent of women are locked out of superannuation. In this country 75 per cent of the women who are working are locked out of superannuation, and that is not good enough. The Government has its so-called national agenda for women. These people sitting opposite are clever at dreaming up clever little names that mean nothing. Mr Blunt —Tokenism. Mr NEHL —Yes, it is just tokenism. We have seen that in the way they have put women in their Cabinet. The Government has simply failed to address the structural reasons why superannuation schemes do not meet the needs of women. In 1985 less than 8 per cent of part time employees had superannuation and, as women make up 81 per cent of the part time work force, they are the most disadvantaged. Women tend to be concentrated in industries and occupations which have low superannuation coverage, and superannuation is rarely available to unskilled workers. In most industries, regrettably, women have lower paid jobs and thus, again, limited access to superannuation. Unless these issues and others are tackled, and tackled head on, the vast majority of women in the work force who are not superannuated will remain locked out of self-provision for retirement. This Hawke-Keating Government seems totally oblivious to the heartache and confusion that it is causing many Australians who do not know what will happen to their superannuation savings. In the September 1987 Budget the Hawke Government announced it would be undertaking a review of superannuation in its role of providing income for people in retirement. This is the third occasion in five years in office that the Hawke Government is going to play around the edges of superannuation. For what benefit? It will be of no benefit to the people of Australia because this broad review proposed by the Government has again placed thousands of Australians who are about to retire, who are thinking of retiring soon, or who are planning for their retirement into a tailspin of uncertainty. The possibility of radical changes to superannuation and taxation arrangements can be compared to a football match, and changing the rules while the players are still on the field is a very dangerous tactic indeed. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has not ruled out the possibility of taxing the investment income of superannuation funds or employer contributions. Superannuation is essential for the future of this country. It is essential for the economic benefit of Australia well into the next century, and if this Government is going to play around the edges and start taxing superannuation contributions by employers, that will have a disastrous effect on superannuation. It is worth remembering that the superannuation funds make a massive contribution to the availability of savings for investment in this country. In fact on the last available figures, for 1984-85, the income of private and public sector superannuation funds totalled $7.7 billion. They expended $3.4 billion. That left, in round terms, over $4 billion of Australian-generated savings available for investment in this country and overseas. If the Government goes out of its way to kill that, to prevent the superannuation funds from enabling Australians to have their own money put to work, it will have a disastrous effect on investment in this country. We also have to realise that Australians are family people. We care about our kids and grandkids, and it is normal in our society to make some provision for them. As was proved in New South Wales last Saturday, Labor is totally out of touch with the ordinary Australian, out of touch with Australian families. When Australians pay into their superannuation they want to be able to get something out of it. They do not want their lump sum taxed away into non-existence. It is their money, so why should any Australian save year after year and put money away, and then be put in the position later on of being told, `It is not really your money, you can only get the income from it. You can't get the capital, you can't use it for your own benefit. You can't leave it for your children or your grandchildren'.? Superannuation is vital to the future of this country and we have to make sure that nothing is done to make superannuation less attractive to Australians. Every reasonable encouragement must be given to people to provide for their own retirement. We have to do everything we can to assist the superannuation industry to provide the service and the benefits that the people of this country want. Superannuation and its provision of retirement income are essential. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GEAR(Canning)(3.38) —The matter of public importance before us today refers to proposed changes, so let me put this whole matter into perspective. We are not talking about anything real; we are not talking about anything the Government has done; we are talking about proposed changes. The whole argument revolves around a hypothetical case which may never eventuate. What the Government has said, rightly, is that it will review business taxation. That review will take into account all of the concessions that are given to business. Is that not the way one would expect a government to undertake a review-to look at everything? Honourable members would not rule out anything; they would not say that they were going to review something but for one reason or another would leave something out, because that would not be a complete review. Let us just put things into perspective. Everything the Opposition has said is nothing more than scaremongering, which is all it is good for. Let us have a look at the real reasons why those opposite brought this matter up today, pointing out deficiencies in the superannuation system-a system they administered for 30 years and did nothing about. What the Opposition is saying is, `There are deficiencies in the superannuation system. We did nothing about them but, now that we are in opposition, just before a by-election we will pop up for the old quick political point'. The Adelaide Advertiser of 29 February states in a report on a visit by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock): The Hawke Government's proposal to tax superannuation- `proposal', mind you- will be the hot issue of the Federal by-election for Port Adelaide, according to the first of the Liberal `big guns'- that is a bit of an overstatement- to hit town, the Deputy Leader, Mr Peacock . . . He is known around here as emptyhead. That is the real reason. Let us not be fooled about why the Opposition is talking about superannuation a couple of days before a by-election, because the second paragraph of the Advertiser article gives the game away when it goes on to say: Mr Peacock, campaigning for Liberal endorsed candidate Mrs Judy Fuller, said yesterday superannuation would do for her what timed local calls did for Mr Michael Pratt at the Federal by-election for Adelaide. We remember the by-election in Adelaide, when the candidate stuck the big red telephone on top of the car because of the timed local calls issue-the Dial-a-Dino campaign-and whizzed around the streets of Adelaide. There was no grand vision from the Liberal Party, nothing about what it was going to do. It did not drag up the Leader of the Opposition's discredited tax policy that he had tried to flog off to the electorate last July and the electorate would not buy. No wonder the people would not buy it; it was full of holes. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) exposed it for what it was-nothing more than a shonky document to try to buy votes. The Opposition did not drag that one up in Adelaide. It ran the Dial-a-Dino campaign with the big red telephone on top of the car. The Opposition thinks that because it had a fluke in Adelaide it will have another fluke in Port Adelaide. The poor old honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Pratt) never expected to get in. He wanders around these corridors wondering where he is, all because of the Dial-a-Dino campaign. It might be true that it is easier to pick on an issue such as superannuation and go for the big beat-up than to bring up policies. As my colleague the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Price) said, there are no policies. The only one I have ever heard is from the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). He has a policy. Mr Price —The gutter. Mr GEAR —That might be where he resides, but his policy is to get rid of Medicare. That is the easy part, but he has not said what he is going to replace it with. According to the Advertiser article-after all, this is the real reason why we are talking about superannuation today-the Deputy Leader of the Opposition went on to say that Labor had lost touch with the electorate. We hear this quite often from the Opposition. The Opposition spokesman, the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), is at the table nodding his head like a gollywog. The Opposition seems to think that this Party has lost touch. Let me tell the Opposition something. I do not believe that. I believe that this Government has done everything a good Labor government should do. Its bias is towards people on low incomes, and it always has been, towards getting a decent taxation system in this country, towards restructuring the economy and towards creating the jobs. One party which has never lost touch with its traditional base is the Liberal Party of Australia. It has never lost touch with its traditional base and it has fought us all the way down the line on all the decent things we have tried to put into the taxation system. When we ended the free lunches, whereby businessmen could take their wives out to lunch and book it up to the taxpayer, what a great roar we heard from the Opposition, which said, `How dare you take away free lunches for our mates. Why should the taxpayer not pay for our lunches?'. We ended those fringe benefits and we saw the Opposition's performance. We said it was a bit unfair for somebody who took his lunch to work in a brown paper bag and drove an old Holden or travelled on public transport to underwrite the costs of all the fringe benefits that the Opposition's mates enjoyed. The overseas travel and the big luxury cars were all funded by the taxpayer. We got rid of the fringe benefits and the Opposition fought us all the way on that. It has never lost touch with its traditional base. When we took the pensions away from millionaires, who fought us? Who went around saying that, as sure as night follows day, we would introduce a capital gains tax to get back that money that should always have been paid? It was the Liberal Party. So let us not fool ourselves. We can never accuse the Liberal Party of having lost touch with its traditional base. It has always stayed in touch; it has always looked after the bigwigs. What the Opposition really wants are two taxation systems, as it used to have-one for the poor old sucker in the street, the pay as you earn taxpayer who gets hit in the neck every time, and a second, one at the side, where all its mates can duck through the side door and pay little or no tax at all. That was the Opposition's system and we ended it. No wonder it is not talking about those things. The Liberal Party has no grand vision and no policies. What does it stand for? Nobody knows, apart from going on its past performance, which, as I have indicated, was nothing more than looking after its rich mates. Let me give honourable members an example of what we did with superannuation. We made sure that the people who benefited most from the taxation breaks in the superannuation scheme paid their fair share. I give the example of somebody who takes a lump sum superannuation payment of $750,000. Most people know straight away that I am not talking about the average bloke in the street. I am talking about the silvertails the Opposition supports, the managers and the executives who forwent their income and stuck it into a superannuation scheme because they knew that, under the Liberal Party, when they walked away with superannuation payouts of $750,000 all they would pay in taxation would be $18,750-less than 3c in the dollar. That is what the Liberal Party stood for on superannuation. We have changed that so that if such a person walked out with his $750,000 payout now he would pay $216,750 in taxation. So under the Liberals that man would pay less than $20,000 tax and under Labor he would pay about a quarter of a million in tax, and so he should. He has had the tax break all the way through. So the taxation level has gone from about 2.45 per cent under the Liberals to about 29 per cent under Labor. That has closed off that little tax rort. Under the Liberal Government that person could also take the big lump sum and put it into a managed scheme from which he got little or no income and then claim the pension. That is how stupid the system was under the Liberal Party; there was double dipping. Not only were those sorts of people given a huge tax break, whereby they walked out with about three-quarters of a million dollars, but also they were given a pension. When we brought in the idea of an assets test to put a bit of decency back into the system, the Opposition fought us all the way. We were taking the pension from the millionaires so that the person who relied on the pension could have more. Mr Price —The genuine pensioner. Mr GEAR —As my colleague points out, so that the genuine pensioner who relied on his pension cheque as his only source of income could have more. This Government has lifted the basic pension from 22.7 per cent of income to 25 per cent. We have done that by stopping all the rorts of the Opposition's rich mates. No wonder it has never lost touch with its base. The worst thing is that if the people of Australia were silly enough to put the Opposition back in government it would go back to that system, notwithstanding the fact that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has said that he is going to cut spending by $11,000m, but he will not say where. When he goes to Port Adelaide I bet he will not tell the people there where he will get rid of $11,000m. He will duck and weave around that one. He will talk about what this Government might do about superannuation, but he will never talk about what he will do, because he is too gutless. The trouble with the Liberal Party at this stage in our history is that it has no policies, no vision and no leadership. It is a political jellyfish-no guts, no brains, no backbone. That is the trouble with the Liberal Party. No wonder it wants to make superannuation an issue. No wonder it wants to cloud the debate and not tell the people what it is going to do. It cannot tell them. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The debate is concluded. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business)(3.47) —I move: Customs Tariff Proposals No. 4 (1988). The Customs Tariff Proposals I have just tabled relate to proposed alterations to the Customs Tariff Act 1987. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 4 (1988) formally place before Parliament, as required by law, tariff alterations made by notice published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette during the recent recess. These proposals contain two further changes resulting from the Government's decision on the Industries Assistance Commission's report on pulp, paper, paper products and printing industries: an amendment to the definition of certain paper and paperboard eligible for the cigarette packaging policy by-law. The coverage of the by-law has been widened to include multi-ply board and solid bleached sulphate board laminated with aluminium foil and lightly coated with a plastic film; and an alteration to the rate of duty applying to paperbacked textile wall coverings to align with the rate applying to conventional wallpaper. The changes will apply from 1 January 1988 to conform to the general implementation date for the pulp, paper, paper products and printing industries decision. Those changes were introduced into the House of Representatives by Customs Tariff Proposals No. 2 (1988) on 24 January 1988. Summaries of alterations contained in these proposals have been prepared and are being circulated for the information of honourable members. I commend the proposals to the house. Debate (on motion by Mr Braithwaite) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(3.51) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Crimes (Torture) Bill will enable Australia to ratify the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment which was signed by Australia on 10 December 1985. The Convention, generally known as the Torture Convention, came into force on 26 June 1987, 30 days after the twentieth country, Denmark, deposited its instrument of ratification. As Attorney-General, I announced the Government's decision to ratify the Convention at the Human Rights Congress in Sydney on 25 September 1987. Ratification of the Convention by Australia has been the subject of consultation with the States in the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General and there is general agreement with this decision. Torture is an abhorrent practice and much work has been done in the councils of the United Nations to find practical ways of combating it. Australia has played a prominent part in such work and this Bill should be seen as a part of that process. In accordance with the provisions of the Convention, its main purpose is to deny a safe haven in Australia to any person who, while acting officially, or at the instigation or behest of a person so acting, is involved in the torture of a person in another country. There are currently 28 parties to the Convention, each of which has undertaken similar obligations to those embodied in this Bill. As a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Australia is already bound by the obligation in article 7 of that Covenant, which provides: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation. The Government takes the view that the laws of the States and Territories are already adequate to fulfil this obligation and the obligations of the Torture Convention in so far as acts committed within Australia are concerned. The Bill does not, therefore, apply to acts within Australia. Instead, the substantive provisions in clause 6 of the Bill apply to any act of torture as defined in the Convention which is committed anywhere in the world outside Australia. The Bill does not apply retrospectively to acts of torture committed before the legislation comes into force. Australian domestic law will be applied to an Australian citizen and to any person present in Australia who has committed an act of torture as defined in the Convention. The law to be applied will, in substance, be the law of the State or Territory where the offender is prosecuted. In the Government's view, adoption of the well-developed criminal law of the States and Territories is a preferable course to the creation of new Commonwealth law to deal with these very particular and, in the Australian context, hopefully rare circumstances. It should be noted, however, that the provisions of State and Territory legislation, and the relevant common law principles, will be applied as Federal law. Clauses 8, 9 and 10 of the Bill make necessary incidental provision for the handling of any prosecutions which, by virtue of section 68 of the Judiciary Act, will be heard in State courts. Clause 11 will preclude the raising of defences of exceptional circumstances or superior orders. Clause 13 recognises the obligation under article 6 of the Convention to allow an alleged offender who is not an Australian citizen access to his or her country's diplomatic or consular representatives. The remaining clauses ensure that State and Territory laws are not displaced, make appropriate provision for the Act's application and adopt the Convention's definition of torture. It remains for me to explain why it was considered unnecessary to include certain other provisions which might appear to be called for by the Convention. The obligations under article 5 to establish jurisdiction when offences are committed on an Australian ship or aircraft are already fulfilled by the Crimes at Sea Act 1979 and the Crimes (Aircraft) Act 1963. The other categories in that article are, I believe, encompassed by the Bill or by existing State and Territory law. Obligations in relation to extradition are fulfilled by our extradition law, treaties and practice. Obligations under article 16 in relation to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture are, in the Government's view, fulfilled by State and Territory criminal law, and the obligation under article 14 to provide for fair and adequate compensation for the victim of an act of torture is met by State criminal injuries compensation legislation and by common law rights in tort. The passage of this Bill will be a significant step in the international effort to combat torture. Whether or not the occasion ever arises for the legislation to be invoked, its existence will be a clear indication to the international community that Australia will never become a safe haven for those who breach fundamental human rights. It will also provide a practical means of dealing with any situation where a person who is alleged to have committed acts of torture overseas is found within Australian territory. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill and I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Reith) adjourned. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for proposed expenditure announced. Bill presented by Mr Duncan, and read a first time. Mr DUNCAN(Makin-Minister for Employment and Education Services)(3.58) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1987-88, together with Appropriation Bill (No. 4) and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2), which I shall introduce shortly, comprises the Additional Estimates for 1987-88. In these Bills, Parliament is asked to appropriate moneys to meet essential and unavoidable expenditures additional to the appropriations made for 1987-88 under Appropriation Act (No. 1) and Appropriation Act (No. 2) and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Act. These additional appropriations are required to meet commitments that have been approved by the Government since the Budget as well as requirements of an ongoing nature. The principal factors underlying the requirements include certain unavoidable cost and price increases and other parameter changes since the Budget was prepared. Although the Budget figuring contained allowances for prospective wage and salary increases, those amounts were not then appropriated, and funds are now required to meet the impact of the $6 per week national wage case decision and the Australian Public Service office based second tier pay agreement, the latter two constituting a total of some $65m of the Additional Estimates in the Bill. No provision is made in these Bills in anticipation of the negotiation of other second tier increases. Any additional funding required for this purpose will be met under the separate appropriation provisions in section 6 of the Appropriation Act (No. 1) and section 5 of Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Act 1987-88. Of the additional appropriations in the three Additional Estimates Bills totalling $654.7m, $501m is sought in Appropriation Bill (No. 3), $153.4m in Appropriation Bill (No. 4), and $0.3m in the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2). These amounts are offset in part by savings in the appropriations made by Appropriation Act (No. 1), Appropriation Act (No. 2) and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Act 1987-88, reflecting the Government's continued determination to improve the efficiency of ongoing programs. These savings, amounting to $566.1m, are detailed under the relevant appropriation headings in the document Statement of Savings Expected in Annual Appropriations, which has been distributed to honourable members. After allowance for prospective savings, the appropriations now sought represent a net increase of $88.6m in expenditures financed from annual appropriations. As a proportion of total estimated outlays-encompassing both annual and standing appropriations-this increase amounts to 0.1 per cent. I now outline some of the main areas in respect of which the Government has found it necessary to seek additional provisions in the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) to meet expenditure for the ordinary annual services of the Government. With regard to the defence portfolio, gross additional estimates of $250.6m are sought in Appropriation Bill (No. 3), significantly offset by savings of $141.2m, giving a net increase in Consolidated Revenue Fund expenditures of $109.4m. The increase reflects price and exchange rate variations since the Budget, together with a number of rearrangements of appropriations to reflect costs associated with the sale of Williamstown Naval Dockyard-$24.8m for which revenue of $100m is recorded elsewhere-the one-time costs of arrangements for the takeover of the management and operations of the Government Aircraft Factories by Aerospace Technologies of Australia Pty Ltd, $78m, the proposed acquisition of additional live-in accommodation for the Royal Australian Navy in Sydney and Cairns, $30.5m, and additional funding for the Defence Housing Authority, the bulk of which is to enable the capital program to be advanced from later years, $51.4m. Also included is an amount of $32m for the Defence Force second tier wage increase, largely offset by savings against a number of appropriations. Taking account of special appropriations, the unappropriated provision for the defence salary increases and other transactions contributing to the defence function, total defence outlays are estimated to increase by $83.1m. An amount of $64m is included for the Australian Trade Commission to meet a higher than expected level of claims under the export market development grants scheme. Some $30m is included under the Department of Veterans' Affairs for a shift in activity from the repatriation hospitals to public and private hospitals mainly due to underachievement of the nurse recruitment targets for the former and cost increases since the Budget for the latter; and a reallocation between appropriations necessitated by a delay in implementing the link with the Health Insurance Commission's payments system. The sum of $13.7m is sought for the Department of Social Security primarily to cover the national wage case and second tier increases. In addition, a total amount of $1.825m has been provided under the Department of Aboriginal Affairs for the purposes of consultation with the Aboriginal community and costs associated with the establishment of the proposed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. Of this amount, some $0.7m has been provided as supplementation to the running costs of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs for the establishment of the proposed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. This amount has been offset from the amount of $2.4m provided to the Department for a national consultative program. It is anticipated that $0.525m in savings will be realised from that provision. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Tim Fischer) adjourned. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for proposed expenditure announced. Bill presented by Mr Duncan, and read a first time. Mr DUNCAN(Makin-Minister for Employment and Education Services)(4.14) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. In Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1987-88, appropriations totalling $153.4m-additional to those made by Appropriation Act (No. 2) 1987-88-are sought for capital works and services, payments to or for the States and the Northern Territory, advances and loans and for other services. The proposed appropriations are needed to meet essential and unavoidable expenditures for which provision was not made in that Act. The additional appropriations are sought to meet certain cost and price increases which have occurred since the Budget and other requirements which the Government has considered it appropriate to meet this financial year. Areas where significant increases are sought over amounts provided in Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1987-88 are as follows. Some $81.1m is included under the Department of Primary Industries and Energy to validate rebates of crude oil excise allowed in respect of production from the tuna oilfield in 1982-83. This payment is required to overcome a technical error since discovered in the determination under which the original rebate was allowed and will be offset by an equivalent receipt of excise. The sum of $11.3m is included under the Department of Community Services and Health primarily to cover a backdated parameter change to the 1986-87 Medicare compensation grants to the States. An amount of $10m is sought for the Department of Veterans' Affairs as it has been decided to continue to accept loan applications from defence service homes clients and due to an increase in new building construction. An amount of $4m was appropriated in the Budget, based on an assumption that the Defence Services Homes Corporation would not accept loan applications after 15 September 1987. The sum of $10m is included under the Department of Primary Industries and Energy for payment to New South Wales as part of a jointly funded $40m package to improve the efficiency of coal rail freight transport. In addition the provision in this Bill for plant and equipment for the Australian Taxation Office reflects the net effect of savings and the interim funding of computer facilities related to development work associated with the proposal, announced by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on 29 September 1987, to examine the use of the existing tax file numbering system as a means of countering tax evasion. Plant and equipment spending on the computer facilities will be $3.859m in 1987-88. A further payment of $3.2m is scheduled to be made in 1988-89. The computer facilities will allow development work to continue and will also provide, when development is complete, computer capacity for the Australian Taxation Office to administer any one of a number of alternative arrangements involving tax file numbers. The Government has yet to consider the alternatives and no decision on the matter has been made. Additional running costs of $2.732m have also been provided in Appropriation Bill (No. 3) to enable the development work to continue. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Tim Fischer) adjourned. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for proposed expenditure announced. Bill presented by Mr Duncan, and read a first time. Mr DUNCAN(Makin-Minister for Employment and Education Services)(4.19) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. In the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1987-88, appropriations totalling $0.3m additional to those made in the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Act 1987-88 are sought for the recurrent and capital purposes of the parliamentary departments. The increase sought is to cover salaries of paid inoperative staff, separation and retirement payments and national wage case and second tier salary increases. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Tim Fischer) adjourned. Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy)(4.10) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to reconstitute the Australian Honey Board with revised functions and powers, a changed membership structure, and enhanced accountability to the honey industry, which provides the Board's funds through levies and an export charge. The legislative changes required to this end involve also repeal of the Honey Industry Act 1962, which is the Board's present charter, and appropriate amendments to the Honey Levy Acts (Nos 1 and 2) 1962 as well as to the Honey Export Charge Act 1973. These amendments are being introduced by separate Bills, so that a legislative package of four Bills is involved. In seeking to reform the Australian Honey Board, the Government wishes to apply to this body the policy principles which are being progressively applied to all primary industry statutory marketing authorities. These principles were enunciated in January 1986 in a White Paper on the reform of the authorities in question. Their aim is to make these bodies more effective, improve their accountability and enlarge their autonomy while ensuring ministerial oversight at the strategic level. In applying this policy to the Australian Honey Board, the Government has taken care to do so in a way appropriate to the circumstances of the honey industry. This industry is of modest size compared with our major rural industries, but it supplies virtually all domestic honey requirements and also exports a substantial part of its annual output. In 1986-87 honey exports contributed $16.6m to Australia's export income. The proposed changes to the structure and charter of the Honey Board were decided on after a detailed review of the Board's operations since its establishment some 25 years ago under the Honey Industry Act 1962. In the course of this review, extensive discussions took place with honey industry organisations in which the options discussed ranged from abolishing the Board to leaving it unchanged. The Government has concluded that there is still a role for a statutory marketing authority for the Australian honey industry, but believes that the present structure and charter of the Australian Honey Board are not conducive to fulfilment of that role with optimal results. The Board's current charter is too broad, as evidenced by the fact that some specific powers of the Board have seen little or no use in recent years. Its current membership of 10 is too large for an authority with a small budget, while the fact that Board members are elected or nominated to represent sectional interests limits the range of professional skills available to the Board. Moreover, the Board's operational autonomy is unduly restricted by requirements for ministerial approval in matters of relative detail. All of these shortcomings have been addressed in the changes proposed by the Bill. Under these changes, the new Board's role will be focused solely on two defined objectives. These are to maximise returns to the honey industry from exports, and to generate a greater demand for Australian honey both in Australia and overseas. In practical terms, this means that the restructured Board will be required to direct its attention and resources to promotional activity, and to support of the export marketing activities of the industry by assistance to honey exporters and a judicious regulation of their operations to prevent undesirable trading conduct. In the latter regard, it is the wish of the Government that the Board should keep its export regulatory or control activities to a minimum, allowing exporters as much freedom in their operations as is consistent with the interests of the industry as a whole. To ensure that this policy principle is observed, the Board will be required to review the operation of its export controls annually and to report the outcome of its review to the two principal organisations of the honey industry, namely, the Federal Council of Australian Apiarists Associations, the FCAAA, and the Honey Packers Association of Australia, the HPAA. These organisations are referred to in the Bill as the `producers' organisation' and the `packers' organisation' respectively, and those terms are also used in this speech for the sake of brevity. To enable the Board to exercise an appropriate degree of control over exports, the Bill provides that exporters of honey must be licensed by the Board. At present, these exporters must also be licensed, but the Board only recommends the issue of licences, while the power to grant them resides with the Minister or his delegate. Criteria for the granting of licences are specified in the Bill, which also provides for recourse to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal where a person is dissatisfied with a decision of the Board in the matter of licensing. Export licences will be subject to terms and conditions determined by the Board. In this regard, the Board will retain its present power to set minimum prices below which honey may not be exported. Similarly, it will retain the power to appoint agents in overseas countries and to require all exporters to make their transactions through these agents. It will also be open to the new Board, if it deems it necessary, to operate other modes of control such as export permits or time limits on forward contracts entered into by exporters. As already noted, however, the Board will be expected to provide reasons for such controls. In keeping with the Government's policy for statutory marketing authorities, the Board will be required to prepare a five-year corporate plan and to review it at least once a year. Similarly, it will have to prepare annual operational plans. In both cases, the Board will have to consult with the producers' and packers' organisations in the preparation of these plans. The plans will require the Minister's approval and form the basis of the Board's operations. As a further accountability requirement the annual reports of the Board will, amongst other things, have to assess the extent to which the Board's corporate and operational plan objectives were met. The Board will also be formally accountable to the peak industry bodies, namely, the Federal Council of Australian Apiarists Associations and the Honey Packers Association of Australia. The Board's chairperson will be required to report to meetings of these bodies after presentation of the Board's annual report to the Minister. With regard to the structure of the new Board, it will be made up of eight members, namely, a chairperson and a Government member who will both be chosen and appointed by the Minister, and six other members who will be selected and nominated for appointment by a selection committee to be established as specified in the Bill. These six members will be selected for their expertise in a range of fields relevant to the functions of the Board. Selection committee membership will consist of six persons appointed by the Minister, namely, a chairperson independent of any particular interest, two nominees each from the producer and packer sectors of the honey industry, and a person with professional staff selection experience who is to be nominated by the four industry members of the committee. Transitional provisions are included in the Bill which will ensure that existing Board membership and export controls will continue until the proposed new structure is fully in place and operational. It is expected that this stage will be reached not later than 1 January next. It is the intention of the Government that the operation of the reconstituted Honey Board be reviewed after five years in a fundamental way and, accordingly, the Bill provides for termination of its constituting legislation after six years from its commencement. Mention was made earlier of proposed amendments to the honey levy and export charge Acts. These Acts generate the funds which finance the Board, and the projected amendments will give the peak organisations of the honey industry a formal right to influence the level of funding to be provided to the Board. In addition, they will create scope in the levy Acts to increase that funding beyond the present limit if the industry decides to seek an increase in the future. The new arrangements I have outlined are not expected to impose any additional costs on the Commonwealth. Little change is anticipated in the cost to the industry of maintaining the Board. I am confident that this Bill and associated legislation will establish a more effective institutional basis for the honey industry with which to respond to future marketing challenges. I present the explanatory memorandum for this Bill and commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Tim Fischer) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy)(4.19) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Honey Levy Act (No. 1) 1962, under which a levy is imposed on honey sold in Australia. Income from the levy is used in part for the financing of the Australian Honey Board and in part for the financing of honey research programs. It complements the revenue obtained for these purposes under the Honey Levy Act (No. 2) 1962 and the Honey Export Charge Act 1973. The principal Act specifies maximum rates for the Honey Board and research components of the levy, and operative rates are prescribed by regulation. In the case of the Honey Board component, the Board recommends to the Minister the rates to be set. Under the proposed amendments, the Australian Honey Board will in future be required to consult with the national organisations of honey producers and honey packers before recommending to the Minister any change in the rate of levy imposed to finance the Board's operations. At present, the Board is not obliged to do so. A further provision will prevent the Board from recommending a levy rate higher than that agreed to by the producers' organisation. The object is to enhance the Board's accountability to industry. It is further proposed to increase the maximum rate of levy that can be imposed to finance the activities of the Board from 2.2c to 5c per kilogram of honey. The operative rate as prescribed by regulation is now at the maximum permissible level, and a higher levy maximum will provide scope for raising the present operative rate as and when recommended by the industry in the future. While the increased levy maximum will create scope for increasing the rate of the Honey Board component of the levy beyond its present level, no increase will take place until such time as the honey industry and the Board recommend that a higher rate be prescribed and the recommendation is implemented. The Bill has no financial implications for the Government. I present the explanatory memorandum for this Bill and commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Tim Fischer) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy)(4.22) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Honey Levy Act (No. 2) 1962, under which a levy is imposed on honey used in the production of other goods. Apart from covering honey disposed of by this particular method, the Act is identical in its provisions with the Honey Levy Act (No. 1) 1962. The amendments proposed by this Bill to the Honey Levy Act (No. 2) 1962 are the same as those which have been proposed to the Honey Levy Act (No. 1), and have been explained in the second reading speech on the Honey Levy (No. 1) Amendment Bill 1988. The comment made in that speech on financial implications of the amendment applies also to this Bill. I present the explanatory memorandum for this Bill and commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Tim Fischer) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy)(4.23) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Honey Export Charge Act 1973, under which a charge is imposed on honey exported from Australia. Income derived from the export charge is used in part for the financing of the Australian Honey Board and in part for the financing of honey research programs. It complements the revenue obtained for these purposes under the Honey Levy Acts (Nos 1 and 2) 1962, which apply to honey disposed of on the home market. The principal Act specifies maximum rates for the Honey Board and research components of the export charge, and operative rates are prescribed by regulation. In the case of the Honey Board component, the Board recommends to the Minister the rates to be set. Under the proposed amendments the Australian Honey Board will be required to consult with the honey producers and honey packers organisations prior to recommending to the Minister any change in the rate of the export charge component which funds Board activities. The Board will be precluded from recommending a rate higher than that agreed to by the producers' or packers' organisation. The amendments, which will enhance the accountability of the Australian Honey Board to the honey industry, have no financial implications for the Government or the industry. I present the explanatory memorandum for this Bill and commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Tim Fischer) adjourned. Debate resumed from 22 March, on the following paper presented by Mr Beazley: Defence Policy-A progress report-Ministerial Statement, 22 March 1988 and on motion by Mr Humphreys: That the House take note of the paper. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen)(4.25) —As I said earlier when speaking on the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill, it gives me much pleasure to support the Government in the statement made by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) on the implementation of the defence White Paper as it is indicative of the approach the Australian Labor Party is bringing to government in this country. It is an approach that has been sadly lacking for many years in the area of defence. For years an ad hoc approach has been adopted as the various political parties, including my own, have at different periods forgotten about defence until an election looms, when suddenly they produce a policy and purchase capital equipment. A great example of that was the decision of the Menzies Government to purchase the F111 aircraft-a hasty and purely political decision which in no way related to the needs of the Australian Defence Force at that time. Mr Webster —A very good decision. Mr CLEELAND —The honourable member for Macquarie said that it was a very good decision. With the upgrading in avionics, the purchase of the F111 in real terms has fortuitously proved to be a good decision. However, I believe it is totally unarguable that the decision was made for purely political purposes, and was out of context with any long term approach to defence needs in this country. That is the distinguishing mark between the government and the Opposition, and is by far the greatest difference between the Government and the Opposition in matters of political philosophy. We are continually faced in this House with a carping, whinging Opposition which every day is willing to suggest where the Government is going wrong. Unfortunately, at the same time Opposition members do not lay policy on the table of this House; they do not present alternative programs; they do not produce alternative costings or economic philosophy which would justify their carping statements in this House. This debate is typical of the attitude of Opposition members in this country today. I know that some members who will speak in the debate will be critical. It seems that Opposition members feel they must be critical without really entering into the debate. How can one properly debate the Minister's statement unless any Opposition member is willing to produce an alternative program and tell the people what the coalition will spend if it ever again attains office? How can the Opposition debate a matter such as this unless it tells the Australian people where the dollars and cents are coming from? I challenge any Opposition member in this House to do that in this debate. However, we know that that will not be done. All we will get are whinging, carping statements, and criticisms devoid of real substance. In my experience since I have been a member of parliament, that is how the Opposition operates. I would love to enter into a meaningful debate with the Opposition on any topic, but the Opposition must first produce an alternative policy that is capable of scrutiny. It must lay its cards on the table and explain what its alternative policy would do for this country. I challenge any Opposition members in the House to do that, instead of carping, whinging, complaining and moaning. I challenge them to come clean and let the shadow spokesman on defence tell the House what the Opposition will do. However, I know that they will not do it, as that is what happens in any major debate in this House. I am very proud to be part of a government which has made a positive and detailed statement on defence matters. The Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities is the most important report brought down in this House in post-war years. For the first time the defence forces have a strong and clear policy which everyone can understand, with the economics clearly enunciated. With a major Army base, Puckapunyal, in my electorate, my particular concern is with the service conditions experienced by my constituents. In the past few months I have noticed that the Opposition consistently raises the matter of the large numbers of personnel resigning from the defence forces. We have had a very strong attack on the number of Royal Australian Air Force pilots resigning. On the other hand, I have not heard one Opposition member produce one suggestion as to what we can do to reverse this. Not one Opposition member who has criticised the Government, saying, `It is your fault as a government that these resignations are occurring', has come up with an alternative policy. Not one honourable member opposite has said to this House, `The problem can be resolved by X, Y or Z, which will cost the Australian taxpayer so many dollars and which can be financed from a particular source'. Not one Opposition member has had the temerity to stand up and say that. I say to the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster), on my right, who is consistently trying to interject, that the Opposition has an obligation to enter into a meaningful debate in the debating house of the Australian Parliament. But the Opposition does not have the guts to lay its cards on the table. It does not have the guts to give a real, alternative policy, then it has nothing to debate. All it can do, as I have said, is stand back, whinge, complain and moan. Undoubtedly, major changes are occurring in Defence Force conditions. In 1958 I did national service training at Puckapunyal. I lived in a marquee, with 11 soldiers to a section, and two sections to a platoon. We slept on folding beds. There was an old cupboard next to each bed which had very minimal space in which to store one's personal gear and clothing. I was fortunate enough to be there during summer so we could roll the marquee's sides up and at least get a breath of air during the night. I would have hated to have been there during winter, with the mud and slush that existed in Army bases during those years. Recently I went back to the old Army mess hall at Puckapunyal where I used to queue up with my tin pannikins back in 1958 to get breakfast, which was usually egg powder or other unknown substances. The bacon regularly had green tinges around it. To my absolute astonishment and amazement, that same old mess hall now has a ceiling. It has carpets. It has tablecloths on the tables. Much to my horror the soldiers are now called `grunts'. It baffles me why the term `digger' has left the Australian language. `Grunt' is an Americanism which I totally abhor. I am quite proud of the expression `digger'. Nevertheless, soldiers these days are called `grunts'. To my amazement they are offered a menu for breakfast, lunch and dinner. The food is of a quality which I never once experienced, in my years of service, either as a Nasho or as a soldier of the Citizen Military Forces. The conditions have fundamentally changed. When I was first elected Army housing in Puckapunyal was such that how the former Minister for Defence, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), can ever raise his head in this House when talking about defence matters amazes me. The man obviously has no pride or dignity to suggest that he is concerned about soldiers. The married housing conditions which existed in Puckapunyal can be described only as second rate and abysmal. Housing was so bad that the foundations moved continually. On a given day the doors would either move up or down. They would either fall open because the floor had dropped away or they would not be able to be closed because the floor had risen. Nothing was ever done by the Opposition about that. Opposition members will complain about the conditions of service under this Government, but their own record is one of absolute shame. After less than four years in this House I can now go back to Puckapunyal and see brand new houses going up by the dozen. I can see total renovation of the original housing. Up to 20 houses at a time are now being totally renovated. Aluminium windows are being put in, re-stumping is being carried out and carpeting is being provided. They are even providing curtains for soldiers now. That was never done before. Modern appliances are being installed in homes, which was never done under the Opposition. It is being done under a Labor government. The latest thing at Puckapunyal is the creation of 750 accommodation rooms for single soldiers. That is in Puckapunyal alone. It is part of a refurbishing program for single soldiers to the value of over $50m. Did the Opposition ever think about it? The answer is that it did not. In Puckapunyal today soldiers usually share four to a dormitory. They live in the old-style Army huts, which are falling to bits, despite the attention of the Army service people. With total refurbishing, they are going to get decent single room accommodation. Our single soldiers will have decent facilities. In Puckapunyal there is an old, corrugated iron building known as a hospital, built just prior to the Second World War. I recall going there with a tooth problem one day and swore that I would never go back. Most soldiers in my day would not go near the place because they did not trust the medical facilities there. One was not quite sure whether one would get out alive or with the wrong tooth having been taken out. Only this week the Government announced a $4.5m program to rebuild that hospital. It has taken that many years for a government to take upon itself to build a decent medical facility in an Army base which has over 2,500 people resident on it-not just soldiers, but women and children. The Army does not run on the soldier alone. The Army needs family units and family assistance. I am very pleased to say that the soldiers at Puckapunyal Army Base even now have better medical facilities. Army doctors, as a result of a decision by this Government, have the opportunity to serve and service the spouses and children of Army personnel on Puckapunyal Army Base. That was never allowed under the Opposition. But we know that the Opposition gets its directions from and is controlled by the orthopaedic surgeons or from Dr Shepherd. The Opposition is the mouthpiece of the privileged, wealthy doctors, not the average doctors, in this community. When the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) was asked to provide his legal opinion to the House he could not. But some months down the track he comes in with an orthopaedic surgeons' brief and opinion by Mr Ellicott. That is the sort of nonsense we get in this House on such debates. So there is to be a new hospital for Puckapunyal, worth $4.5m. I will be awfully glad, as I know anyone who has had any experience in Puckapunyal Army Base will be, to see the corrugated tin sheds, which now constitute the hospital there, pulled down and a decent, modern facility for the soldiers, their spouses and children established. On what I have said about one Army base alone, which has had $38m spent on it for a new armoured corps centre, one can see the difference between the Australian Labor Party approach, the Labor Party concern and the Labor Party providing the dollars and cents, and Liberal Party rhetoric. It is a fantastic difference. Mr Webster —But not enough. Mr CLEELAND —That interjection comes from a member of a political party which was going to cut something like $8 billion from the Budget should it have been elected at the last election. It was going to make $8 billion of undefined cuts but it would not debate the issue or say where it would cut it. I do not think the Opposition even knows today where it would cut it. Mr Webster —Certainly not off defence. Mr CLEELAND —The honourable member's leader would not say that during the last election. He would not come out and say that he was not going to cut it off defence. If the Opposition was going to cut it off defence, where was the money coming from for its capital program? It was going to take it off the soldiers. It was not going to spend money on new hospitals or on single accommodation for troops. It was not going to refurbish the old houses. That much I know. In my electorate the Opposition was going to abolish the Department of Housing and Construction, which does the work at Puckapunyal Army Base. One hundred and sixty-seven jobs were going to be abolished as a specific policy. When I went to the media and said to the local people, `That is Liberal Party policy-167 jobs lost in town', guess who they sent to deny it? They sent the honourable member for O'Connor, who turned up in Seymour and said to the local Press, `Mr Cleeland is not telling the truth. Sure, we are going to abolish the Department of Housing and Construction but those jobs will be picked up by the private sector'. In Puckapunyal Army Base there was a 12 per cent swing against the Liberal Party. So let us not kid ourselves. The soldiers know who is doing what for them. The soldiers in Army bases such as Puckapunyal know who is spending the money on them. The soldiers in Army bases know where the new houses and hospitals are coming from. They did not believe the Opposition in the last election and they voted with their feet. I had a lieutenant-colonel running against me. Even with a lieutenant-colonel running against me in an Army base, there was a 12 per cent swing against the Liberal Party. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(4.40) —This afternoon we are considering a paper brought down yesterday by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), who I am afraid is fast becoming the Minister for defence statements, reports and consultants. Given the emphasis of the Minister's statement yesterday, my guess is that in the near future we will also receive a statement on personnel matters from the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly). I cannot help thinking that defence analysts overseas with the responsibility for monitoring defence developments in Australia must be coming to the conclusion that Australia's main deterrent weapon is the 25-plus page parliamentary statements that the Minister is making fairly regularly lately. As is always the case, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), the shadow Minister for Defence, has delivered a devastating critique of the Minister's statement. Yesterday he exposed once again the recycled announcements, myths and misrepresentations that unfortunately the Minister's statement contained. I will not go over the details of that critique but I would refer my colleague and constituents to the shadow Minister's earlier speech and to the one he delivered last month in response to the Minister's regional initiatives statement. I want instead to provide a guide to the euphemisms and double speak which have come to characterise this Government's defence statements. I do not blame the Minister for his rhetorical subterfuge; I simply sympathise with his impotence in an unsympathetic Cabinet which gives him no other recourse. Let me provide a sample of my compilation of Labor defence euphemisms as shown in the Minister's statement yesterday. On page 3 the Minister told us that the White Paper program has survived Budget reviews `virtually unscathed'. `Virtually unscathed', I believe, should read that as a result of the last Budget the Minister would appreciate at least an additional five years notice of any threat to our security, if our adversaries would be so kind. On page 4 the Minister used one of his favourite phrases, `credible contingencies'. `Credible contingencies' are security threats which, fortuitously, fit our inadequate Budget and capabilities. On page 8 we heard of the planning concept of `the most likely areas of operation'. This phrase reflects the `please invade between the flags' thinking of some sections of the Department of Defence. That entry should be cross-referred with the `credible contingencies' one. Referring to the system of joint force commander, the Minister used the phrase `should be further developed in several important directions' on page 19 of the statement. That should read, `The system is inadequate to its tasks and, if it is not to fail in a time of serious threat, needs immediate review'. On the same page we are provided with probably the most provocative euphemism of the paper, given the current defence personnel crisis-`fluctuating separation rates'. `Fluctuating separation rates' is a deeply embarrassed government's way of referring to the unprecedented levels of service resignations which have now compromised the operational capacity of the defence forces. Really, there is no denying that. The description on page 21 of the work by the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel as `very complex' means simply that the Minister has been unable to make any progress in tackling the underlying problems. Mr Tim Fischer —She has been cocooned when she has visited bases. Mr WEBSTER —That is right. Another phrase, `particularly adept resource management', which is used on page 22, is a polite admission that the Minister has been forced by an inadequate budget to stretch already overstretched manpower and equipment even further. The use of the phrase `financial realism' on the same page reflects the new consensus which characterises the defence debate. `Financial realism' means acquiescence in apathy and the absence of political support or will in Cabinet for defence spending. When the Minister confesses, on page 27, that it is `difficult to quantify overall savings' from efficiency programs he really means that he has made some `satisfying' guesstimates about his budget. When he says, on the same page, that the White Paper's objectives `can be achieved without growth in the defence appropriations' the Minister is giving us advance notice that he has failed again in the Budget review and we should not expect any good news for defence in May or August. Finally, when the Minister refers on page 27 to the `professionalism of the men and women of the Australian Defence Force' he is referring to both the willingness of this Parliament to exploit the loyalty of our armed forces and the willingness of ordinary but selfless Australians who will pay with their families, careers and lives for this Parliament's apathy and this Governments complacency. They represent just a few of the entries from my compilation of Labor euphemisms, myths and misrepresentations in the area of defence policy. I conclude my brief remarks with reference to the unspoken claim to authority within this statement. The Minister is saying implicitly that all is well and on schedule with our defence forces-because he says so. I say to the Minister that his authority, credited to him in the early days of his ministry, was destroyed the day the Cabinet pulled the budget rug from under his feet and he came to this place and justified the Cabinet's decision. I say to the Minister that his authority will not be restored by parliamentary statements of 25 pages or more but by the restoration of real and substantial growth in the defence budget and by a fundamental reordering of his defence manpower priorities. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade)(4.47) —In the course of the debate the Opposition has taken the opportunity of making some critical comments in some areas which are as much foreign policy concerns as they are defence preoccupations. Indeed, in one or two instances they are even more relevant to foreign policy than to defence. These relate to allegations of neglect in the Pacific area, cuts in aid, unwise allocation of aid funds to southern Africa and so on. The claims by and large are patently and demonstrably false, and I may come back to them later either when I make some other comments in this debate or perhaps on another occasion. But I repeat that the claims are patently and demonstrably false. I start by saying that the practice of foreign affairs and the concerns of defence policy intersect at a number of points. The most critical and of course finally important point is when diplomacy breaks down and the defence machine has to take over. That means war and that represents the ultimate failure of our diplomacy. Of course, there is no suggestion we are anywhere near such a situation. However, this reminds me that the conduct of foreign policy, the diplomacy behind it, the way in which policy is developed, should therefore always be held up to critical scrutiny. There is no lack of that in Australia at any time. This is true at the moment. There are a number of quarters from which critical scrutiny is directed and that is appropriate. There is, however, one quarter from which it is directed at present to which I want to address myself. This concerns the views which have been put forward by a former member of the diplomatic service, Dr J. W. C. Cumes, who has apparently written a book giving his assessment of a range of Ministers, Foreign Ministers, Prime Ministers and officials in his department. The previous Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, has been made to look something of an oaf in the chapter which apparently deals with him as condensed in one of the weekend newspapers. I cannot speak for Prime Minister Fraser but I will say this from my knowledge of him: He would not be as ill-informed, as inadequately briefed, nor as oafish as he is painted in that particular account. I also attract commentary of a rather severe nature. I offer no assessment, however, of the justice or otherwise of that. For all I know, it may well be a view of me which is shared by many people so I do not intend to explore reactions on that. However, if these views are to be put forward, and put forward as being authoritative views because of Dr Cumes's previous service in the diplomatic service of this country, I think for the sake of getting a balanced assessment of this matter, in particular to make judgment of his adequacy and his own objectivity to do so, there are some things I should put on the record. The reports refer to Dr Cumes as a senior diplomat. He was senior only in the sense of having served in the Department of Foreign Affairs for a long time. He spent many years trying to rise above the third level of the Second Division and failed to do so. He failed to do so because of an unsatisfactory record in the service of the Department of Foreign Affairs. In respect of myself he has a particular reason for feeling some grievance towards me. When I became Foreign Minister I was advised very firmly by the previous Secretary to the Department of Foreign Affairs, Mr Peter Henderson, that under no circumstances should I allow an extension of service in The Hague, where Dr Cumes was head of mission, nor offer him, nor agree to any proposal from him that he be given, another head of mission. The reason, succinctly put to me, was: laziness and incompetence. It transpired that both in succession were put to me by Cumes and I rejected both. Cumes returned to Australia and he proposed that he should obtain promotion. His request and the proper processes he went through failed to achieve that promotion. Mr Henderson, true to his assessment of Cumes, refused to provide a position for Cumes in the Department of Foreign Affairs and he left shortly after, a bitter man. In case it is thought that I have overstressed this let me give the House some quotes from the official files about Dr Cumes so that this assessment can be weighed up in an objective way. The selection committee that considered this application for level 6 appointment on 29 August 1984 reported: . . . comments by three permanent heads under whom he has served raised serious questions about Dr Cumes' personal ability to meet the demands of a senior executive position in your Department. Of course this being the Department of Foreign Affairs. The report went on: We do not consider that Dr Cumes has the personal and professional attributes that would warrant further consideration on his application in competition with other candidates. So much for this senior authoritative figure! Let me go back further. I have taken the opportunity of looking at his file. I quote what others say who objectively assessed him as professionals. As far back as 11 January 1957 a departmental assessor reported of him that `he does not willingly or rapidly switch his mind from one thing or another' and that `he is not suited to representational work'. Nonetheless he did receive an appointment overseas. When one looks at the record one can only come to the conclusion that the Department of Foreign Affairs concluded in turn that it was better to have him overseas where he would be a nuisance in a small post to a small number of people than to have him in the Department of Foreign Affairs in Canberra where he would be a big nuisance to a big number of people. Shortly after he went to Brussels, the staff there were complaining of the stress that he was creating by his intolerable leadership and many of them were begging to be brought home. The Department, the file shows us, asked them to soldier on for the sake of the Department. In 1971 his assessor reported: `a rather difficult person to get on with'. A review of his head of mission administration on 26 June 1979 reported: His working hours in the office are short and erratic as is his participation in the work of the Mission. The report also said that he made `extravagant and selfish use of his privileges'. This is the authoritative and respected figure quoted so generously in some of the media and, I understand, currently appearing on electronic media. In early 1979 at the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation Constitutional Conference, an Australian delegate complained that he, Cumes: had not read the brief but insisted on laying down the law to the delegation, sometimes in ways that conflicted with the agreed Australian position. It is a curious course of conduct for a man who presumes to be so authoritative and finally judicial in his assessment of the performance and qualities of others. Let me go on. It was reported by that delegate that the atmosphere in the mission was `dreadful' and that `officers at the mission had no guidance or sensible supervision from the Ambassador'. In 1980 a Deputy Secretary reported that it was stated that `Cumes has more or less given up work and that his mode of conduct will continue in the Hague'. His behaviour in respect of another senior officer was described as `childish and petty minded'. As it sums up so much of Dr Cumes and these finer qualities we are seeing recommended to us in the media recently, let me quote what this Deputy Secretary of the Department had to say on 25 March 1980: There is nothing Dr Cumes loves more than lengthy and complicated correspondence arising from some ill-doing on his part. He is a skilled and prolific strewer of red herrings designed to shift the attack onto the person who criticised him last. It is apparent from X's- a different X from the X I was talking about in Question Time today- ``in confidence'' report that Cumes has more or less given up work except when absolutely necessary and that this mode of conduct will continue in The Hague. I therefore see very little profit in your writing in detail to him. My advice would be that you write him a very brief letter referring, but not in detail, to his widespread criticism of X. I suggest that you characterise it as childish and petty-minded and simply ask him not to do it again. I see little point in referring in a letter to the results of a PLV- that is, a post liaison visit- which took place as long ago as last June. I do not think your letter should say that there has been no personal criticism of Cumes. There were critical references in the open report from X and Y and a good deal of criticism in the ``in confidence'' report. So much for this man who presumes to make these determinations on others! There is a note on file from early 1984 pointing out that the then Secretary Henderson had advised the Minister that Cumes was unsuitable for overseas posting and that Henderson did not want him back in the Department. The file records that Cumes was advised in early 1984 that `he was poor in staff relations' and that Cumes had denied this, responding that this problem arose `because the Department had not sent him the right people'. So you shoot the messengers, or some version of it. In about the same period as the level 6 application that I mentioned earlier, the Department reported: Although critical of the Department's management, neither his comments nor his record suggest particular aptitude in this field. Along with this, comments by three permanent heads under whom he has served raised serious question about Dr Cumes's personal ability to meet the demands of a senior executive position in your Department. We do not consider that Dr Cumes has the personal and professional attributes that would warrant further consideration of his application in competition with other candidates. What the record shows is simply this: Dr Cumes, for all of the pretensions he is engaged in, was indeed a personally vain and pretentious man, was a bully to the staff who worked under him at a series of missions, was incapable of good labour management of those unfortunate individuals, was lazy and uninvolved and was very much a failure. I quote from the official record and not my own sentiments that there is absolutely no evidence that this man is qualified to be passing critical let alone severely personally critical judgments on people who have given good service to this country-I exempt myself from this; others will make their judgment of that-such as my previous combative colleague, Malcolm Fraser, who as Prime Minister of this country certainly was not the oaf that Dr Cumes painted him out to be. I should mention one other thing that Dr Cumes referred to in the account which appeared in a weekend newspaper. There is a suggestion that I suffer from some inferiority complex. I certainly do, and I think that is fairly evident not just as far as I am concerned but as far as anybody is concerned. No one who was self-confident and who had any commonsense would have spent as much time in this Parliament as I have. That is obvious and self-evident; I do not labour the point. The evidence he produced, however, was that I did not want to go to his home and that I objected very strongly when the car driver sought to take me there. The story is a little different. I resisted strongly Cumes's ingratiating efforts, nauseating as they were, to try to involve me socially at his home and with himself. I knew what his motive was-it was to try to establish some sort of rapport as a prelude to slapping onto me a demand to extend his appointment in The Hague and, if that failed, to get another head of mission appointment. I objected strongly, and rejected his proposition that I come to his home because I did not want to get drawn into this obvious and clumsy tactic he had adopted. I might add that I was in The Hague for about two days. I should also say this about Cumes: all our missions overseas are important and The Hague is one of those important missions. So is Vienna, as was Brussels at the time he was there, though, much less important than it is now. All of them are important. But none of those missions are major missions and Dr Cumes was never asked, nor on the basis of what I see on his file is it ever likely that he would have been asked, to serve at any of our important major missions which do demand ability, dedication and energy. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(5.02) —Almost one year has passed since the debate in this House on the 1987 Defence White Paper. It was an historic debate. It was an opportunity for members interested in the defence of Australia to discuss the first and fundamental duty of the citizens of a nation; that is, the defence of the homeland. The 1987 Defence White Paper was historic because it set out an achievable policy of self-reliance in the context of Australia's obligations as a member of the Western strategic community. We on this side of the House support the policy of the 1987 Defence White Paper. We support the policy of self-reliance. We of the Australian Labor Party have a proud history of supporting the concept of defence self-reliance and our alliance with the United States of America. In 1936 John Curtin told this House: The people of Australia would expect this country to be capable of defending itself should the occasion arise. He went on to say: A greater degree of self-reliance in Australia's defence is essential. We in the Labor Party fundamentally believe that Australia must, as soon as possible and in accordance with the nation's available resources, have a defence force that will destroy an invader and be an effective partner with the United States of America in the discharge of our obligations under ANZUS. By implementing the 1987 Defence White Paper, Australia is acquiring that capability. We shall go on to increase our defence capability. We shall continue to co-operate with our neighbours and assist them to help preserve the peace in our region. Nevertheless, our fundamental duty is to preserve, protect and defend Australia and its citizens, and we shall fight to the death in the performance of that duty. Now that a year has passed since the introduction of the 1987 Defence White Paper it is entirely appropriate that this debate review the Government's accomplishments, the performance of the Opposition and the future of the defence White Paper. The strategic circum- stances obtaining when the defence White Paper was introduced have not changed for the better, the Soviet Union continues to expand its influence in the Pacific. This is in accordance with announced objectives of the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Mr Gorbachev. There has been no diminution of the Soviet military presence and power in Indo-China, the Soviet naval and air facilities at Cam Ranh Bay and Da Nang continue to expand. Not only are these facilities a potential dagger at the throats of South East Asia and Japan, but also they constitute a hostile counterpoint to the United States facilities at Subic Bay and Clark Field in the Philippines. If the United States military facilities were to be forced out of the Philippines, the whole security situation in the Pacific would be dramatically altered to the detriment of the Western alliance and the Association of South East Asian Nations. It would be a major turning point in the political, military and security situation in the Asian Pacific region. It would compel any future Australian government to an urgent revision of its defence policy and, I believe, to a dramatic expansion of the Australian Defence Force. As a close friend of the Philippines, Australia has a responsibility to ensure that the people of the Philippines are aware of the enormous contribution their country makes to the security of the region by hosting the major United States facilities at Subic Bay and Clark Field. The security of Indonesia is a matter of vital concern to Australia. Now that a new government has been chosen in Indonesia it is imperative that Australia work diligently to improve relations with Indonesia. Both countries have friendly relations with the United States of America, and both countries are anti-communist. Both countries have an abiding desire for regional peace and stability, and I believe neighbours of both countries will look to Australia and Indonesia to adopt an increasing role in the maintenance of regional security. It is a tragedy that speakers from the Liberal and National parties have during this debate criticised the Government's accountability in this House for its defence policy for this country. I am struck by what I believe to be the false lamentations of the Opposition and, indeed, of certain individuals in the Press about the defence policy of this country. A search through yesterday's Hansard reveals not one constructive suggestion from the Opposition benches in the debate-not one good idea, not one congratulatory sentence on the initiatives of this Government in building a better, tougher Australian Defence Force. That prompted me to make a brief investigation of the performance of the Liberal and National parties on defence policy during their term of office. I found that pay and conditions of service were a disgrace, not only for the service personnel but also for the people they were sworn to defend. In 1982 Defence Force pay was frozen by the Liberal-National Party Government. The Committee of Reference for Defence Force Pay had made a recommendation for an increase in the pay of service personnel. That recommendation was rejected by the Liberal-National Party Government. Opposition spokesmen in this House have made much of the so-called separations from the Australian Defence Force. Even a brief examination of the record of the Liberal and National parties shows that on average 11 per cent of the Australian Defence Force left the service of their country annually. Yet there was not one mention of that fact in the debate from the Opposition and not one mention of what it did to arrest the separation rate of 11 per cent. I turn to the Opposition's criticisms of this Government in deciding to re-equip the armed forces of this country. Equipment expenditure in the defence budget reached the dizzy heights of 18 per cent under the Liberal and National parties. Today the equipment component in the Defence Force budget is 29 per cent. This Government, with this Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), is providing the equipment for our service personnel to defeat and destroy an enemy and to preserve, protect and defend Australia. We are determined on that course. We are determined that there will be enough ships, planes, guns, ammunition, clothing and whatever else is necessary to equip the soldiers, sailors and airmen to win a battle that we may be forced to confront. In contrast with the empty rhetoric of the Liberal and National parties, this Government is taking responsibility for relocating the defence forces to the northern area of our continent. The Government has decided to establish a northern command based at Darwin. The Government will locate a new fighter squadron at Tindal, provide additional patrol craft for the Royal Australian Navy, and provide Army regional surveillance units in the Northern Territory, north-western Australia and in north Queensland. The Army regional surveillance units, principally supplied by the Army Reserve, are being integrated into the Australian Army as part of the total force concept. That is to say, this Government has decided to use the talents and resources of both the regular Army and the Army Reserve to ensure that they have the skills of combat required of them successfully to defeat an enemy. The Kangaroo 89 exercise will provide the 17,000 ground troops who will participate with an outstanding opportunity to hone those military skills which are now required of them and which will be required of them in the event of hostilities. Kangaroo 89 will also enable participation of Army Reserve units, particularly from the 1st Division, which includes Army Reserve units of the 11th Brigade, to ensure that they are able to gain experience in their new role of defending the vital northern installations, including ports and other important civilian infrastructure. Not only must we be able to defend the approaches to our country as part of our participation in forward defence through our alliance responsibilities, but we must also be familiar with the northern part of our continent. We must know every inch of the ground there, and we must be able to fight in that country and, if we have to, we must fight to win. As part of the total build-up of defence facilities in the northern region of our continent, this Government, under this Minister, has placed a high priority on the development of a network of operational over-the-horizon radars. This is absolutely fundamental to ensuring that there is adequate long range surveillance of the northern reaches of our continent. I am confident that the requirement for airborne radar also will be provided by this Government, under this Minister, to ensure that that important part of our surveillance system is provided to the Australian defence forces as soon as economic circumstances permit. The new submarine project is also of vital significance to the protection of the approaches to Australia. The shadow Minister for defence says that if the Liberal and National parties were to gain government, they would not cancel the submarine project, but one of the Opposition's most vociferous spokespersons on defence issues says that that is not so. The shadow Minister says that a Liberal-National Party government would want to acquire an aircraft carrier. I suggest that that would mean the cancellation of the submarine project. The six submarines being acquired by Australia will play a vital role in our defence. The eight Anzac ships to be acquired by Australia will also play a significant role in the defence of this country. This debate is important not only because it provides an opportunity for members of the Government to express their commitment to the efforts of the Defence Minister in building up the Australian Defence Force, but also because it provides an opportunity for Opposition spokesmen to learn something about Australia's defence. It gives them a opportunity to make constructive suggestions on how to improve the Australian Defence Force. In the final analysis the soldiers of the Australian Defence Force wear the Australian khaki and the digger's hat. They do not wear the label of the Labor, Liberal or National parties. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence)(5.16) —I wind up the debate by thanking honourable members from both sides of the House for their participation. We have had several defence debates during the year, and I am glad to see that they attract a degree of interest in the House. I think there has been something absent from our consideration of the affairs of the nation because we have had few occasions over the last few years to debate defence matters here. Now that I am actually in a position to do something about it, I certainly shall. A couple of points have been made that I think require a brief answer from me; I do not intend to use my full time. The shadow spokesman for defence, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), in debating my paper, initially made a series of claims about this Government's attitudes towards the pay and conditions of defence personnel. Those claims were more than adequately answered by the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly). I think the fact that she was there, in a position to answer the claims, is an indication of the fundamental difference that is emerging between the Government and the Opposition in the treatment of defence matters. We have properly dignified that position by having a Cabinet Minister for Defence and an assistant outside the Cabinet. The shadow spokesman on defence is yet to make shadow Cabinet rank. I really think that when the time comes for some reshuffling of the various positions the Opposition should acknowledge the significance of the portfolio and accord it that rank. The points that were made about defence personnel, of course, ignored the very extensive array of new benefits and new processes that have been put in place by the Government to ensure that the pay and conditions of service personnel both keep up with and exceed where necessary the standards that apply to similar professions in the civilian community. The runs are coming on the board for the Remuneration Tribunal, which handles defence matters, and in the broader areas of housing conditions, special allowances and support for families of defence personnel. They evidence the fact this Government takes the matter at least as seriously as, in fact a great deal more seriously than, our opponents did when they had the opportunity to govern. In addition, a number of criticisms were made about alleged gaps in the equipment vote. It is quite interesting that the criticisms commence by accusing me of being the Minister for defence equipment and then suggest, without indicating where cuts might occur, a plethora of additional equipment purchases. That leads to the central weakness in the Opposition's position on defence. The Opposition spokesman on defence, the honourable member for McPherson, and those who support him in the Senate and in this House have not come forward with a defence strategy associated with a military strategy, a force structure or a reasonable costing. Those are the essential requirements of effective defence planning and policy. Until the Opposition has those, it is not really entitled to regard itself as having a defence policy at all. Despite the fact that there has been at least 12 months notice, there has been a remarkable lack of policy development from the Opposition. It is no good the Opposition coming into this House nitpicking through what may be errors or what may be regarded as areas of neglect in government policy if it is not prepared to pose alternatives. An Opposition defence spokesman who does that should scarcely regard himself, Cabinet rank or otherwise, as a defence spokesman at all. Other Opposition members, and some members from the Government side of the House, dwelt on the question of Australia's relationships in the region. It was suggested that that matter was somewhat absent from the statement that I made. That suggestion was more than a little unkind, given the fact that only two weeks ago I delivered a somewhat lengthy statement on precisely that subject. Obviously it is not sensible that one should keep repeating things that one has said before. What I say about that, however, is that one thing the Opposition has to acknowledge is that in the seven years of the Fraser Government essentially our position in South East Asia and the South Pacific was wound down. There may have been a policy rationale for that position that was adopted by the Fraser Government, but it is not a legitimate complaint to allege that our approach ignores those areas, in contrast with consideration by previous governments. I have only to cite the defence cooperation program in the South Pacific as evidence for that: $3m per annum was allocated when the Australian Labor Party came to Government, and $16m per annum is allocated now, which does not include what is given to New Guinea-which is a great deal more than that. The sum does not include the Pacific patrol boat program. What we have is a substantial contrast between the way in which the Government regards the South Pacific and the way in which it has been regarded in the past. We have announced a series of measures to increase our activity in South East Asia. One Opposition spokesman in this House, and several members in the Senate, spoke of the Government neglecting the issue of the expansion of Indian naval forces and what that means for the development of defence policy in Australia. It is important that we set on the record that India is not and has never been an enemy of this country. India has not threatened and is not threatening our country's national survival. India has not at any point in time targeted a substantial Australian national interest and sought to interfere with it. It is not the job of Defence Ministers or Foreign Ministers to wander around making enemies out of friends. That is not a sensible course of action to wish on a Defence Minister or a Foreign Minister. Prudence indicates that Defence Ministers ought to take account of all military developments that are occurring in the region and to ensure that in the development of Australia's defence posture the answer, if one is required, is to hand. Of course, we take note of all maritime developments in our region, whether originating from the Indian subcontinent or elsewhere. It is not sensible, however, for Ministers in a government to go into detail about those matters in the House when other diplomatic considerations are matters for obvious concern. Our requirement to maintain good relations with those with whom we have good relations ought really to be self-evident. A further point ought to be made about this matter. Although it is true that India has a close relationship with the Soviet Union, and that sometimes that close relationship is spilt over into general issues on strategic policy, the fact of the matter is that India is quintessentially a nation on its own and a nation with its own perspective on world affairs. India is nobody's surrogate. Although from time to time there may be disagreement about the direction of that policy, it cannot be said in any shape or form that India is a lackey of the Soviet Union. All honourable members in this House should be careful. Australia is a country which as time goes by is going to be expected to take increasing responsibility in this region, and we may find ourselves increasingly alone in this region. This will require a subtlety in our diplomacy that we have hitherto not exhibited, until recently, over the 80-odd years of our existence as a nation. If we reckon on being in this area for the next couple of thousand years, we are going to have to be a different sort of country in the area of diplomacy, foreign policy and strategic assessments for our defence policy than we have been in the past. I thank honourable members for their participation in this debate. There is a high standard of defence debate in this country and we should try to keep it that way. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(5.27) —I am thankful, in more ways than one, for the opportunity to speak in this debate on the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill. It is appropriate as we are resuming the debate at this time to state simply the purpose of the legislation. As I am sure honourable members are aware, both the Government and the Opposition gave commitments during the last Federal election campaign to repeal the sunset clause in the National Crime Authority Act 1984. It is to give effect to that undertaking by the Government in its election program that the Opposition willingly supports this particular proposal, and as I mentioned earlier, the Opposition does so because the proposal formed part of its own policy objective at that time. In the course of amending the Bill the Government has proposed a number of minor amendments to the Act to provide, in effect, for an extension of time for the Chairman of the National Crime Authority and to ensure also that those who have recently been appointed will no longer be appointed for four-year terms and will not be eligible for reappointment. In those circumstances people should be placed and replaced in sequential order so that there is some element of continuity in the membership of the Authority-so that experience will not be lost. Those arrangements seem sensible to the Opposition and were supported in the contribution of the shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith). The Bill provides also for amendments to the Telecommunications Interception Act to give judges who may consider applications for the issue of warrants authorising interceptions the same protection and immunity they would have if they were performing other functions conferred upon eligible judges-just as judges of the High Court of Australia have, in relation to proceedings before the High Court. That also seems to be an eminently sensible amendment which has the Opposition's support. The purpose of the legislation is fairly narrow, but in the context of who has done the most to deal with questions of organised crime, we have had an element of debate. I must say that I thought it was largely a matter of academic interest, I suppose, but the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland) who spoke before me raised the matter in terms of issue and did so in a way which I think distorted the record and history of the Fraser Government on the matter of organised crime in this nation. Mr Reith —Petty political point scoring. Mr RUDDOCK —The shadow Minister says that it was petty political point scoring. If we look at the statements that were made, we can see that his comment is quite correct because even though they are not terms that I like to use about colleagues' contributions in the Parliament, I think the honourable member for McEwen grossly overstated the Australian Labor Party's record in relation to these matters and omitted very significant reforms put in place and initiatives taken by the Fraser Government. He did so by a wave of the hand and a suggestion that our proposals were not put in legislative form. I think he said that they were backed up by legislative proposals. The Government, because it put in place the National Crime Authority, believes it is the only body that has a record worthy of support in this area. As I simply go through the number of areas in which the Fraser Government acted, honourable members can see how petty the points were that were made by the honourable member for McEwen. The first matter, to set the record straight, is that the Fraser Government set the foundations for cooperative Commonwealth-State action in the area of law enforcement. That was a new involvement for the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth had previously been involved in areas where it had specific responsibility under its area of legislation authorised by the Constitution and in terms of territories where it has its own police forces. But it is a very limited area in which the Commonwealth could act. What we saw were a number of positive steps taken by the Fraser Government. The first initiative in 1980 resulted in the establishment of the Australian Police Ministers Council to promote a coordinated national response to law enforcement issues and to maximise the efficient use of police resources in this country. This was the first time that we had a Commonwealth-State committee to oversee nationally the fight against organised crime and to ensure that the forces of the States and the Commonwealth were involved in this effort. That was a pretty important initiative. It did not involve legislation immediately, but it certainly was a major step forward in involving the Commonwealth in a cooperative way with the States-something that the Government defends vigorously in terms of the way in which the National Crime Authority was established. It became the cause celebre later on, an area of difference between the Opposition which was prepared to go further and the Government, which was wanting to put a reign on the National Crime Authority to ensure that the States were involved in making references to it and to determine the areas of inquiry by the National Crime Authority. This cooperative arrangement which the Government lauds was commenced with the Australian Police Ministers Council to promote this coordinated response. Again, in cooperation with the States, the Fraser Government was instrumental in the establishment of the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence. That occurred in February 1981. It also established a National Police Research Unit in May 1982. Surely it is not going to be said that these were not positive steps in the fight against organised crime. The honourable member for McEwen seems to be able to ignore these positive initiatives that were taken by the Fraser Government. We also had a number of royal commissions. The first was the Williams Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs. Mr Justice Williams from Queensland, a very eminent lawyer, was involved in chairing that commission which brought forward recommendations which later resulted in many of the legislative initiatives that were followed up. We had the Costigan Royal Commission into corruption on the Melbourne wharves. The honourable member for McEwen in his own comments said that all the Fraser Government did was set up the Costigan inquiry to look into trade union activity. It was not set up to look at trade union activity, it was set up to look at organised criminal activity-corruption on the wharves of Melbourne in which some unionists were involved. Honourable members will be aware of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union in particular that was referred to, but it was not an inquiry into trade union activity; it was an inquiry into the criminal activities in which some unionists were involved. That needs to be understood. The Costigan Royal Commission came across a wider level of activity in which some of those people and their associates were involved. It brought forward recommendations on the way in which this ought to be dealt with. We ought to be grateful for the work that Mr Costigan undertook in his royal commission. It was in that context that we came across certain legislative activity of the Fraser Government which, I can say truthfully, proved to be a very painful exercise politically. That involved the legislation to recoup unpaid company tax. The retrospective legislation to recoup unpaid company tax under bottom of the harbour schemes was directly attributable to the work of the Costigan Royal Commission and the McCabe-Lafranchi report in which the Commonwealth and the State of Victoria were involved and it resulted in legislation that the honourable member for McEwen would have us believe was not undertaken by the Fraser Government. Lest it be thought that they were the only steps, I point out that we had the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Activities of the Nugan Hand Group and other matters. Of course, that is the same Mr Justice Stewart who now heads the National Crime Authority. We ought to understand that not only did the Fraser Government initiate those commissions and act upon the recommendations that were coming forward from them in a timely fashion, but also it was responsible for the introduction and passage through Parliament in 1982 of the National Crimes Commission Bill. I know as I was a participant in that debate. That legislation was not as enthusiastically supported by the then Opposition as this legislation has been supported by this Opposition, as we see in relation to the proposals that we have before us. The fact is that in 1982 the National Crimes Commission Act was not implemented because we had a change of government in March 1983. The Labor Party in office sought to water down-as I saw it and as I commented when we put in place the National Crime Authority-after certain conferences and discussions, some of the proposals that had been put in place in the National Crimes Commission Act. That was not the action of a government that was concerned about organised criminal activity. I accept the speech of the honourable member for McEwen when he spoke more emotionally about his association as a former policeman with the National Crime Authority. He now chairs the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority in this Parliament that is involved in liaising with the Authority and reviewing the legislation in this area. I recognise that he has been on a learning curve, that he has had to acquaint himself, notwithstanding his former involvements with police forces, with the level and extent of organised crime in this country. I am glad that that learning exercise, as he put it, has opened a window to him to which he was not previously privy, so that he can view so much of this organised, internationally-associated criminal activity. I regret some of his comments, particularly in light of some comments made in the House today relating to the maligning of people because of their backgrounds and the countries from which they have come. Some comments implied that organised criminal activities had ethnic associations. I just comment that the prosecution records, even with the National Crime Authority, suggest that, of course, there are some circumstances in which international criminal activity leads to the involvement of some people of different ethnic origins. But, generally speaking, the record demonstrates that in percentage terms people from other countries are less likely than longstanding Australians to be involved in criminal activity in this nation. We welcome the fact that the Government is prepared to commit itself to fighting organised criminal activity. The Opposition wants to see that those matters which have been raised in the annual report of the National Crime Authority and in its report on the Operation Silo investigation are taken up. I heard today-I was not aware before-that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has intimated that some of the proposals of the National Crime Authority may be picked up by the Government in time. I understand from the shadow Minister's speech that one of the amendments proposed by the Opposition may well be acceded to by the Government when the matter is pressed. I certainly hope that that is the case. The report of the Operation Silo investigation by the National Crime Authority suggests quite specific law reform and administrative changes. I simply draw attention to those specific matters once more. The National Crime Authority was seeking to have the offence of giving false and misleading evidence before the Authority expanded so as to resolve the matters that might be dealt with. The report notes: The provision requires the witness to address his, or in this case her, mind to the question of what constitutes a `material particular'. Proving the witness' knowledge as to materiality can be fraught with difficulties. The Authority has recommended that the section be amended accordingly. That is a particularly important matter that needed to be raised by the Authority in the context of the charges that were brought arising out of Operation Silo. It is a matter about which, I understand, the Government is somewhat reticent in terms of its action on the matter. There is also the question of the expenses of witnesses appearing on behalf of the National Crime Authority and the reimbursement of those expenses. That is a matter about which the Opposition will propose a significant amendment to section 26 of the principal Act. That is a matter well worthy of support, and one which we encourage the Government to accept. There is also the question of the investigation costs, which was raised by the National Crime Authority in its Operation Silo report. Those costs, which are significant, are detailed in the report. The matter of witnesses' expenses was raised in the context of the costs involved in investigating the offences involved in Operation Silo. I want to make it very clear to the Government that, as part of its ongoing fight against organised crime, the way in which it acts on these recommendations of its Authority is an important measure of its commitment and performance. Clearly, the Government has had these proposals before it for some time. It has certainly had time to act upon them. I know that certain matters have been referred to the parliamentary Committee for review. We have had in the course of this debate advice from the Chairman of that Committee as to the way in which it is undertaking its review. It seems to me that, if the Government is serious about these matters, the National Crime Authority needs to have every weapon at its disposal in its armoury to ensure that it is able to meet organised criminal activity. It is not a matter for words; it is a matter for action on the Government's part. It has now been in office for over four years. The Government, in my view, must ensure that the effectiveness of this organisation is maintained. There are certain further legislative proposals in relation to the proceeds of crime legislation and in relation to witness protection arrangements which the National Crime Authority in its more recent annual report also addresses. There are certain statements as to assistance that is sought in relation to listening devices legislation. The way in which the Government acts in relation to those recommendations of the National Crime Authority, in my view, will also be a measure of its effectiveness in and commitment to fighting organised criminal activity in this nation. I certainly encourage the Government to keep these matters firmly on its agenda or to risk the wrath of very firm criticism from this side of the House if it is found wanting in relation to those matters. Mr FITZGIBBON(Hunter)(5.46) —I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in support of the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 1988. This Bill contains amendments to the National Crime Authority Act 1984 and the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979. The Bill deserves the bipartisan support of the Parliament. It is a very significant Bill as it outlines some major amendments, the most important of which is to repeal the sunset clause, section 63, of the National Crime Authority Act 1984. The removal of this clause will guarantee the continued existence of the National Crime Authority (NCA) after 30 June 1989. I am pleased that the previous speaker, the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), finds the amendments sensible. However, I take less kindly to his remarks regarding the previous speaker from this side of the House, the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland). I heard the speech by the honourable member for McEwen. He certainly was not being petty in his criticism, as the honourable member for Dundas suggested. The point made by the honourable member for McEwen was that the previous Government, the Fraser Government, when it came to dealing with organised crime, was very long on words, but when it came to legislative action its performance left something to be desired. Quite plainly, in terms of legislative action, this Government has the runs on the board. We have not merely talked about controlling organised crime. We have put in place legislation which will enable organised crime in this nation to be effectively resisted. Another significant amendment in the legislation is the reappointment of Mr Justice Stewart for a period of one year. Over the past four years since his appointment as Chairman of the National Crime Authority, Mr Justice Stewart has made an important contribution to the National Crime Authority. We are fortunate that he has agreed to an extension of his appointment for a further year, which will allow the NCA to consolidate its position and go from strength to strength. The Bill before the House will also allow flexibility in the length of time for which members may be appointed to the NCA, thereby ensuring that people with the necessary qualifications and expertise, but who may not be in a position to accept a four-year term, are not prevented from accepting an appointment. This flexibility will enhance the operations of the authority and ensure that high quality applicants are appointed. The first of the two amendments to the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 will give eligible judges of the Federal Court of Australia the same protection and immunity applying to judges of the High Court of Australia. The second amendment will require the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) to keep certified copies of warrants and instruments of revocation issued under part IV of the principal Act. These warrants authorise the interception of telegrams. The amendment will make it clear that part IV warrants and instruments of revocation are to be delivered to the Managing Director of Telecom Australia, with the AFP retaining certified copies. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), in his election speech last year, foreshadowed the continued existence of the National Crime Authority. The legislation before the House gives effect to that undertaking. We all know that organised crime has spread its tentacles across the nation. Its progress has been largely unchecked, despite numerous royal commissions which have helped to uncover the extent to which it has been able to operate unhindered. In the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking, Mr Justice Stewart spoke about organised crime and the need for a national crimes commission. He said: One of the striking facts concerning organised criminal activity in Australia is that it is seldom restricted to one State or to one area of a State. He went on: This Commission has not the slightest doubt that organised criminal activity is continuing which has not yet been identified by conventional law enforcement methods. Until the major figures are understood it will be impossible to do more than obtain convictions of the minor figures. He continued: A crimes commission that is continuously looking for patterns of action and association is far more likely to identify crime as organised crime than is the ordinary law enforcement agency. A national crime commission has the opportunity of monitoring activities which take place anywhere in Australia. The Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union also supported the establishment of the National Crime Authority. There is no doubt that the NCA has achieved success in its fight against organised crime because it has been able to operate on a national basis and, one might say, even on an international basis. It has been able to monitor and investigate a plethora of matters with much greater expertise than has ever been achieved in the history of this nation. This was evident in the apprehension of Bruce Cornwell and Barry Bull, two major crime figures with a long history of drug trafficking, who were identified in at least three royal commissions and a Commonwealth-New South Wales joint task force on drug trafficking but who managed to evade normal law enforcement methods. The NCA investigation into those two men and their cohorts, codenamed Operation Silo, is a splendid example of what the Authority is all about, and certainly justifies its existence. Cornwell was sentenced to 23 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 14 years, and Bull to 18 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 11 years. In addition, a number of their associates have also been convicted. Assets amounting to $3.2m were also seized. The NCA report on Operation Silo makes extremely interesting reading. I totally concur with the following comments in paragraph 5.17 on page 33: The Authority accordingly considers that it has good grounds for regarding this investigation as a most successful endeavour. It demonstrated that a multidisciplinary team, comprising police, lawyers, financial analysts, and other support staff, can work as an efficient and effective group to achieve results which can only be regarded as outstanding and which would not have been achieved by normal police methods. I draw the attention of honourable members to page 32 of the report, providing a brief assessment of Operation Silo, and in particular to paragraph 5.15, which is also worth mentioning in this debate. Part of the assessment reads: Aside from exemplary police work, the investigation was also distinguished by proficient financial investigation work. In exposing part of the financial empire created by Cornwell with the assistance of well placed professional advisers, considerable flair and initiative was demonstrated by the Authority's accountants. The resultant pecuniary penalty proceedings against Cornwell and Bull represented one of the first applications made under the provisions of the Customs Act and certainly the first mounted on a major scale involving both interstate and overseas assets. Those comments encapsulate the ethos of the National Crime Authority. Despite the initial controversy and torrid debate surrounding the establishment of the Authority, after almost four years of successful operation it has silenced its critics and more than justified its continued existence. I turn now to the other achievements of the NCA. During 1986-87 the Authority made a number of significant seizures of illicit drugs, particularly heroin. Its investigations led to the seizure of 33 kilograms of heroin with an estimated street value of $36m. This is a decisive indication of the inroads the Authority is making into drug trafficking. I would also like to point out that the NCA's achievement rate in this area is substantially higher than all other law enforcement agencies and that the heroin seized is almost pure, which rather indicates that the Authority is catching the major importers before they have the opportunity to distribute the drug on the street. As at 1 January 1988, 226 persons had been charged with a total of 711 offences. Of 78 cases completed to date, 72 have resulted in successful prosecutions and a further three convictions obtained of persons who face further prosecutions. Charges against another 148 persons are pending. The bulk of those charges are drug related. Major offences, other than drug offences, successfully pursued by the NCA include the possession of firearms, passport and tax matters, murder, kidnapping and grievous bodily harm. Charges have been preferred against principal targets of major figures of six Commonwealth references and three general investigations, and include some well known underworld figures who had hitherto escaped prosecution. As a result of the NCA's investigations to date, taxation assessments amounting to some $423m have been issued, and the Australian Taxation Office has been advised of a further $417.7m in undisclosed or undeclared income. It is important to note that the NCA's investigations into these matters have generally been the first to result in serious charges being laid, despite the individuals having been for several years the subject of allegations of criminal conduct. This demonstrates the important contribution being made by the Authority, because of the provision of special powers to enable it to investigate matters which have been beyond the scope of ordinary police methods. It should also be emphasised that a key factor in the successful functioning of the National Crime Authority has been the Federal Government's commitment to cooperation with the States. All States and the Northern Territory have passed underpinning legislation which gives the NCA power to investigate State offences. Such cooperation through regular NCA intergovernmental committee meetings has resulted in several States granting references to the NCA under State laws. The 1986-87 annual report of the National Crime Authority pays tribute to the assistance the NCA receives from all State police forces. It has been able to second to its staff approximately 90 State police and specialised civilian officers. The performance of the NCA is monitored by the Parliamentary Joint Statutory Committee on the National Crime Authority which meets with the NCA at regular intervals. There can be no doubt that the continued existence of the National Crime Authority is justified. It has more than proved that it is a powerful force against organised crime. Since its establishment in 1984, the NCA has achieved outstanding success against criminals in drug trafficking, white collar crime and corruption. In the words of the Chairman, Mr Justice Stewart, the National Crime Authority can look back on a record of achievement, and forward to continuing its work. The passing of this Bill will ensure that the National Crime Authority continues in pursuit of its primary objective of combating organised crime in Australia. I congratulate the Minister for this legislation. I have great pleasure in commending the Bill to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr REITH(Flinders)(6.03) —I move: Page 2, clause 3, insert the following new clause: `3a. Section 26 of the principal Act is repealed and the following section is substituted: Reimbursement of expenses ``26. (1) A witness appearing before the Authority shall be paid by the Commonwealth in respect of the expenses of his or her attendance an amount ascertained in accordance with the prescribed scale or, if there is no prescribed scale, such amount as the Authority determines. ``(2) The Authority may direct that a person producing a document or thing pursuant to a notice issued under section 29 shall be paid by the Commonwealth in respect of the expenses of his or her attendance an amount ascertained in accordance with the prescribed scale or, if there is no prescribed scale, such amount as the Authority determines.'' ' The amendment proposes the repeal of section 26 of the principal Act and the substitution of proposed new subsections 26 (1) and 26 (2). Proposed new subsection 26 (1) is a restatement of the existing provision in the Act. Proposed new subsection 26 (2) brings forward a new provision which gives discretion to the National Crime Authority to allow the payment of expenses of attendance of an amount ascertained in accordance with the prescribed scale or, if there is no prescribed scale, such amount as the Authority determines. This amendment follows a recommendation made by the National Crime Authority in its 1986-87 report which was tabled in the second half of last year. There has been a lot of talk in this debate about the respective merits of both sides of this chamber in terms of attitudes to organised crime and the capacity to get on with the job. One of the hallmarks of a government's attitude to any provision is the capacity for good administration, the capacity to dot the i's and cross the t's. In a sense this matter is of no great moment. I read from the annual report, which states: The Authority has also made representations to the Commonwealth Government that persons responding to section 29 notices should receive appearance expenses along the same lines as witnesses who appear before the Authority in response to section 28 summonses. The Government is considering the matter. To be considering the matter is not good enough. The Opposition says that this matter highlights the lack of attention to detail which we believe is necessary when looking to meet the demands placed on the National Crime Authority in the very important tasks it has before it. I am pleased that the Government will accept the amendment we have moved which essentially deals with this matter. We have had a very good contribution to this debate, particularly from the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock). He brought the debate back into perspective. I have no doubt that it was the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) who coached the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland) as to some of the things he said in his second reading contribution. I think the honourable member for Dundas and, I am sure, the Attorney-General will read the Hansard and go back over the debate to see what the honourable member had to say. The substantive points made and the accurate reflection of the record of the Fraser Government lead to this fact: Fraser Government initiatives, in particular in promoting a joint State-Commonwealth approach to law enforcement, provided the momentum for the subsequent legislative actions of this Labor Government, which I was happy to give credit to in my speech during the second reading debate. I am happy to know that we have the support of the Government for our amendment. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(6.08) —I apologise for not being here in the earlier part of the debate. I was otherwise detained. I understand that the number of speakers on the speakers list was reduced. I was anxious to say a few words. I did not have to coach the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland). He has a natural ambition to oppose proposals put forward by the Opposition. For the benefit of my worthy opponent, I would like to put on record that the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union established the extent of criminal activity. We owe a great debt to Costigan in that, following the Costigan Royal Commission, the National Crime Authority was established. We also owe a great debt to Mr Justice Stewart because the National Crime Authority has clearly established the value of the work it does. However, there are problems-we make that very clear-not within the National Crime Authority but perhaps in the police forces throughout Australia being able to understand the problems of the Crime Authority. I think the inquiry in Queensland will disclose matters which will make us very concerned about the extent of infiltration of criminal elements, not in relation to the Crime Authority but to other law enforcement areas. I would like the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) to understand that the Government also deserves some credit for the fact that it has had to start bereft of any real effect of extradition treaties, which we are still trying to remedy, and of mutual assistance treaties, which we are eventually to get. For the first time in Australia, we will have the capacity to assist the National Crime Authority to pursue criminal activity which might take place in Australia but which could well be organised from outside Australia. That will require an element of continuity. The honourable member is anxious that we all work together in this area. I meet with the State Attorneys. I pay them credit for their interest in guaranteeing that there is a unity of purpose between the Federal area and State administration. The State Attorneys are very well aware of the problems they have at times within their own jurisdictions. Having said that, I do not wish to delay the Committee further. The amendment which has been moved, which I understand has been amended in a suitable way to relate to expenses, is quite acceptable to the Government. It is a normal and proper amendment to move for the reimbursement of expenses in this area. As I think I indicated to the honourable member, I accept the amendment. Amendment agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 17 March, on motion by Mr Howe: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(6.12) —the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements (Maintenance Income Test) Amendment Bill 1988 is a very important piece of legislation because it goes to the heart of one of the major social problems facing Australia today; that is, the very high rate of divorces and marriage break-ups and the resulting impact that has on the economic and social lives of many hundreds of thousands of Australian children. Before I go into the detail of the Bill I would like to draw the attention of the House to allegations made by the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) in answer to a question yesterday. He alleged that child support was an area where there was no common ground between the Government and the Opposition. I want it to be quite clearly understood that I refute absolutely that suggestion. The Minister is well aware that not only did the Opposition support amendments to the Family Law Act late last year but we have supported all three of the pieces of legislation which have so far been introduced into this House in regard to the new family income, family maintenance and family support packages. Therefore, for the Minister to suggest, as he did yesterday, that the coalition policy to put non-custodial parents who do not pay maintenance into gaol was the sum total of our policy is absurd in the extreme. It is perhaps what one would expect from a very frustrated Minister who is now facing the situation where every Labor seat in New South Wales north of the Hawkesbury River is now in the hands of the Liberal and National parties. On those figures the Federal Government would lose all its seats in the area. I hope that Government members who are not present in this chamber, regrettably, but who I hope are listening to this debate, are aware of the fact that people in the community of Australia that previously regarded themselves as being Labor supporters are no longer prepared to support Labor. With swings of up to 17 or 20 per cent in some areas the Labor Party has every reason to be concerned. Having got that off my chest, I turn to the basis of this legislation. The Opposition's family policy was initially released on 21 December 1986. We stressed in that policy the need to improve the present system. We said: We will amend the Family Law Act to restore the primary obligation of parents to maintain their children, while confirming that support will continue to be provided for families in need. A fair, effective means of determining and enforcing maintenance payment by non-custodial parents for their children will be established and income sourced where appropriate. We went on to say: Many parting couples are abdicating their responsibilities towards their dependants, shifting the burden of family financial support from themselves onto taxpayers. Large numbers of single parent families live in poverty. Social welfare expenditure on them by the Commonwealth has risen dramatically as a result. That policy has been consistent and we are pleased that the Government has taken over our policy as its own. But I think the point should be made that when we attempted to introduce private member's legislation into the Senate to cover the essential ingredients of that package it was the Government which voted against our attempts to have this legislation introduced. Consequently, on behalf of the Opposition I take great exception to suggestions by the Minister that all we have as a policy is to put defaulters in gaol, if I may use his words. Senator Durack introduced a private member's Bill in December 1985 to address the problem of judicial failure to determine adequate maintenance payments and to enforce fulfilment of the orders. Despite the Government's stated intention to introduce similar reforms, in a demonstration of exceedingly bad grace it voted against Senator Durack's Bill in May 1987. Now the Government has finally implemented these policies, it has naturally been supported by the Opposition. It is a sad day when the Minister must misrepresent an area of policy where there is substantial common ground on both sides of the House. The working relationship between his office and mine in this area has been excellent and it is a credit to staff members in his office who have worked closely with those in my office. It can be demonstrated by the smooth passage of this very significant legislation on no fewer than three occasions to date. Maybe the Minister gets out of bed on the wrong side occasionally but I take grave exception to his coming into this House and grossly distorting the situation. This Bill is part of the stage one package of measures to provide for the introduction of the child support scheme. The objects are to ensure that those parents who have a capacity to pay do not abandon to the social security system the financial responsibility of supporting their children and, secondly, to increase the numbers of families receiving maintenance, to increase the level of their maintenance and to ensure that it is received on a regular basis. The Bill details the interaction between the child support scheme in terms of social security recipients, specifically by changing the way in which maintenance is treated in social security arrangements. Other measures in the package are the Family Law Amendment Act of 1987 and the Child Support Act of 1988. As I have stated, we have already supported them. The basis of the Bill covers some very complex but nevertheless important areas. The Bill provides for an income test on maintenance income in addition to and separate from the existing income test applicable to pensions, benefits and certain allowances which were previously paid to custodial parents on behalf of their children. Maintenance will no longer be treated as part of the existing income test and therefore increased maintenance payments will not impact upon other income and act as a disincentive to the receipt of income from other sources such as employment. Maintenance income would include payments of cash maintenance, provision of in-kind benefits provided by way of maintenance and transfers of capital. The definition will explicitly cover maintenance collected and paid under the Child Support Act of 1988. The cause of the payment or conferral of benefit may be a court order, a registered agreement or otherwise. The second area covered by the Bill is in-kind maintenance income. This is defined as maintenance income not consisting of a payment received by the pensioner and covers, for example, a spouse or former spouse paying school fees in respect of a child of the pensioner allowee. The annual value of those school fees would be taken into account. If the in-kind maintenance income were health insurance premiums, the annual rate of those premiums would be assessed. Should in-kind maintenance income be in the form of payment of electricity or gas accounts, the Department would estimate a reasonable annual value of that benefit based on all the known facts. Should in-kind maintenance income be in the form of housing, much would depend on the ownership of the house. The in-kind housing maintenance would be assessed as nil where the house was owned by the pensioner, beneficiary or allowee either alone or as a co-owner. Should the house be subject to a mortgage in the name of both pensioner or beneficiary allowee and spouse or former spouse, any mortgage payments by the spouse in excess of one-half of the total payable would be assessed as maintenance income. Should the house be subject to a mortgage in the name of only the spouse or former spouse, the value of in-kind maintenance would be an amount reflecting the value of the right of occupation by the pensioner, and should the house be leased, all rental payments by the spouse or former spouse would be assessed as maintenance income. The third element in this trifecta is capitalised maintenance income; for example, the transfer of capital amounts for maintenance purposes and indirect payments of maintenance over $1,500. This would be maintenance income not received on a periodic basis. Examples of capitalised maintenance would be the payment of a lump sum of cash, the settlement of shares or securities, or the settlement of a house provided by way of maintenance. Capitalised maintenance income would be apportioned over a period of time. During that period the person would be taken to receive the apportioned maintenance income in fortnightly instalments. Amendments to the Family Law Act include a provision to specify capitalised maintenance over a period. So if the amount has not been specified over a period or there is no court order, the Bill provides a method whereby, firstly, if it is child maintenance, it will be apportioned over the time from the date of receipt of the maintenance up to the child's eighteenth birthday or, secondly, if the income relates to the maintenance of a service pensioner, the apportionment will be from the date it is received until the recipient is aged 65. The Bill also provides for a free area, that is, an amount which pensioners can receive before reductions in pensions occur. This free area is substantially less than that provided for other beneficiaries of the social security arrangements and is, in fact, limited to $15 per week, plus an additional $5 per week for a second and subsequent child, dependent on the maintenance recipient, in respect of maintenance income. Maintenance income in excess of the free area, that is, in excess of $15, would reduce the pension, benefit or allowance by 50c per dollar. This is, as I said earlier, lower than the free area which applies to the existing social security income test in which a single parent with one child is entitled to $52 a week and the withdrawal rate is the same as for existing income tests. The hardship provisions in the Bill, which can best be described as special maintenance income, provide that the rate of pension, benefit or allowance will not be reduced by more than 25 per cent of the maximum rate if maintenance income falls into one of three categories. These include: all in-kind maintenance paid to a pensioner, beneficiary or allowee in the first six months following separation from a spouse or former spouse; in-kind house maintenance provided in some cases; and maintenance income provided in relation to the expenses arising directly from a disability of a child of the pensioner, beneficiary or allowee. One area of concern or interest in the Bill is that of transitional provisions. The Bill provides relief for certain existing pensioners who might otherwise lose, or face a reduction in, pension, benefit or allowance as a result of the new maintenance income test. This is to meet the Government's commitment that existing pensioners or beneficiaries would not have their total income reduced. The transitional provisions cease to apply to a pensioner when total income rises above that received in the final pre-amendment period. The Bill also provides a set of conditions for reasonable action which has to be taken by custodial parents to demonstrate that they have taken whatever action is regarded as adequate to obtain maintenance. The Bill also clarifies the requirement that those who wish to qualify for a widow's pension or a supporting parent's benefit must take reasonable action to obtain maintenance where maintenance may be payable. Reasonable action is not defined by the Bill, but is at the discretion of the Secretary to the Department of Social Security. Guidelines for reasonable action are set out in the Department of Social Security manual of instructions so that the condition requiring reasonable action to obtain maintenance is met where: the claimant has instituted court proceedings in the matter; a court has refused to make an order or if only a small amount has been awarded; voluntary maintenance is being paid; the claimant does not know the whereabouts of the other parent of the child; legal advice is to the effect that the court would be unlikely to make an order; the other parent of the child is a pensioner or beneficiary; or the name of the father of the child is unknown. In addition, it is the Department's policy that there are circumstances in which it would not be reasonable for a claimant to take action, for example, where there is fear of violence from the other party, where there is other concern for the safety or health of the claimant or children; or where action may be a cause of disruption to the domestic affairs of the father or mother of the child. The Bill does not change these guidelines but no doubt this will be an area which we will have to watch very carefully to ensure that people do not try to use the escape clause merely as a means for getting access to pensions without taking adequate action to get payment from the non-custodial parent. Whereas the existing section 47 of the Principal Act forbids only the grant of pension in such a case and is unclear as to whether the maintenance in question is for the widow or sole parent only, or for the widow and any dependent child or children, the proposed substitute section would clarify that the obligation to take reasonable action to obtain maintenance would be a continuing obligation; that failure to fulfil the obligation would result in cancellation of the pension; that the obligation would result in cancellation of the pension; and that the obligation would apply to action for maintenance for both spouse and child. I support this because it means that whereas a payment may be deemed to be payable on a specific date that does not remove the long term responsibility of a custodial parent to take whatever appropriate action that parent can take to be able at some stage to identify the father or the mother, as the case may be, so that proceedings can be taken through the family maintenance arrangements to ensure that the contribution is payable. In terms of the actual contents of the legislation, the Government claims that these measures taken together-that is, the arrangements following amendments to the Family Law Act and the Child Support Act-will give a net gain of $120m in 1988-89 and $192.8m in 1989-90 and there will be further savings beyond those financial years. As I said, we are slightly sceptical about that level of financial gain but to a great degree it will depend to what extent officers of the Department of Social Security, at the counters where they actually have to test the cases, are prepared to apply the measures in a rigorous manner. Another point worth making is that the Government claims that there will be no losers in this. Unfortunately there will be losers, at least for a relatively short period. Its commitment is that existing pensioners will not have their total income reduced to below what it was prior to the introduction of the scheme. As I said, this will not be met. This is because the benchmark used-that is, the amount received prior to the scheme-will not be indexed over time. For example, in six months if a pensioner who now receives a total income of $118 per week had stayed in the old scheme that amount would be increased with the consumer price index and would be worth slightly more. Under the new scheme the pension will not be adjusted up to the new figures; it will be adjusted only to the original $118 and the pension would thus lose value at the current rate of inflation. It is claimed by the Government that an estimated 25,000 recipients who currently receive some maintenance will be affected by this in the first six months, declining to 5,000 within 12 months and to only about 50 or 60 within 18 months, according to the Minister's office. However, approximately 30 per cent of current special pension beneficiaries and widow B recipients will not receive any additional income as they have no prospect of receiving maintenance. For example, the non-custodial parent may be dead, unemployed, not known or cannot be found. The Government has made no commitment, despite the savings it will obviously make, to give further assistance to this group. The points I have made emphasise that this legislation is significant. The Opposition is supporting the thrust of the Bill, as we should, because matters such as this should not be the subject of political division and controversy. Having said that, however, 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 deplores the fact that the economic and social policies pursued by the Hawke Government since March 1983 have directly contributed to the continuing high level of marriage break-ups by: (1) increasing the number of Australian families living below the poverty line and bearing the brunt of unemployment, including an additional 165 000 children; (2) pursuing policies which have resulted in single income families on average weekly earnings with 2 children facing a decline of $42 a week in their standard of living in real terms; (3) abolishing negative gearing between July 1985 and September 1987 which resulted in a decline in rental accommodation, and a steep rise in rental costs which has contributed to 160 000 Australians waiting for public housing, while thousands of families and individuals live in refuges, emergency accommodation or on the streets; (4) failing to give recognition to the increased burdens of families with dependants other than the approximately 23% eligible for assistance under the Family Assistance Scheme; and (5) contributing to a marked decline in the standard of living of veterans, war widows, ex-service personnel and serving personnel'. Government members may regard that as somewhat of an omnibus motion but I think it demonstrates quite clearly the genuine concern of the Opposition, and the political events of last Saturday demonstrate most conclusively that standards of living in Australia have fallen and are continuing to fall and that there are large segments of our population who have always been underprivileged to some extent or other but who are possibly more underprivileged today than since the days of the Great Depression. It is the fundamental responsibility of the Government to put in place policies which overcome those problems. Unfortunately, the electorate now believes, with reason, that over the last five years the Government, being a Labor government, has not lived up to the promise the electorate obviously expected of it. I turn to some statistics to back up my second reading amendment. The proportion of people divorcing in a year who have previously been divorced has increased rapidly since 1981, when the figure was approximately 9.4 per cent among both divorcing wives and husbands. In 1986 it had grown to 14.3 per cent among divorcing husbands and 13.5 per cent among divorcing wives. The number of divorces granted in 1986 totalled 39,400 and, while it is true to say that there has been some decline in the growth of divorces since that peak following the passage of the Murphy Family Law Act, nevertheless the figure is most unsatisfactory and one has to face the fact that while one cannot keep families together, for obvious reasons, there is a range of economic factors over which government policy does have some impact and which in turn are contributing factors to the very high level of family breakup in Australia today. It is worth noting, in terms of the impact on children, that 45,200 children became dependants of persons divorced in 1986 alone, and there are hundreds of thousands of children affected if we take into account the total number of divorces over recent years. In 1986 the divorce rate was highest in the 30 to 34 age group, in which the rate for males was 12.2 per thousand, while the rate for females in the 25 to 29 and 30 to 34 age groups was 12.6 per thousand. These figures are a graphic indication of the fundamental breakdown of the social institutions which are the very underpinning of our society. While nobody should stand here and try to make judgments about the social environment and the reasons why individuals get divorced, one has to say that wherever possible government policy should not be directed at encouraging or increasing the number of divorces in Australian society, because of the major impact divorce has on children and the fact that most of these people then become part recipients of social welfare benefits for much, if not most, of the rest of their lives. One has only to visit, as I hope the Minister at the table, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand), has, some of the crisis accommodation facilities around Sydney to see that, for example, male children over the age of 12 are forcibly taken from their mothers-because the mothers go into female refuges while the fathers often have to go into male refuges-and slotted off in a similar direction. They are living with people who are social misfits of varying degrees-drug addicts and people with alcohol problems, et cetera. How can we expect the children to come out of such an extraordinary environment as normal citizens? The sad fact is that since the 1970s the funding of family support facilities, including family crisis accommodation, has been totally unsatisfactory. The result is that welfare organisations such as the Smith Family, the St Vincent de Paul Society and the Sydney City Mission have had to carry a gross amount of the cost, including the administrative cost, of servicing programs which clearly have their genesis in government policy. Unfortunately those policies are simply not appropriate today. The result of all this is that child poverty in Australia now affects 825,000 children-one in five children-an increase of 165,000 since Hawke took power in 1985. The Government's family allowance supplement policy will alleviate some of this, but even if all families who are entitled to receive the FAS take it up-and at this stage it looks as though only about 50 per cent will do so-that still means that some 450,000 children, or 45,000 in South Australia alone, for example, will be living below the poverty line. The number of children whose parents are dependent on social security increased in the 10 years from 1975 from 7 per cent to 18 per cent-a figure which requires the deepest consideration by all members of this House. We find the figures at that level in all the States, and the situation is particularly bad in the more populous States of New South Wales and Victoria. I refer now to unemployment in families. Analysis of Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) figures by Dr Peter Whiteford of the Social Welfare Research Centre of the University of New South Wales shows that in 1986 more than 220,000 children, or 5.2 per cent of all Australian children, were in families whose chief wage earner was unemployed. In 1986 more than 500,000 people were in families whose chief means of income support was the unemployment benefit. As a proportion of the unemployed, unemployed people with children increased from 37 per cent to 46 per cent between 1980 and1986. Most of those years were years of Labor government. Mr Hand —That is what your leader says all the time. Mr CONNOLLY —It is a statistical fact. Since 1982 the greatest proportional increases in unemployment rates have been for families with three or more children. Families have borne the brunt of unemployment despite an overall trend of reduced unemployment. For example, from 1985-after Labor had been elected-to 1986 the total number of unemployed persons fell by 8,000, as we get told every day by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke); but the number with dependants-this is the important point-actually increased by 13,000 and the number of children in families with an unemployed head increased by a further 22,000. What is worse, the most difficult part of all this to reconcile is the length of unemployment. People with family responsibilities have experienced, and continue to experience, longer durations of unemployment since 1982-83. The mean duration of unemployment and the proportion of married men who have been unemployed for more than a year have increased dramatically. In 1986, 53 per cent of all men unemployed for more than a year were married, compared to 45 per cent in 1982. Thirty-eight per cent of long term unemployment beneficiaries have three or more children. Of course the FAS will be of some benefit to these people, but what I am simply saying is that there is still a large body of poor people, people who earn even around average weekly earnings, with large families who face great difficulty. This is a major area of poverty, and I am glad to see that the Minister for Social Security has now come into the chamber. No doubt he will defend himself at the appropriate time. These are the issues the Government has to face up to and it is because it has not done so until its fifth year in office-I emphasise that point; it is its fifth year in office-that it now wonders why its traditional political base has eroded before its very eyes. I turn now briefly, in my last few minutes, to the increased burden on families. An average family needs a further $42 a week to restore its disposable income to what it was in March 1983. There has been an increased tax take over the last five years. Family allowances and dependent spouse rebates have in fact fallen by about 30 per cent in real terms. Interest rates, home loan repayments and housing waiting lists have all risen dramatically, and middle Australia has been the victim since this Government took power. The rich are earning a greater share of the income and middle income earners are earning less, according to comparisons of household disposable income put out by the ABS from 1981-82 to 1985-86. The $23 billion family debt crisis is also a direct result of the Labor Government's policies, which have taxed Australian families into poverty. The full impact of the Government's erosion of the relative tax position of middle income families is shown by the fact that each family is now carrying an average debt of $6,000 to banks and lending institutions-a 40 per cent increase over the last 12 months. According to Father Kevin Caldwell, the National Director of the Australian Catholic Welfare Commission: The broad picture does not seem to be getting any better for the great majority of families. The newest projections of the Commission suggest that by June 1988 the position will be worse for most families than was forecast nearly two years ago, in July 1986. At that time it was estimated that a breadwinner on average earnings with a dependent spouse and two children would have experienced a decline of 4.6 per cent in family income since 1976-77. The revised estimate is that the cumulative loss of income will amount to 7.5 per cent or nearly $40 a week by June 1988. This figure is likely to underestimate the loss for many families since it does not take account of the cuts to tax rebates for health and education or the effects of higher interest rates over that period. A family on average weekly earnings with five children, for example, will be able to keep only 90.4 per cent of its income as of June 1988, even after the family allowance supplement, compared to the 96.8 per cent of its income it was allowed to keep in 1976-77. Such a family will be $33.66 a week worse off. I turn now to the problem of homelessness. The St Vincent de Paul Society in Sydney's west, one of the regions worst hit by unemployment and an area which voted so strongly against Labor last Saturday, has demonstrated that it is turning away four people for every one to whom it can offer assistance. In fact, it is now receiving requests from an estimated 1.4 million people annually. The same problem applies to the Sydney City Mission, the St Vincent de Paul Society, as I said, the Smith Family and the Salvation Army. There are now over 160,000 people on public housing waiting lists, with home loan interest rates rising by 3 per cent to 15.5 per cent as a direct result of this Government's economic policies, although fortunately they have now fallen. The Government is also responsible for the decline in housing investment because of the disincentives to investment, particularly the earlier decision to cut and then reinstate negative gearing, which has contributed so much to the rental crisis in the past. The issue is quite clear. This Government, in a very belated manner, after five years in office has finally discovered that there are poor people in Australia who have a right to expect some support from it. I only wish that more had been done earlier. Another problem that is worth repeating is that in 1985-86, and the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) confirmed this, the New South Wales Government cut emergency cash assistance by $6m. It then said to the welfare organisations, `It is over to you'. Those organisations have written numerous letters to this Government asking for some support in solving the problem, but the responsible Minister, the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) does not even bother to answer their correspondence. Mr Howe —These are crocodile tears. You were absolutely ruthless. Mr CONNOLLY —The Minister for Social Security came in here yesterday and accused the Opposition of not having a policy on family support. We gave him support for this legislation, and he has no right to come in here and say things like that; he is fundamentally wrong. Mr Howe —You ousted hundreds of thousands of families, Connolly, and you know it. We will not have any crocodile tears from you. You kicked hundreds of thousands of people in the guts and they will never forget it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) — Order! I think we will declare that a draw and get on with our business. Is the amendment seconded? Mr Tim Fischer —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Mr O'KEEFE(Burke)(6.43) —Listening to the exchange between the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) and the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), I know one is inclined to get a little heated and throw some emotion into this debate. In spite of that, there are many areas of agreement between the Opposition and the Government on this legislation, and I shall come to the question of the Opposition finally being in agreement with something. I think we need to look at this matter of social security as dispassionately as we can. Some of the points raised by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Bradfield, were quite significant. First, he acknowledged that the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements (Maintenance Income Test) Amendment Bill is important legislation. If I remember his words correctly, he said that it was a very complex and difficult area. I think I ought to start there, because the only relevant words of the amendment that has been circulated are `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading . . .'. That to me means that the Opposition accepts the legislation and the work the Minister has done. Mr Snowdon —They are just nitpicking. Mr O'KEEFE —As my colleague the honourable member for the Northern Territory says, the Opposition is just nitpicking for the sake of having an argument. When we look at the amendment itself we see that that is what it is about. This legislation covers a complex and difficult area and, put simply, it was far too difficult for the previous Government to tackle. As the honourable member for Bradfield acknowledged, these problems have existed in our society for many years. They were not tackled during the term of the previous Government, but they have been tackled, in a consistent way, by the present Minister during his period in office. The first thing the Minister did was to set about reviewing the social security system and a whole range of measures that need to be put in place to assist ordinary families in need. While that review has been taking place he has had to set about the task of overhauling a system of social security and family support that not only had degenerated in Budget terms, in the share of the wealth of this country being granted to families in need, but had also degenerated in legislative and administrative terms. The task of overhauling the system has been the Minister's first and proper priority and he is now putting in place new measures and reforms which will genuinely address those problems in the long term. There was much humbug from the shadow spokesman about poverty and families and the breakdown of families and the fact that Labor governments in some way cause these things. Let me repeat the words of the Minister in his second reading speech, when he acknowledged, I believe with great compassion: Many Australian families over the last 10 years have experienced the pain of marriage breakdown. That is something governments can do little to help-but government can take action to alleviate dramatic and sustained drops in living standards for children in those families. For too long poverty has been the traumatic result of marriage breakdown for children in sole parent families. I shall recount a little incident concerning sole parent families that happened about 12 months ago when the Minister visited my electorate with me. He met representatives of community groups and representatives of 21 councils. One of the things he talked about was the assistance that is given to sole parents, particularly in the early stages of marriage breakdown. Many of those people he met are opinion leaders in their local communities, and many were quite surprised to learn that only 2.4 per cent, I think it is, of benefits are paid to sole supporting parents, and that the average term of the benefit is about 24 or 26 months. In other words, it is a benefit designed to help people through a traumatic period in their lives. The reason these people were surprised to learn that it is a transitory benefit is that they have been fed a line through all the years of the dole bludger myth. It was not just the dole bludger idea that these people opposite turned on, it was also the myth about the single supporting mother. They turned on all their vitriol and rhetoric in an attempt to stir up social discontent against those people who can least assist and protect and help themselves in the community. The honourable member for Bradfield, in his capacity as shadow spokesman, comes into this House and carries on with all this drivel about the Opposition caring for people in poverty and the distress of marriage breakdown and unemployment. If he is sincere in what he says, and I accept that he is, he has shown a very belated understanding of the problems that many of these people have. The Opposition paid no attention to education, training and job opportunities. It ought to recall that the greatest single cause of poverty and family breakdown through financial stress is the loss of a job. The Opposition ought to go back and look at its record, not in creating jobs but in creating unemployment, and learn some lessons. I agree with the honourable member for Bradfield that this is very important legislation. It tackles a very human but complex and difficult area. I shall take a few moments to outline some of the points that have been covered in the legislation because I know that people are looking for a clear explanation of it. The first thing we need to understand is that there are three major problems with child maintenance following the breakdown of a marriage. Only a minority of non-custodial parents make regular cash payments of maintenance; less than 30 per cent. When such payments are made, they are generally low and in keeping with a non-custodial parent's capacity to pay. It is acknowledged also-although perhaps not publicly-that many people in the upper income bracket who have left a marriage situation have been able to work the system in some way or other to make nominal payments. At the same time they have made all sorts of underground contributions which have left people who ought not to be supported by the social security system because they have the capacity to pay able to qualify for payments. This matter has caused discontent in the community. There has been poor coordination between the provision of income support by way of maintenance, and public income support through the social security system. Mr Blanchard —And the previous Government did nothing about it. Mr O'KEEFE —Not only did the previous Government do nothing about it; it also left the system in such a way as to foster exploitation, in the same way as it left the taxation system open and matters such as wage subsidies open for exploitation. Earlier I heard my colleague the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) say that there had been a lot of talk about the Labor Party losing touch with its traditional base. Let there be no misunderstanding of the position of honourable members opposite. The Opposition has not lost touch with its traditional base, the owners of wealth, and those who exploit the tax system and the social security maintenance system. The Opposition has done its best to protect the position of those that it represents. Under the reforms that have been introduced through this legislation an effective system of collecting child support will be established, using the child support agency in the Australian Taxation Office. There will be changing criteria for assessment of child support obligations to achieve higher awards in line with a non-custodial parent's capacity to pay. I referred to that aspect earlier. We will be making the system of assessment and the updating of child support awards more acceptable and more predictable for the parties involved. It will be cheaper for the public as well. The system is not a system designed to make money for lawyers. We will be achieving closer coordination between income support available through the family law system and that available through social security systems. It ought to be recognised at this time in Australia's economic development that we are experiencing difficulties with our international competitiveness. Also, there has been, with the operation of the wages and prices accord with the Australian Council of Trade Unions, a discounting of wages in Australia. Consequently, on the surface the real living standards of many families have felt the crunch; no-one denies that. It has been a fact of life that Australia has had to accommodate. It ought to be remembered also, as we talk about concepts of social justice and the social wage, that whilst wages, or the money return, have had to be discounted, it does not mean that it is the end of the ball game. Although the Government has accepted that such changes have had to be made, it has looked around for other ways in which families could receive benefits as a trade-off for their wage discount. There has been a massive drop in health insurance payments through the introduction and maintenance of Medicare. Let it not be forgotten that Medicare has been and will always be trenchantly opposed by those opposite, whose traditional base includes private health insurance companies. The Opposition wants the ordinary family to pay through the nose for health insurance that it does not need. The introduction of programs such as rental assistance and the family package that was recently introduced are further aspects of the trade-off that forms part of the social wage. I believe it will come to be realised that the measures introduced by this Bill, which will genuinely address the situation of children living in sole-parent families or single custodian families being guaranteed maintenance, will significantly contribute to the social wage of families and to the justice that they achieve in society. I have endeavoured to outline to the House that I welcome the fact that the Opposition has chosen in this particular debate not to oppose the Bill. The fact that it is not opposing it, and the fact that the amendment it proposes has nothing to do with the Bill-- Mr Snowdon —Totally fatuous. Mr O'KEEFE —Totally fatuous, as my colleague the honourable member for the Northern Territory says. The amendment contains no constructive suggestions whatsoever. I take that as being a measure of congratulations of the Minister for Social Security on the work that he has done in this regard. I commend the Minister for the consultative process he implemented between the Government and the various interest groups in the community to ensure that this legislation met both the needs and the aspirations of the various groups involved. This legislation is, in reality, totally supported by the Opposition, which is a measure of congratulations of the Minister. I do not intend to say anything further at this time. It is important legislation and is a significant contribution to social justice which will apply in the future for children in single parent families. I commend the legislation to the House. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(6.56) —I listened with interest to the contribution of the honourable member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe) with regard to the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements (Maintenance Income Test) Amendment Bill. At one stage the honourable member referred to criticisms levelled against the Government for being out of touch. We now know, at least from today's media reports-which I have no reason to dispute-that no fewer than 17 speakers in the Government's own Caucus meeting yesterday morning said that the Government was out of touch. The criticisms not only emanated from the Opposition side of the House. They emanated not only from defeated New South Wales State Government Ministers when they were cleaning out their desks-Terry Sheahan and Peter Anderson, and so many others whose names I cannot remember, even though I used to sit opposite them in Macquarie Street. Criticism came also from 17 speakers in this Labor Government's Caucus meeting here in Canberra. They said that the Government was out of touch. For once I agree with at least 17 members of the Government. I shall respond further to the comments of the honourable member for Burke by saying that interestingly enough the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), in response, said that they were all responsible for the situation that obtained and, therefore, they all had to accept a degree of responsibility for being out of touch. Mr Blanchard —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: the remarks that the honourable member for Farrer is delivering to the House have no relevance. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —In strict terms the honourable member for Moore is correct. However, it must be noted that the honourable member for Farrer is responding to a comment in the nature of a challenge from a Government member in a speech that preceded his contribution. I shall extend some modest licence to the honourable member for Farrer, but I invite him to address the Bill. Mr TIM FISCHER —Clearly the comments I was making were hurting some Government members. I was making passing reference only. I thought the honourable member would have been proud to hear a member of the Opposition quote the comments of 17 Government members which were made at the Caucus meeting. I am surprised that honourable member is not so proud to hear an Opposition frontbencher, a member of the National Party of Australia, quote those comments. I shall not dwell on it, however. The honourable member for Burke and the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Snowdon) said that the Opposition's second reading motion was totally-and I quote-fallacious. Mr Snowdon —I said `fatuous'. Mr TIM FISCHER —I am sorry. In terms of the meaning of both words, I reject both. I reject both very clearly because the amendment shows just how in touch the Liberal and National parties are with regard to our expressions endorsed by the second reading speech and with particular reference to the area of the Bill which I am going to concentrate on. I refer to paragraph (5) of the amendment moved by the Opposition, which states: Contributing to a marked decline in the standard of living of veterans, war widows, ex-service personnel and serving personnel. I strongly support the comments of the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly). I strongly support paragraph (5) of the amendment of the Liberal and National parties because it properly states the position which has pertained ever since the mini-Budget of May 1985. Once again, I am not going to dwell on this matter because it is on the very periphery of the legislation before the House. But I think it is worth mentioning in passing that we have had such things as the halving of the country travel allowance, the imposition of limitations on the dental scheme for veterans and the elimination of war widows completely from the repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme. I could go on to mention the 2 per cent cutback in the Defence Force retirement benefits payments, but I will not, because I realise that Government members will take points of order and show their concern. But let me say that it is to do with the amendment before the House that has been moved by the honourable member for Bradfield. Mr Howe —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. Perhaps you can clarify this for me. What concerns me about the amendment is that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Bill. If the honourable member could explain what the relevance is of that amendment to this Bill I would be very happy. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. The Minister will have an opportunity to address the matter he touches upon in due time. Mr TIM FISCHER —I point out that the amendment is before the House and, therefore, surely legitimate for discussion and debate pertaining to the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements (Maintenance Income Test) Amendment Bill. Mr Snowdon —Do you support the Bill? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for the Northern Territory is listed to speak later. I suggest that the way he is going he will have completely exhausted all the things he might say. I invite him to remain silent. Mr TIM FISCHER —The drafting of this legislation did attract my attention because it is, yet again, a combined social security and veterans' entitlements Bill. In recent years the Government has been in the habit of lumping all the 1987 Budget legislation pertaining to veterans' affairs into a social security and veterans' entitlement amendment Bill along with some fairly significant amendments in the payment of totally and permanently incapacitated pension to those over the age of 65. I understand it is an area of notional decision for the Government-a decision of priority to do with the passage of legislation through the Parliament. I accept that there has to be a degree of efficiency applied in the packaging and preparation of legislation especially where it is complementary legislation; the amendments in the social security section in this case being exactly the same as the amendments in the veterans' affairs section. I highlight to the House that this then, in turn, leads to some interesting phraseology and drafting of the very important explanatory memorandum-I think XM is the public servants' nomenclature for that particular document-which is used by so many in the veterans' constituency, in the social security area, the Australian Council of Social Service and beyond in the interpretation and understanding of this legislation. Whilst I will not dwell on this structural aspect, it is interesting that in this type of Bill we have the situation where, under part II of the legislation the principal Act is the Social Security Act. Under part III of the legislation the principal Act is the Veterans' Entitlements Act. Then under part IV, just to cause a ripple of interest but necessitating and flowing from that decision, we knock out both principal Acts and we revert to referring to the full name of the Social Security Act and the Veterans' Entitlements Act. This, in turn, requires the explanatory memorandum to have some very finely tuned wording to reflect those different definitions in parts of this legislation. So we have a situation where there is not one principal Act in the Bill before the House; there are two differing principal Acts picked up in the different sections of the Bill and, therefore, picked up in the different sections of the explanatory memorandum. I believe that is noteworthy. I have no criticism of that situation. But to the students of legislative drafting and to those who try to understand the legislation which churns through both Houses of this Parliament, can I just sound a message in passing that it is beholden on the Parliament, on Ministers, on the Government, on public servants and on the draftsmen to ensure that there are adequate explanatory memorandums, that the simplest form is utilised in the expression of the amendments and the explanations of each of the amendments pertaining to the legislation. I just query whether that particular style of drafting, implanting the term `principal Act' of a different description to different sections of the Bill, is necessarily the best style of drafting even when we do have an omnibus Bill pertaining to both social security and veterans' entitlements. I draw this to the attention of parliamentary counsel by way of raising it on the floor of the House because having been around in both State and Federal Parliament for some years it is something of consequence that legislation is readable and that explanatory memorandums in particular are readable to the people at large beyond this House. I just add that this is an omnibus Bill of both social security and veterans' entitlements. There is a concern in the veterans' constituency particularly that this habit of bulking the legislation together-there are good reasons for that, I admit that-is just a precursor of moving down the path of amalgamating the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Department of Social Security. I am very careful not to-- Mr Howe —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. The Government has made it very clear on a number of occasions that that is not our intention. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr TIM FISCHER —The Minister for Social Security is very sensitive. I was just about to go on to say that I do not mislead members of the veterans' constituency on this matter because they do get upset very easily. That is the stated Government position. I am not going to sit back and allow us to be misled or slip into a situation where suddenly we might be presented with a fait accompli. Of course the Department of Veterans' Affairs should be kept separate. That is the Government's stated position and it is our stated position. Let us hope that the bulking of veterans' affairs legislation into omnibus Bills with social security and veterans' affairs does not lead to a further drifting down the path to amalgamation. Mr Howe —I thought it was worth only 10 minutes! Mr TIM FISCHER —I assure the Minister that if he were in touch with members of the veterans' constituency, he would know that they consider it is worth a lot more than 10 minutes. They consider that it is a very important issue indeed. That is why I raise it here in the House tonight. The legislation before the Parliament has been dealt with in some detail by the honourable member for Bradfield. The marriage breakdown phenomenon is not new; it is one which leads to the creation of great hardship. This legislation moves in the direction of rectifying and introducing a number of dimensions which the Liberal and National parties support. The Minister, in his second reading speech, stated: This will arise through two income test free areas in the Act. One affects maintenance income and the other applies to all other types of income. The advantage which flows from the receipt of both general and maintenance income is a total income test free area considerably more generous than where only one type of income is received. There is a degree of flexibility brought on by a situation of marriage breakdown particularly pertaining to post marriage breakdown where there are children involved. This legislation, in terms of its impact on veterans especially, picks up only those veterans in a maintenance income situation of which I am advised there are very few. It picks them up by amendments to the Veterans' Entitlements Act. I support those amendments as, indeed, I support the amendments to the motion for the second reading moved by the honourable member for Bradfield. I take the opportunity to say that, in altering the Veterans' Entitlements Act once again, the Parliament must be conscious of the fact that there is massive concern in the veterans' constituency that there has been a raft of complex changes and quite significant cutbacks to so many veterans' programs administered by the Veterans' Entitlements Act, which is to be amended by this legislation. There is very real grassroots concern and confusion among branches of the Returned Services League, among, war widows, among Legatees and among many other veterans organisations across Australia. A simple grassroots message is coming forward from all the meetings which I attend. It is relevant to this legislation because once again the Veterans' Entitlements Act is being amended, albeit in a way that we support. It is yet another set of amendments to the Veterans' Entitlements Act, which two years ago was billed as the Act which would streamline all repatriation legislation once and for all. Let me put it to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to the Minister, to the Government and to the Parliament that enough is enough. Veterans have had enough of complex changes. Veterans have had enough of severe cutbacks to their program. They want a fair go. Mr Howe —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order on the question of relevance. I understand that you have been taking a liberal view of the debate and have allowed members on both sides to depart from the legislation. I do not think that members on either side are perfect, but the honourable member for Farrer seems to be somewhat frightened of what is actually in the Bill. If he could bring himself to mention some particular-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The Minister is debating the matter. There may be some substance to his proposition, but thus far the honourable member for Farrer, with his customary skill, has been able to maintain sufficient relevance so as not to incur the displeasure of the Chair. Mr TIM FISCHER —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I remind the House that this legislation will amend the Veterans' Entitlements Act. The honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp), the honourable member for Riverina-Darling (Mr Hicks) and the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) will tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that that is a very controversial piece of legislation. Every time that the Parliament amends the Veterans' Entitlements Act, even if the amendment is in the right direction, it adds to the degree of confusion and concern amongst our veterans. I am determined to defend those veterans and to present their cause. I make no apology for doing so. In conclusion, as I have mentioned, this is important legislation. I am not shy of the provisions. In fact, the Liberal and National parties support the provisions, so we do not need to dwell on them at great length. Only a small number of veterans will be affected in a direct sense by the measure. Of course, with regard to the application of the income test, there are hardship provisions, which I commend, and there is the savings phenomenon in the legislation to make sure that no-one will be adversely affected by this Bill. I have noted particularly those provisions contained in part IV of the legislation in that regard. So far as the amendments go, particularly those to the Veterans' Entitlements Act, I remind the House that the independent monitoring committee reviewing the entirety of those provisions of the Act is about to bring down its report. Therefore, presumably these new amendments will not be addressed by that important non-partisan independent monitoring committee. That report on the operation of the Veterans' Entitlements Act will be examined with interest by both sides of the House when it is forthcoming in April or, at the latest, in May. The Parliament and the Government will then need to address those amendments, because there are real areas of difficulty under the Veterans' Entitlements Act that cannot be properly considered in the context of this legislation, which the Opposition supports. Equally, I strongly support the important, vital and relevant amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill that has been moved by the honourable member for Bradfield. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(7.14) —I support the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements (Maintenance Income Test) Amendment Bill 1988. A number of points need to be made in justification of this Bill. It is a Bill which is greatly overdue. Everyone who has spoken in this debate so far has made that point quite clear. Whilst the Opposition has signalled its intention of amending that part of the Bill relating to the automatic collection of maintenance by the child support agency, which, as has been pointed out, is quite inappropriate in relation to the Bill that is before the House, it does support the Bill in principle. I am very pleased to hear that that is so. Of course, we had to listen to the usual diatribe from the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), supported by the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer). The honourable member for Farrer, of course, wears blinkers, and tends to see things purely in terms of veterans' entitlements. I respect his interest in that area; nevertheless, the majority of his comments failed to address the Bill. Fortunately, the honourable member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe) put the record straight in his excellent speech. The question of children in poverty in this country is a serious issue. They are in poverty because so few non-custodial parents pay maintenance. The Department of Social Security has stated that 70 per cent of non-custodial parents do not pay maintenance. Marjorie Barrett, a spokesperson for the Campaign for Economic Justice, has stated that the figure may be as high as 90 per cent. Of course, this is a matter for further investigation. Nevertheless, the figure is immensely high and the bare statistics cover human tragedy and human suffering. This social problem has been getting worse in the last 10 years. This is proven by the fact that there has been a 70 per cent increase in sole-parent families. The proportion of sole parents in receipt of a pension or benefit has increased from 65 per cent to 85 per cent. In addition, government expenditure on pensions and benefits for sole parents has increased by over 200 per cent in the past 10 years. There are now more than a quarter of a million sole-parent families, with 450,000 children, who are forced to rely on pensions and benefits from the social security system. Yet it is quite clear from both the research and the anecdotal evidence in this area that in the vast majority of cases the non-custodial parent is employed and would be able to contribute to the support of his or her children. It is against this background that the Government, in line with its commitment to ensure that by 1990 no Australian child should live in poverty, has introduced the child support scheme. This Bill reinforces the previous legislation in this area-the Child Support Act-which established a child support register, a registrar and an agency which ensures that maintenance is efficiently collected from those who are liable to pay it and that maintenance is distributed to the families entitled to receive it. In addition, amendments to the Family Law Act encourage more substantial awards of maintenance than have been customary previously. It is fair to ask: What is wrong with the existing child maintenance system? I venture to suggest that every member of this House has been confronted with constituents who have been seriously disadvantaged by the present system. There are four major criticisms of the present system. The first is the inadequate level of existing court orders. Under the current system maintenance orders are made at the going rate of approximately $25 per week per child, or $40 per week for two children. By any standards these payments are totally inadequate and lead to the need for social security support. The second major criticism is the issue of the inadequate coverage of the population. As I have pointed out, at least 70 per cent-or at most 90 per cent-of non-custodial parents do not pay maintenance. The third major criticism relates to the difficulties experienced in enforcing court orders. That criticism has been ventilated in this House on numerous occasions, as well as in the Family Court of Australia. The custodial parent and the child are the losers in that situation. The fourth major criticism is the lack of integration of the child maintenance system with the social security system. As the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) said in his second reading speech, the Bill will bring into account a wide range of maintenance income paid to social security and veteran pensioners and beneficiaries. The Bill before the House deals essentially with the fourth major criticism, the lack of integration of the child maintenance system with the social security system. Maintenance can be split into three distinct and separate categories. We tend to think of maintenance as being a cash transfer from the non-custodial parent to the custodial parent. That is one category; the second category is maintenance in kind; and the third is what can be termed capital maintenance. Maintenance in kind includes such items as food and household items supplied, payment of health insurance, the provision of housing or payment of rent, payment of household accounts, educational and child care expenses, and motor vehicle registration and running costs. Capital maintenance includes the transfer of a substantial lump sum of capital, which sometimes occurs in the context of distribution of property following a divorce. The new maintenance income test will take account of in-kind maintenance payments as well as payments of capital. From the perspective of equity, it would be unfair for cash payments to affect the level of pensions if other forms of payment such as capital transfers, usually more available to wealthier people, those protected by Opposition members, did not do so. It is proposed, and I strongly welcome this, that in-kind and capital maintenance will not be allowed to reduce penalty rates by more than 25 per cent of the maximum rate where this maintenance is to maintain the children and the custodial parent in the family home-for example, rent or mortgage payments-or where the maintenance is provided because of an illness, disability or learning difficulty. A 25 per cent reduction limit will also apply to in-kind or capital maintenance provided for any other reason, but only for the first six months after separation. The Minister also proposes in this Bill another very important exception that will limit the impact of the new maintenance income test. For recipients of a pension, benefit or allowance there is a special savings clause so that their total income-that is, from the pension and all other sources-cannot be reduced below their pre-scheme level of income while they are eligible for any pension, benefit or allowance. These changes in the way maintenance is treated in relation to some income-tested social security pensions and benefits will not affect family allowances or the family allowance supplement. Pensions, benefits and allowances not currently income tested will also not be affected. For these payments there will be a new, separate income test to take account of any maintenance received. This will help to relieve the burden on taxpayers. The community will benefit because the Government is attempting to shift the burden of supporting the custodial parent and children back onto those non-custodial parents who in the past have been shirking their responsibilities. In 1986-87 the cost to the community of sole parent pensions amounted to $1,886m. That is money that could be spent on other social justice programs, if a way can be found to ensure an adequate income for those now dependent on a sole parent pension. For example, that money could be spent on public housing or a host of other social justice programs. Everyone accepts the need for such programs in Australia today. The Bill also seeks to encourage sole parents in receipt of maintenance income to increase total income by seeking other forms of income, especially income from remunerative employment. As the previous speaker, the honourable member for Farrer, said, there will be two income test free areas in the Act: one will affect maintenance income and the other will apply to all other types of income. The advantage which flows from the receipt of both general and maintenance income is an area totally free from any income test, and considerably more generous than where one type of income is received. Finally, it must be emphasised that this Bill is stage 1 of the child support scheme and sets out to overcome the worst of the problems that have been encountered to date. The aims of stage 1 are to increase substantially the number of sole parent families receiving child maintenance payments; to help ensure that court orders for child maintenance are enforced; to help ensure that maintenance payments are received on a regular basis; to provide for more adequate levels of maintenance payments in court maintenance orders made after the start of the scheme; and to relieve taxpayers of their substantial burden by ensuring that non-custodial parents accept a fair share of financial responsibility for their children. I therefore support the Bill before the House and reject the amendment moved by the honourable member for Bradfield, on the ground that it is irrelevant. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! It being approximately 7.30 p.m., the debate is interrupted. I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(7.30) —I wish to raise the controversial issue of the Brunswick to Richmond powerline-a 220,000-volt-line that the Cain Labor Government wants to erect over seven Melbourne suburbs. The issue is controversial because the residents do not want it; the unions are unhappy with it and have placed bans on parts of the project; two senior Federal Government Ministers-the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) and the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe)-are not happy with it, presumably because it runs through their electorates; the State Opposition in Victoria is vehemently opposed to it; and even one of the commissioners of the State Electricity Commission of Victoria (SEC) wants the plans changed. Last weekend the people of Kew clearly indicated that they do not want it. It is a powerline that the people of Melbourne do not want. The State Labor Government and the SEC press on, hell-bent on ignoring the swelling ranks of opposition, and are pushing ahead with construction-a State Labor Government which, like its Federal counterpart, has completely lost touch. The Victorian State Government wants to build this line-a $15.2m, eight-kilometre powerline that will be erected overhead on poles 28 metres or nine storeys high. In some cases these poles will be 32 to 33 metres high in parkland areas. On an aesthetic level, this powerline is grossly ugly but, more importantly, it poses serious environmental and possible health risks. This powerline will cut through the unique, natural bushland of Yarra Valley, Merri Creek Valley and, in particular, Studley Park, areas where the State Government has ploughed millions of dollars into restoring the natural vegetation and upgrade recreational facilities through tree planting and landscaping. This precious and valuable asset must be preserved. In a major policy statement for urban Melbourne, entitled `Shaping Melbourne's Future', released last year, the State Government made a commitment to protect Melbourne's urban parklands from industrial developments by ensuring that in the future they would be `appropriately sited and controlled'. Obviously, this commitment does not apply to the SEC powerline project. So much for the rhetoric of the Cain Government. The Cain Government continues to ignore the concerns of residents. Up in smoke will go the many hours of voluntary labour that residents of the Yarra and Merri Creek Valleys have devoted to caring for this sensitive and fragile environment. The Cain Government's professed priority for the environment and conservation is a sham. Very importantly, we have a Federal Labor Government Minister stating that the Cain Government's plans are unacceptable. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is reported in a local newspaper, The Progress Press, as saying: The alienation of the Yarra River Valley in an area which is deficient in open space, is quite unacceptable. Today this Federal Minister, immediate past President of the State Australian Labor Party, is reported as calling for the Victorian Government to stop work on the powerline at the same time as he has announced his candidacy for the Australian Labor Party Federal President. The situation could not be more serious for Mr Cain. There is a clear, deep split and fundamental difference between the State and Federal Labor parties-with at least two Federal Ministers in open conflict with the State Government. The Party is in chaos in Victoria as it is in New South Wales. Labor is falling apart in Victoria. It seems that both the Cain Government and the SEC lackeys are blind to the sensitive and unique areas of native vegetation which will be destroyed forever with the construction of the powerline. Let us consider what is happening. Already the precious native grasses at Dickinson Reserve have been substantially destroyed. Needless to say, the powerline poles are visually intrusive and will be highly visible along ridges of Merri Creek Valley and Yarra Valley. At least the present powerline is tucked into the landscape. I mentioned earlier the health risks of such a high voltage powerline. A United States radiation expert, Dr Jerry Phillips, has said that `constant exposure of high voltage power lines could increase the risk of cancer 12 times'-not a very comforting thought for many residents who will have to live close to the lines. Quite rightly, the residents have called upon the State Government to halt the construction of the powerline until a detailed medical study of the effects of electro-magnetic radiation is carried out. The Brunswick to Richmond powerline is yet another example of a Labor government losing touch with its constituency, its base, its own party and unions, and importantly, residents in Labor-held electorates. It is a Government that simply churns out the rhetoric but, when it comes to protecting a great community reserve and valuable asset-the Yarra and Merri Creek Valleys-it does nothing to demonstrate its concern and commitment for urban conservation and the environment. Mr Rocher —Vandals. Mr SHIPTON —They are. The Cain Government, with its arrogant and dictatorial style, like the former Unsworth Government in New South Wales, like the Hawke Government, can no longer understand or relate to the needs of the ordinary man and woman-the needs, hopes and aspiration of people. Instead, the Cain Government makes its policy in isolation and then forces it on the residents with little, and more often, no consultation. I call on the Cain Government to get back to basics and act in the interests of the people. The Brunswick to Richmond powerline must be stopped. I call on the Cain Government and the SEC to defer construction of this powerline until a thorough investigation of the environmental impact and associated health risks is undertaken. It will be a disaster if the powerline proceeds as proposed. I repeat: the Brunswick-to-Richmond powerline must be stopped. Mr SCIACCA(Bowman)(7.34) —Tonight I rise to express my serious concern about an Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio program called The Funnies, which is played most evenings in my home State of Queensland on ABC radio 4QR. The program throws into doubt, at a fairly crucial time for the ABC, its claim that it is a quality broadcaster, deserving of public funding. The Funnies is a talkback comedy program which encourages people to call the station and tell jokes live to air. I have no problem with that, because sometimes I think that we all need a joke or two, particularly on the ABC. That is something to which we can all look forward from time to time. However, so offensive is the majority of the material that most listeners actually retune their radios to the station broadcasting Parliament which I think is 612. They must be gluttons for punishment if they are prepared to do that. It must be something fairly serious. I am told that at 9.24 p.m. yesterday a person by the name of Darren phoned the program and proceeded to read a three-minute long poem which described migrants, particularly Vietnam refugees as dole bludgers and fish and chip shop owners. I do not know why he called them fish and chip shop owners; I thought that Greeks mostly owned those. By the same token, I have no problem with that. Someone has to own them. It is like Italians being labourers once upon a time and cutting cane. However, he made other disparaging remarks about immigrants generally. I remind the House that this reprehensible racist slur on ethnicity was allowed to be broadcast on our ABC less than a week after this House reaffirmed its commitment to a multicultural Australian society. I remember that I seconded the motion of the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) on that occasion and it received a bipartisan approach from the Opposition. It was carried without any dissent and so it should. I am very pleased that that was the situation. One would have expected the announcer, at the very worst, to cut the caller off or at least to suggest that the piece was not in good taste. Instead, he laughed hysterically and said: That's funny, really good. Could you send me a copy? I am not getting dirty at the fact that this fellow likes to hear jokes, but I do not think it is apt, in such a situation, to have a joke at the expense of probably the many hundreds of people of ethnic origins who may well have been listening to that program. The ABC claims that it needs only 8c a day to adequately reflect the Australian nation. I count myself as one of the ABC supporters, but one wonders whether, if it has the funds to put this garbage to air, it could do with a little less. The ABC finds it increasingly difficult to justify its place in the Australian media. I am aware that some honourable members would like to get rid of it altogether. Sometimes, when one hears these sorts of things, one can understand such feelings. I suggest to the management of the ABC that broadcasting smut and racism is not within its charter and is not appreciated by its loyal and, in difficult times, supportive audience. I urge the ABC to remove that program, or at least remove the announcer who is presently in charge of it and perhaps put on an announcer who has a little more respect for the millions of migrants who have made Australia what it is today. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(7.38) —The matter which I raise this evening relates to the intended removal of certain public telephones in the electorate of Lyne. At the weekend it was announced in the Manning River Times, which is the local newspaper, that six public phones are to be removed from six community areas in the electorate. That concerns me because I know the communities involved. Quite a lot of objection has been made to me about the removal of two or three telephones in particular. I expect that there will be more objection as time goes on. The reason given in the Press for their removal is that they are not being used sufficiently by the public; they are not economical; the cost of their upkeep, such as the cost of power and cleaning, is considerable; and that the majority of people in those areas have phones connected to their residences. I know that, on the surface, the reasons appear to be justified, but I want to put up a very strong argument that we have not reached the stage in Australia when we should allow such a service to be obliterated by the department or government concerned. The local people value their public phone within the community because many of them still do not have the phone connected. In case of emergency people in the area need a public phone. There are breakdowns of other phones within the community, breakdowns of vehicles, deaths or cases where emergencies arise and a nearby phone is required. The tourist industry is growing considerably in the area. People from Canberra and other parts of Australia are travelling the rural local roads all the time to visit the area. At times they want phones to call from the area. One of the phones in question is in the Craven area close to Gloucester. It is beside a main trunk road and I often use it when passing by. That phone is to be removed. Yet there are shops within the vicinity. A phone is to be removed from Hannam Vale, which is a small farming community. Phones are to be removed from Dyers Crossing and other areas where a public phone matters to the people concerned. I listened today to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). He very clearly said to us that there was a reason for cross-subsidisation within Telecom and other public utilities. It is paramount that there be cross-subsidisation in Telecom to allow people in the rural communities of Australia to make telephone calls at reasonable cost. The same principle applies to public telephones. I understand that Telecom considers that a public telephone must earn $2,500 a year to be economical, but the newspaper points out that Telecom itself stated that phones in the near vicinity are returning $12,000 a year. So why can those phones in the near locality not subsidise the ones that might not be paying so well? I stress the matter of cross-subsidisation. My Party and I believe in it, and my local community does. The local people are farmers. They have dairy farms, grazing farms and farmlets. Some live 20 or 30 miles from the town and work in the town. They rely on a public phone. I have written to ask the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) please to indicate to his regional office that he wants somebody from there to go out to confer with the communities, to talk to people around the table to see whether it is wise from their point of view that these phones be removed. That is all that I ask at present. He will get the indications from the people themselves as to whether-- Mr Fitzgibbon —What about the dairy farmers? Mr COWAN —I am sure the honourable member for Hunter agrees with me. I am sure the Minister will get an indication from the community about whether the phones should be removed. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect)(7.43) —In one of the early editions of the Sun-Herald last Saturday evening, the night of the elections, there was the following report: At least 70,000 voters attached yellow stickers bearing the message ``Save The Forests'' to their ballot papers yesterday. The Wilderness Society provided the stickers to voters in the marginal seat of Waverley, Hurstville, Georges River and Gladesville as part of its campaign to protect the State's South East forest. Mr Michael Rae, the Society's campaign director, said demand for the stickers had been ``incredible''. ``The society is thrilled that the public have responded so well to our campaign to alert all politicians of the need to protect the South East forests'', he said. The report is signed `Elizabeth Mealy'. It is a very impressive statement. The newspaper report on the latest voting returns showed that at that time only 30,000 had been counted in those four electorates. Yet the Wilderness Society had put out a Press statement, I assume, some hours before saying that 70,000 voters in those four electorates had attached the yellow stickers bearing the message to the ballot papers. I would just like to point out what absolute liars these people are. They did the same thing in the previous Federal election. The Fairfax Press and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) of course co-operate with the Wilderness Society because the people in those organisations support the line taken by the Society. I do not want to take much time tonight on this matter but I want to say that the Australian Labor Party is looking for reasons why it lost the New South Wales State election. There are many reasons why it lost the election. I suppose the most important reason is that the Australian Labor Party had been in government in New South Wales for 12 years and after some time a government can no longer blame previous governments for all the things that have gone wrong. Twelve years is a fair while. I think one of the reasons for the loss is that we have lost the traditional Labor voters. The traditional voters include the people who work in the forests-the timber workers, the people associated with the timber industry. I think that it is extremely important to keep on pointing that out to people. Organisations such as the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Wilderness Society and similar sorts of organisations are nearly all funded by government money-they are funded by taxpayers' money-either directly or indirectly. These organisations collect money which can be claimed as a tax deduction. Those organisations lie about their success and their influence in politics. Obviously, they persuade a significant number of politicians-far too many politicians-on both sides of the House that they have significant influence in electorates. I repeat: the claim that 70,000 people attached stickers to ballot papers at a time when fewer than 30,000 votes had been counted is an obvious lie. Obviously that is not possible. It is ridiculous for the Fairfax organisation as a whole and a person called Elizabeth Mealey to print this sort of Press handout without any questioning at a time when it could not possibly have been true. I appeal to the House and to honourable members on both sides of the House to try to bring a bit of honesty back into politics at a time when it is so obvious that some people are ripping off the political process and benefiting from the completely uncritical attitude of many people in the community. Mr ALDRED(Bruce)(7.47) —On 6 July 1982 the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Committee on Fiscal Affairs approved a Draft Multilateral Administrative Assistance Convention on Tax Matters. That was formally opened for signature by OECD members on 25 January 1988. The Federal Labor Government is favourably disposed toward that classified convention although it has not yet signed it. Indeed, it supports the principle of exchanging tax files on Australians with other foreign tax authorities. Under this convention Australia would be compelled to provide a requesting country with almost all information relating to the taxation contributions of individual Australians and companies. This is a most frightening proposition with very widespread implications. The `tax treaty' will oblige the Australian Government to swap not just tax file numbers but complete tax files. Furthermore, Article 5 of the tax treaty states: If the information available in the tax files of the requested State is not sufficient to enable it to comply with the request for information, that State shall take all relevant measures to provide the applicant State with the information requested. In other words, if the information requested of Australia is not contained in the Australian Taxation Office files but is held elsewhere, the requesting country has a right to access that information. Article 12 compels requested States to take action to recover amounts of tax or to take conservancy measures, even if the claim is contested or it is not yet the subject of an instrument permitting enforcement. Quite obviously, Article 12 has enormous potential dangers for our system of justice which is traditionally based on the common law. In the explanatory report of the Convention mention is made of the exchange of information by way of computer tapes. This would seem particularly to pertain to the articles covering the automatic and spontaneous exchange of information. In effect, what will result from this is a databank of staggering proportions being built up at the OECD's headquarters in Paris-a databank accessible to all other signatories of the treaty. Article 22 contains the secrecy provisions for the tax treaty. However, in all seriousness, how can Australians rely on the confidentiality of foreign nations when our own Labor Government is unable to guarantee confidentiality within even one Government instrumentality? The latest evidence of this was the action of the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) in handing over to the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) confidential information containing medical provider numbers. Australians need to ask this Labor Government why they are seriously considering signing this tax treaty when Australia is already a signatory to a treaty of mutual assistance in criminal matters. This clearly covers taxation offences to the extent that they prima facie constitute a criminal offence. In addition, existing bilateral agreements between OECD member nations satisfactorily cover the matter of double taxation. Why then do we need to go further and implement the proposed tax treaty at a cost of many millions of dollars? Australians also need to ask why, after the recent defeat of the insidious ID card, the Labor Government is conducting essentially secret negotiations to weaken further the privacy of Australians on an international as well as a domestic basis. Australians need to ask why this arrogant Hawke-Keating Government has not informed them about this classified tax treaty and why copies of it are not readily available. I might add that even the OECD is loath to make copies available. Already a number of other countries have expressed grave reservations because they consider that it goes too far in infringing the privacy of their citizens. Furthermore, they consider that it contravenes the European Convention on Human Rights. When threatened with the ID card Australians were moved to decisive action in a manner rarely seen in relatively conservative Australia. I urge Australians to mobilise again to prevent another attempted betrayal of the right to privacy, a right won only after centuries of struggle. A fundamental freedom of our liberal democracy will be forever lost if the old autocracy of feudal barons is supplanted by the new tyranny of international bureaucracy. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(7.53) —It sounds as though the honourable member for Bruce (Mr Aldred) has just got the latest edition of tapes and other brochures from that well-known fearmonger in the community, Mr Peter Sawyer. It seems to be part of a continuing saga in the community at present in which all sorts of outrageous allegations are made. Mr Aldred —I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. This matter has nothing whatsoever to do with Mr Peter Sawyer. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr SIMMONS —This is part of an ongoing attempt to strike fear in the hearts of the Australian people. It has no grounds whatsoever. This movement seems to have strong links with that antisemitic organisation, the League of Rights. It is very disappointing to hear members of parliament talk about these sorts of issues because they obviously add to the unnecessary concern in the community at present. The main reason I wanted to speak tonight was to raise another issue which I think is significant in my electorate. Last Monday I had the opportunity to open officially the Mudgee Medicare branch office. It is one of six offices that are being opened in New South Wales at present to extend further the quite comprehensive network of Medicare branch offices throughout the State. To the people of Mudgee the opening of this office means that they will have access to the full range of branch facilities and claims services. A fully-fledged Medicare branch office is obviously able to process a greater variety of claims and ones of much higher value than was possible under the old agency arrangements that prevailed and will prevail until the end of this month. The Health Insurance Commission which administers the Medicare system is fast gaining quite a justifiable reputation for its awesome efficiency and ability to achieve customer service satisfaction. I point out to honourable members that in the 1986-87 annual report of the Commission it is indicated that the average turnaround time for all Medicare claims, other than those paid in cash, was only 4.6 calendar days. This figure was well within the very stringent target limits set by the Commission of five working days for the processing of Medicare claims. It is little wonder then that the services offered by Medicare are so highly regarded by the public. A market research survey conducted by the Commission in May 1987 found that the overall customer satisfaction with the Medicare claims payment service had grown to 94 per cent. I believe that any business that deals with the public in such large numbers and can claim this level of customer satisfaction must be getting it right. The main reasons given by those satisfied were the efficiency with which claims are handled, the fast service and prompt payment, the helpful staff, and the simple, straightforward procedure. The other interesting point is that community support for the Medicare program continues to grow despite some attacks that we see from time to time in this House by those opposite. Community support for Medicare has grown by another 3 per cent to 64 per cent. Interestingly, only 15 per cent of those surveyed believe that Medicare should be abolished. I think it is more important to note, however, that a high level of satisfaction with the way Medicare claims are handled was expressed by both the supporters and the opponents of the program. All I can say about the continuing opponents of the program is that they do not fully appreciate the vital reasons for introducing Medicare. As we all know, prior to Medicare two million Australians had no health insurance cover whatsoever. Many of those people were middle and low income earners who decided to run the risk of going without cover rather than pay the premium. Mr Lamb —They were the most vulnerable. Mr SIMMONS —When they became sick or injured, they would often face massive medial and hospital bills. As my colleague the honourable member for Streeton commented, often these people were the most vulnerable in the community. Medicare ensures that no one who needs medical or hospital treatment will be denied it on the grounds that he cannot afford it. I believe that the figures in the survey speak for themselves. Given the level of support for Medicare within the community, I believe that it will go from strength to strength. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(7.57) —At the heart of the electorate of Wakefield is the historic mining town of Burra. Mr Simmons —A wonderful town. Mr ANDREW —A great town-I thank the honourable member for Calare for his interjection. Just north of the town of Burra is part of what is the heart of some of the finest merino sheep breeding country in Australia and the home of such studs as the Collinsville and Bungaree studs. Mr Acting Speaker, you will be pleased to know that just over a week ago in the city of Adelaide the stud breeders from the Burra valley area gathered and announced Burra as the merino capital of the world. This announcement was timed to coincide with the annual launch of the stud merino field days which always occur in this mid-north part of South Australia. After the announcement of Burra as the merino capital of the world and the successful mid-north field days, the principal of the Collinsville stud, Mr Garnett, phoned my office to say that a number of the 2,000 people who had visited Collinsville had complained about the state of the roads in the Burra-Mount Bryan area. Mr Lamb —You are pulling the wool over our eyes. Mr ANDREW —I am sorry to say that I was not surprised because my office had already been inundated with letters from people living in the Burra-Mount Bryan area and concerned about the state of the road that runs from the township of Burra to Booborowie. It is all very well for Government members to make the sort of interjection that suggests that I am pulling the wool over the eyes of the Parliament. I must hasten to add that this is not the first time that I have risen in this place to make a plea on behalf of the residents of the northern part of South Australia and to express my concern about the stretch of highway that runs from Morgan to Booborowie and through the township of Burra. Believe it or not, Mr Acting Speaker, this stretch of highway is the only unsealed stretch of road between Sydney and Perth. One would expect the east-west link to be one of Australia's finest. When anyone travelling from Sydney to Perth gets to the Riverland township of Morgan must choose either to head south to Adelaide or take this unsealed stretch of road. The Government has had no hesitation in hanging up glorious green and gold signs that celebrate the fact that we are spending Australian bicentennial road development money building better roads. In fact, it has claimed credit for that road building program. But here is 65 kilometres of unsealed highway in such poor condition that this year it claimed one life. One of my constituents, a Mr Neil Brown, wrote to me to say that he has in fact lost five tyres travelling over this road in the past two months. It is astonishing that in this bicentennial year there should be such a poor stretch of unsealed highway between Sydney and Perth. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! It being 8 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 8 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Tickner to move- That this House supports the principle of one vote one value for elections to State and federal Parliaments of the Commonwealth of Australia. Mr Nehl to move- That this House calls on the Government to review urgently the implementation of the care aggregate module and prevent a severe decline in the standard of care in Australian nursing homes. Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act relating to Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act to amend various Acts relating either to criminal matters or to the National Crime Authority, and for related purposes. Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act to amend section 21 of the National Companies and Securities Commission Act 1979, and for related purposes. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 23 March 1988: Export Control Act-Export Control (Orders) Regulations-Order-1988-No. 2-Export Control (Fish) As amended (Amendment). Lands Acquisition Act-Statement of lands acquired by agreement authorised under subsection 7 (1). Meat Inspection Act-Meat Inspection (Orders) Regulations-Orders-1988- No. 1-Meat Inspection (Victoria). No. 2-Meat Inspection (General) as amended (Amendment). The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 589) Mr Cadman asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 16 February 1988: (1) How many persons who have been permitted to enter Australia with assurances of support, have been paid special benefits in each year since 1978-79. (2) What gross expenditure was incurred in paying special benefits in each of these years for these cases. (3) Of the gross expenditure, what moneys were written off in each of these years. (4) What sum was outstanding as a debt due to the Commonwealth at 30 June in each of these years. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) 1978-79 132 1979-80 439 1980-81 545 1981-82 608 1982-83 692 1983-84 742 1984-85 1,641 1985-86 1,551 1986-87 1,394 Under the new guidelines introduced in August 1984, claimants were assessed on the basis of their own financial circumstances. The circumstances of the assuror were not taken into account. This led to a higher acceptance of claims and some people who had previously been refused Special Benefit because of an assurance of support became eligible. The figures are derived from Department surveys conducted in June (1978-79 and 1979-80) and May (1980-81 to 1986-87) and refer to the numbers of persons being paid at those times. (2) To identify separately those persons who entered Australia with assurances of support would require a substantial commitment of resources which I am not prepared to authorise. (3) Special benefit moneys written off for persons who were the subject of assurances or support were as follows: $ 1978-79 528,686 1979-80 755,702 1980-81 n.a. 1981-82 1,290,519 1982-83 666,895 1983-84 1,729,520 1984-85 1,909,237 1985-86 1,275,200 1986-87 442,000 The amount written off for 1987-88 as at 11 March 1988 was $600,427. (4) The amount of expenditure outstanding as a debt to the Commonwealth in this category is not separately identifiable. (Question No. 593) Mr Tuckey asked the Minister for Housing and Aged Care, upon notice, on 16 February 1988: (1) How long has the drug Genotropin, which is manufactured in Sweden and used in the treatment of sufferers of Turners Syndrome, been under evaluation by his Department. (2) When will his Department make a formal recommendation as to whether the drug will be available in Australia. (3) Has his attention been drawn to the many people who are awaiting the decision. (4) Why has the decision taken so long to make. Mr Staples —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Data on the drug Genotropin was received for evaluation on 3 March and 6 May 1987. Genotropin is not marketed anywhere in the world for use specifically in patients with Turner's Syndrome. However, it is being investigated as a treatment for the short stature which is associated with this disease. (2) The Department will make a formal recommendation about the commencement of Australian clinical trials with the drug in Turner's Syndrome, once company answers (sent on 18 February 1988) to remaining questions have been examined. (3) There is another growth hormone available on the market in Australia for proven growth hormone deficiency states. Any patient with Turner's Syndrome for whom a physician believes investigational use of growth hormone is warranted, therefore has access at the present time to such therapy. (4) A full evaluation of a combined general marketing and clinical trial application for a new drug cannot usually be achieved in less than one year. There is every indication that this target will be met for Genotropin. (Question No. 607) Mr Langmore asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 17 February 1988: (1) Is he able to say what are the goals and functions of the World Bank's Multilateral Guarantee Agency. (2) Has the Government joined the Agency; if not, why not. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The main objective of the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) is to encourage the flow of commercial investment for productive purposes, mainly from developed countries to developing member countries of the World Bank, by guaranteeing investments against non-commercial risk; e.g. currency transfer risks, expropriation, war and civil disturbance and breach of contract by the host government. (2) Australia is still considering whether to join the Agency, pending clarification of MIGA's actual operations, including its relationship with national agencies such as AUSTRADE/EFIC. MIGA is expected to come into operation shortly. The initial estimated cost of membership to Australia would be about $A5 million.