Wednesday, 18 May 1988 The House met at 10 a.m. The Clerk-I inform the House that, 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. Motion (by Mr Beazley) agreed to: That this House authorises: (1) the Speaker to make arrangements for all or part of the ministerial statement concerning economic measures to be made by the Treasurer on 25 May 1988 and all or part of the reply to that statement by the Leader of the Opposition to be filmed by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation; (2) the direct, live telecast of all or part of that film and the accompanying sound of the proceedings by any television station provided that a station telecasts both speeches live and gives approximately equal time to both speeches; and (3) the use by any television station of any part of the filmed proceedings and accompanying sound in subsequent news, current affairs and documentary programs. Debate resumed from 17 May, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Before the debate is resumed on the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) Bill and the Constitution Alteration (Rights and Freedoms) Bill. Mr FIFE(Hume-Manager of Opposition Business) —With your indulgence, Mr Acting Speaker: I wonder whether you might indicate to the House what you told me privately about a ruling on which the House is waiting. You indicated that it might be given at a later hour. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! Madam Speaker will be in attendance at a later hour today and she will rule on the point of order raised yesterday by the honourable member for Farrer. Honourable members on both sides of the House will be given adequate warning of when that ruling will be made. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(10.03) —I want to register my strong support for the constitutional referendums. I do so with a certain sense of sadness at the position taken by the Opposition. Anyone who has studied the Australian Constitution knows that it is terribly outdated and needs updating. The Constitution was drawn up in different times and, as many people have noted, it was a compromise between several States trying to work together towards the formation of a Commonwealth with limited powers. History has moved on since that time. We now have a situation where the actual powers of the national Government and the actual nature of our political system are not reflected in the Constitution-far from it. People would be surprised to know that many aspects of our political system are not even referred to in the Constitution, and that is one of the problems we have. If we do not carry on the process of referendums and constitutional change, we will not embed in Australia the basic principles of a democratic process. We will have the problem that at some time in the future people may turn around and say, `Well, these understandings, these historical precedents, are not written into the document; they are not actually written into the constitutional document'. We may then have an attempt to revert to another form of government and to undermine the democratic processes. Therefore, it is very important that we get constitutional change. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) needs to be congratulated on proposals that have been put forward for constitutional change in this sense: they are not proposals pro the Australian Labor Party; they are not proposals of a massively radical nature. They are simply proposals to embed certain democratic principles into the Constitution. That is what they are. According to some, those principles are already understood. However, in some places they are not understood. For example, one vote one value is clearly not understood in many of the State parliaments and it is very important that we should embed that principle in all processes of government in this country. The point that I wanted to focus on is the fact that the proposals are extremely moderate. They are not in favour of any particular party. They are proposals which should be supported by any rational person who believes in the democratic process. What do we find? We find once again an opportunistic knee-jerk reaction from the Opposition, which has said that it will oppose not one, not two, not three, but all four of the referendum proposals. It is suggesting to the Australian people that they are so stupid that they cannot even differentiate between one and the other. Honourable members are told that the shadow Ministry wanted to approve two and oppose two, and then it was rolled in the caucus of the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia. What was the reason? It was suggested that the Australian people were so stupid that they could not differentiate between yeses and noes. What sort of extraordinary attitude is that towards democracy? It is, in fact, an attitude contemptuous of the very principle of democracy, because the very principle of democracy is that, ultimately, the trust of government must be in the judgment of the people. That is what democracy is all about. It must be in the judgment of the people. Yet, the Opposition is suggesting that the people are so stupid that they cannot make such judgments; they cannot even differentiate between two yeses and two noes, according to the Opposition. This contemptuous attitude, as I say, is the very antithesis of democracy and it reflects the anti-democratic nature of the Opposition parties and what they have become since their defeat in 1983. Their increasing move towards a more and more extreme right position has led them to the situation where they do not even respect the basic principles of democracy as outlined in these Bills. Can there be any more fundamental principle than the principle that each person's vote should be of equal value? That is the very cornerstone of democracy and, yet, on something as uncontroversial as this, do we find the Opposition supporting it? Not at all; we find it opposing a fundamental cornerstone of the democratic process. Opposition members then stand up and talk about how the Labor Party does not believe in democratic processes, whereas it is they and their attitudes that are opposed to the very cornerstone of democracy-one vote one value. There is no justification in this day and age for the position that has been taken by the Opposition parties. Is there one of the great democracies of the world in which there are such reactionary parties as the Liberal and National parties which oppose the fundamental cornerstone principle of democracy in this way? One might find some extreme lunatic parties which behave in this way but no mainstream political party in the Western world takes a position similar to that of the Liberal and National parties on the basic principle of one vote one value. In the United States this principle is embedded not only in the Constitution but also through the judgments of the courts, at every level of government. The Liberal and National parties constantly use the United States as a model and example but they oppose that basic principle. Similarly, there is the principle of embedding certain basic human rights into the Constitution-not all human rights, none of the controversial human rights; totally uncontroversial ones like the right to be judged by a jury. It is amazing that the Opposition parties, which claim to defend the rights of the individual, obviously know nothing about the matter. When Sir Robert Menzies formed the Liberal Party of Australia in the 1940s he quoted the great traditions of liberal philosophy-people such as John Stuart Mill, who talked a great deal about the importance of human rights. In the modern Liberal Party there are hardly any liberals left; there are hardly any people who believe in the principles of liberalism. If they believe in the principles of liberalism they would not be opposing these referendums. I believe that the Attorney-General and Deputy Prime Minister has been very moderate and has proceeded in this matter in an attempt to create a consensus in society. He set up the Constitutional Commission with representatives from all sides of the political arena. When the Commission came up with its reasonable and moderate proposals the Opposition parties, instead of supporting them, attacked the Constitutional Commission's recommendations. As I said, the Commission was broadly based, broadly representative of distinguished Australians. The Opposition rejected those recommendations with a knee-jerk approach. I say to the Attorney-General and Deputy Prime Minister: persist in your efforts for constitutional reform. They are absolutely necessary. I believe the Australian people will support these referendums, irrespective of the fact that in the past we have needed bipartisanship to pass referendum proposals. The modern Liberal and National parties are totally out of touch with the rank and file of the Australian people in this matter. I am pleased to see that in the last couple of days certain opinion polls have tended to confirm the view that a majority of people support these basic principles. The position taken by the Opposition is a very serious matter but what is perhaps even more serious is the gutlessness of certain members of the Opposition who are on the record as supporting the kinds of changes and the kinds of principles involved, yet when it comes to the crunch they are not prepared to stand up to be counted and to support these very important changes to our Constitution. As I said at the beginning of my speech, these changes will not change society. They will embed in the constitutional document principles which are genuinely accepted by the community. It is important that we proceed with them. I urge everyone in the community to support these constitutional referendums. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(10.15) —It is rather interesting that the last speaker for the Government, the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous), spent most of his time not advocating the reasons behind the four referenda but rather attacking the Opposition for our response to them. The honourable member referred to our `opportunistic, knee-jerk reaction'. We may be reacting, but our reaction is not opportunistic or knee-jerk. It is the result of knowing what the Labor Government has tried to do since 1983. Dr Harry Edwards —Earlier than that. Mr NEHL —Of course, but the Government only came to power in 1983. It was the same back in Whitlam's time, too. What we have is the ongoing flow of the Australian Labor Party's desire to centralise power in Canberra. That is what it is all about. We are not looking at real changes that are necessary. Labor has put up four questions. The only question it is really concerned about is the first one. The rest, in reality, are a camouflage. What Labor wants to do is destroy the Senate. We all know that. The people of Australia know it. Labor is seeking revenge for 1975. That is evident every time there is any relevant debate in this chamber. Labor wants to change the rules because of what happened in 1975. Ever since then, it has been hell-bent on getting revenge. Its overall policy has had the extra edge, it has been sharpened, it has been honed because of Labor's desire for vengeance since 1975. We know, and the people of Australia know, what happened with the Bill of Rights and the ID card. It is all part of the plan. Here it goes again-another attempt. Labor is trying, with the fourth question, to bring in a mini-Bill of Rights through the back door. However, it is essential that we focus on the main issue, the first question, which aims to destroy the Senate. If the Government is successful and gets a four-year term for both Houses, every election will be a double dissolution. Whilst I support a four-year term for the House of Representatives, I cannot support a four-year term for the Senate related specifically to the House of Representatives because it gives any government of the day-not just Labor, but our side as well-the opportunity, if it is having difficulty with the Senate, to call an election, get a double dissolution and try again to get control of the Senate. This question seeks to destroy the power of the Senate to act as a House of review and as a States House, as was originally intended. We need go back only to the last three years to see the value of the Senate. First, there was the Veterans' Entitlements Bill. When the then Minister was overseas the Government introduced a new Bill which sought to destroy the entitlements, built up over many years, of our veterans, our returned servicemen and women. The Senate saved the day on that. Then we come to the Bill of Rights. The Opposition and the people of Australia won that debate. Basically, the common sense of the people of Australia won it. The tool, the means, was the Australian Senate. That is why Labor wants to destroy it. I turn to the ID card. Only last year there was another great fight by the Opposition parties and the people of Australia. It was a battle which was won by the people of Australia. Mr Cowan —They will win this one, too. Mr NEHL —They will win this one too, because all of these referenda questions will be defeated. The honourable member for Calwell made reference to the fact that we had said-this is totally wrong and it has to be corrected; it cannot be let go-that the Australian people were so stupid that they cannot differentiate between yes and no. The Australian people are not stupid. The Australian people are possessed of great good sense, as was demonstrated in New South Wales on 19 March and in the Adelaide, Port Adelaide, Queensland and Western Australian by-elections. Government members should not tell me that the Australian people do not have good sense. They know what they are doing. They are throwing Labor out everywhere. Of course, as soon as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is prepared to have another go, he will be thrown out on his tail, just as these referenda questions will be thrown out. These referenda questions are designed to do one thing only-that is, to get more control over the Senate. That is the secret agenda. The rest of the questions are merely window dressing. It is quite absurd for members of the Government to refer to the rights which would be established under the fourth proposal, the so-called human rights proposal-the backdoor Bill of Rights proposal. It is nothing more than a backdoor attempt to implement a limited Bill of Rights through the Australian Constitution, even though the concept of a Bill of Rights has been totally and overwhelmingly rejected by the Australian people. The proposal is supposed to guarantee certain human and democratic rights-specifically, the right to trial by jury. Do we not have the right to trail by jury now? Yes, of course we do. It does exist. The right to freedom of religion exists in Australia right now. If it were to become enshrined in the Constitution all sorts of problems could arise. For instance, that part of the Bill relating to religion provides that the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory shall not establish any religion, impose any religious observance or prohibit the free exercise of any religion. Does this mean that state schools will be prohibited from providing religious studies or observance? Does this mean that religious administrators would be prevented from ministering to the sick in government run hospitals? Does this mean that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation will no longer be able to broadcast or televise religious services? It is like a black snake in a woodheap; it is there, ready to come out and strike. It imposes dangers on the Australian people. What about the right to fair compensation for people whose property has been acquired by government? I am certainly in favour of fair compensation, but again we have the possibility of total misinterpretation. The proposal does not seek to define just terms, so there is no guarantee that compensation will be greater if the proposal is implemented. If a landowner disputes the level of compensation he has open to him the existing avenues of appeal. Once again, the opportunity to protect and improve people's rights to fair compensation already exists. Again, it is window dressing-a backdoor Bill of Rights. I cannot go any further in this debate without coming back to the point that the power of the Senate to review, to hold up and to check legislation by a Labor government or a coalition government is a power which must be defended in the interests of the Australian people. I repeat that we have only to go back three years to see what happened with the Veterans' Entitlements Bill, the Bill of Rights and the identity card. These are things which are important. If the Senate has done nothing else in its history since Federation, those three points justify its existence. It is essential that the Senate be preserved and that it should not be placed under the thumb of a Prime Minister who can call a double dissolution at his whim. In the short time available to me I must refer to local government, because this is a valuable and valued third tier of government in Australia. I have served as an alderman myself, and I know the value of it to the people. Local government has long sought constitutional recognition and we in the National Party have long supported local government as the third tier of government. We have always supported meaningful constitutional recognition of local government where it properly belongs-within the State Constitutions. In fact, only two of the States do not recognise local government in their Constitutions. Indeed, the Australian Local Government Association similarly seeks recognition of local government as a sphere of self-government in any State or Territory of the Commonwealth. What local government has primarily sought through constitutional recognition has been a guaranteed proportion of revenue and a guarantee of non-dismissal by State governments. Neither of these is guaranteed in the referendum question; indeed, nothing is guaranteed. I started off by speaking about the great good sense of the Australian people. I will conclude by referring back to that. The judgment of the people will be exercised when these four questions are brought to the vote, and the judgment of the people will be that they should all be thrown out. That is what is essential if we are not going to have lip service and idle chatter from people such as the honourable member for Calwell, who spoke about the basic principles of democracy. The basic principles of democracy will work, the judgment will be made, and the people of Australia will say no. Mr LEE(Dobell)(10.28) —This is an historic occasion because it is also one of the last occasions that the House of Representatives will sit in this chamber. I must say that I am very disappointed that on this occasion, when the Parliament had an opportunity to show bipartisan support for the four referendum proposals, which are in the interests of our country, one side of politics has chosen to score political points instead of seeking to support decisions that are in the interests of the country. I pay tribute to the Attorney-General and Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen)-I am pleased to see he is in the chamber today; he was in the chamber throughout yesterday's debate-because I believe he deserves credit for establishing the Constitutional Commission to carry out a review of our Constitution so that it can be modernised and updated. The Opposition has sought to sabotage that attempt by the Deputy Prime Minister through its decision to oppose all four referendum proposals. I believe that each referendum is worthy of support. The first referendum would allow both the House of Representatives and the Senate to have four-year terms. It is relevant to consider that in the past 16 years we have had eight Federal elections, an average of one every two years. I believe there is overwhelming support in the Australian community for the introduction of four-year terms, not only for the House of Representatives but for the Senate. The honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) stated that he believed in a four-year term for the House of Representatives, but he could not force himself to agree to a four-year term for the Senate. He did not make it clear to the House whether he advocated the continuation of the current maximum of six years, which would be a guarantee of instability and half-Senate elections for all time. Perhaps he supports the view of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), who has stated that he believes there should be a four-year term for the House of Representatives and an eight-year term for the Senate. I believe very few Australians think that any politician should be elected for a term of eight years and not have to face the will of the people at an election. Eight years is too long a term for any politician. The proposal for maximum four-year terms for both Houses of Parliament will win support in early September when these questions are put to the vote. My State of New South Wales already has four-year terms for the State Government and local government. Most other State governments have also adopted four-year terms so it is simply commonsense that the Federal Parliament adopt maximum four-year terms for both Houses. The honourable member for Cowper also alleged that the Labor Government was seeking to destroy the Senate and that what it was doing was not in the interests of Australia. If he believes the first referendum to introduce a maximum four-year term for both Houses is an attempt to destroy the Senate, how does he explain that the Business Council of Australia supports that referendum? Is he saying that the Council is also seeking to destroy the Senate? Mr Andrew Hay of the Australian Chamber of Commerce, who is not known as a great supporter of the Australian Labor Party, supports the first referendum. Is the honourable member for Cowper saying that Mr Andrew Hay is seeking to destroy the Senate? That argument is ridiculous. The first referendum does nothing to reduce the powers of the Senate; it simply introduces a maximum four-year term for both Houses of Parliament. The second referendum, and in my view the most important, establishes one vote one value. As I said in a statement yesterday when tabling the first report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, this referendum on providing fair and democratic parliamentary elections is the necessary first step in seeking to introduce fair electoral boundaries not only at the Federal level but also at the State level. The referendum provides for the introduction of a maximum 10 per cent tolerance in the size of electorates. That principle has been accepted in the House of Representatives since 1974 when the third Whitlam Government introduced in this chamber, during the only Joint Sitting that has occurred in this chamber, a Bill that reduced the maximum tolerance for House of Representatives seats from 20 per cent to 10 per cent. After the Fraser Government was elected it had a majority in both Houses of Parliament but did it seek to undo the improvement in equality in the Federal electoral system? No, it did not. When the Liberal and National parties had a majority in both Houses, they were prepared to allow the 10 per cent tolerance at the Federal level to remain. That is because they knew that a maximum of 10 per cent tolerance provides for fair and equal electoral boundaries. Because the National Party of Australia must protect its interests in Queensland and the Liberal Party of Australia must protect its interests in Western Australia, where both parties benefit from malapportionment, the Liberal and National parties have decided to do all they can to stop the introduction of fair electoral boundaries at the State level, which is what this proposal is all about. The House of Representatives electorates have a variation of only 10 per cent. It is a disgrace that in Queensland there is a variation of up to 191 per cent. The Legislative Council in Western Australia has a variation of 232 per cent among electorates, and the upper House in Tasmania has a variation of 245 per cent among the electorates. At the Federal level the variation is 10 per cent, in Queensland it is almost 200 per cent, and in Tasmania it is 245 per cent. How can anyone who claims to be a small `l' liberal or capital `L' Liberal agree to such massive disparities in the size of electorates? Until Premier Brian Burke was able to persuade some reform in Western Australia, two electorates in the Western Australian upper House had variations of 11 : 1. One upper House seat in Western Australia had more than 100,000 electors and another had only 10,000 electors. How can anyone who calls himself a Liberal vote against proposals to reform such a system? Yet that is what the Western Australian Liberal Party sought to do. It sought to try to block the quite moderate attempts of Premier Brian Burke to reform the Western Australian electoral system. It was only because the National Party agreed to a compromise that there was any reform of the Western Australian electoral system. This Parliament has a responsibility to protect the individual rights of Australians, whether they are electors at the Federal or State level. The one vote one value referendum will ensure that State electoral boundaries do not have variations of 200 per cent or 245 per cent but have a maximum tolerance of plus or minus 10 per cent. This is something which has been long overdue and which Labor governments in New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria have introduced. We can rightly be proud of the fact that these governments brought in fair electoral boundaries. The third referendum question provides constitutional recognition for local government. The honourable member for Cowper claimed, without a smile on his face, that this was an attempt to centralise power in Canberra. I am a bit at a loss to understand why the President of the Local Government Association of New South Wales, Mr Barry O'Keefe, is advocating support for this referendum if, as the honourable member for Cowper says, this centralises power in Canberra. In fact, it does the exact opposite; it gives local government, the tier of government which is closest to the people, a fit and proper recognition in our Federal Constitution. It does not give it the power to levy new income taxes, set up new local government police forces or any of the other furphies which those opposite have advocated. It simply says that local government has the right to exist under the relevant State laws. The Australian Local Government Association and local government in my State of New South Wales strongly support this. The Leader of the Opposition said that he supported it over a year ago when he opened the Local Government Association conference. The Leader of the Opposition is on record as saying that he supports constitutional recognition for local government, as is the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), the former shadow Minister. Yet when it comes to the test, those opposite are now saying that they are against the referendum proposal when all of us know that their shadow Cabinet, the shadow Executive, recommended to their joint party meeting that they should support the third and fourth referendums; namely, local government recognition and the guarantee of freedoms. The shadow Cabinet realised that the third and fourth referendums were worthy of support and recognised that the Opposition was already on the record as supporting those referendum questions. We know that the shadow Executive and the Leader of the Opposition got rolled in their own party room. That is why they are against the third and fourth referendums and that is why they are in here today arguing against referendums which deserve their total support. Lastly, the fourth question relates to the guarantee of freedoms, the right to trial by jury, freedom of religious expression and fair compensation. The honourable member for Cowper claimed that this was the worst of the referendums and was a backdoor attempt to introduce a Bill of Rights. What he did not say was that the Federal Constitution already provides these guarantees for any offences under Federal law. It certainly restricts the Federal Government from restricting freedom of religious expression. It also guarantees that the Federal Government must pay fair compensation if ever it resumes property. Our Federal Constitution contains no guarantee that State law cannot infringe these freedoms. What we are saying is that these guarantees are already in Federal law and we are seeking to extend them to make sure that State governments cannot stop someone from having the right to trial by jury, cannot stop free religious expression and cannot resume someone's property without paying fair compensation. I believe that all four questions are worthy of the endorsement of the Australian people. I was pleased to see that in yesterday's Australian opinion polls are suggesting that Australians by a majority of more than 70 per cent to 10 per cent are endorsing these reforms. If, as we expect, in September these referendums are carried, it will certainly be a great credit to a great Australian, the current Attorney-General and Deputy Prime Minister, for a long battle, but one which I believe will be of great moment for our country. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(10.39) —My response to all that the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee) has just said and the eminent authorities he has quoted is to refer specifically to the eminent parliamentarian, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), to whom he referred in concluding his remarks. I will quote from the Attorney-General's own speech. He stated: . . . the Australian Constitution is . . . a living and working document, relevant to the needs and capable of responding to the challenges of our own generation and the generations to come. I support that. As it stands, it is relevant to the needs of our generation and generations to come. It is capable of responding to the challenges of our generation and generations to come. The recent High Court decision regarding section 92 illustrates that very point. In effect, the Attorney-General says that the Australian Constitution is right now a living and working document. I shall quote again from the Attorney-General, who at a later point in his speech said: . . . our proposals should be seen as a first instalment in a long and steadily maturing process, and a first infusion into the lifeblood of our parliamentary democracy . . . That statement must be put in the context of longstanding Labor Party objectives, perhaps dating back to former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, who said in effect that if the Australian Labor Party is to implement Labor policy, it must win government, change the Constitution and stay in power. Australia now has a Labor government, it is seeking to change the Constitution, its plan is on track. Although acceptably dressed up so that on the surface they look and sound good, and despite the poll findings to which the honourable member for Dobell referred, the plain thrust of the proposals is to centralise further power in this country, to erode to some degree the Federal structure, and to reduce the power and influence of the Senate. That is to be expected, because the Labor Party has never supported a federalist system in Australia or a bicameral parliamentary system, with all its checks and balances on the exercise of central Federal power that those things involve. To extend that power is what these referendums are about, and I believe the Australian people will not buy them. Time after time referendums that could have provided more power to the Commonwealth or increased centralism have been rejected by the Australian people, and that is what will happen on this occasion. I said that these proposals were attractive on the surface. For example, the proposal for four-year terms for Federal elections is a proposal for a maximum four-year term, but that is no guarantee that there will be fewer elections. It is not a proposal for a fixed four-year term, as is the case with the presidency and elections in the United States of America. Over the past 16 years, Australia has had eight parliaments that served on average slightly less than two years each. With four-years terms, there may be some probability but there is certainly no cast-iron guarantee that parliaments will serve for longer terms and that there will be fewer elections. Nevertheless, that is not the main point against the proposal. As my colleagues have pointed out, the main point is the threat of the reduction in the power of the Senate. It is traditional Labor Party policy to abolish the Senate, and the Attorney-General cannot deny that. The current situation is that the term of the Senate is for two terms of the House of Representatives, and that has the advantages of independence and the continuity stemming from the rotation of senators that was carefully built into that proposal by the founding fathers. The Government's excuse for attempting to reduce the term of the Senate to the same term as the House of Representatives is to remove the Senate's right to force the House of Representatives to an election without submitting itself to the people. The phoneyness of that excuse is exposed by the fact that in 1984 the Australian Labor Party voted against a Liberal Party proposal for a referendum to require the Senate to go to the people if the Senate forced a premature House of Representatives election. The Opposition has clearly said that it will support such a proposal in the context of a four-year term for the House of Representatives and an eight-year term for the Senate. However, the Government has totally ignored that because it is hell-bent on cutting back the powers of the Senate. The people of Australia must recall that it was the Opposition in the Senate that finally killed off the Australia Card following the great upsurge of community opposition, which we will mobilise to defeat these proposals. Under the present proposal, whenever a Prime Minister has the urge to call an election, senators would also have to go to an election. That would upset the balance between the two chambers which was deliberately enshrined in our Constitution by the founding fathers. I repeat that the essence of the proposal is to undermine the powers and the role of the Senate. The Senate is also a relevant consideration with respect to the second proposal, which is to provide, as the short title states, `for fair and democratic parliamentary elections throughout Australia'. The emphasis is on so-called one vote one value. Of course, in this proposal the Government passes over the Senate. The Senate was conceived by the founding fathers in the system of checks and balances they sought to establish as a `States House'-it was originally conceived as the `States assembly' and the explicit provision was for the same number of senators to represent each of the States. For example, the same number of senators was to represent New South Wales and Tasmania despite the fact that New South Wales has three million or four million voters and Tasmania fewer than 500,000. There is no way that there could be one vote one value in that context. The Labor Party has not said a word about that dilemma. In the interests of maintaining the authority and rights of the States, that is how our founding fathers wanted it and that is how I am sure the majority of Australians want it today. In respect of the House of Representatives and the corresponding Houses in State parliaments, it is quite wrong to equate one vote one value, meaning approximately the same number of electors in every division, with the short title of this referendum, namely, fair and democratic elections throughout Australia. Where the boundaries of electorates are drawn is the important thing. I was going to illustrate that with some arithmetic to show how easy it is with equal numbers of voters in each electorate for one party with a minority of the votes to win a majority of the seats. But one has only to look at the present situation in the Federal sphere and those States under Labor Party governments where one vote one value is enshrined in their Constitutions to see the validity of the point I am making. As previous speakers have said, Nick Greiner had to win 52.3 per cent of the vote to win the recent election in New South Wales-but he did that easily with the present woes and problems of this Government. In South Australia, the conservative side of politics needs to win 54 per cent of the vote. Even in the last Federal election, because the boundaries were drawn in the way they were, the Liberal and National parties won a majority of votes and yet lost seats. For fair and democratic elections-the short title of the Bill-above all one need fair boundaries. I venture to add to that voluntary voting, but that is another issue. As my time is short, I shall turn to the fourth referendum question, which is to extend the right of trial by jury, freedom of religion and fair terms for persons whose property is acquired by the Government. Does anyone suggest or believe that the Liberal and National parties are not in favour of freedom of religion, trial by jury and fair terms for the acquisition of property? Of course we strongly and passionately believe in those things. They are the unquestioned rights of the Australian people under the centuries old tradition of British common law and dating back to the Magna Carta, which every State of the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth itself took over on their foundation. However, beyond that tradition, once one starts writing down rights for people one starts putting restrictions on them. We do not need the Labor Party to tell us what our rights are. We fought all that in 1986 on the Labor Party's Bill of Rights, which, with the strong support of thousands of ordinary dedicated Australians, was defeated at that time. Mr Webster —Hundreds of thousands. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Hundreds of thousands, as my colleague says. The Bill was withdrawn, yet here in mini-form we have it back again. I appeal to those same thousands of ordinary Australians: let us defeat this thing, because it is of the same ilk. As we argued then, Australians have these basic rights now. The attempt to spell them out is unnecessary and, indeed, counterproductive. Those rights are not granted by governments, which can just as easily take them away. They are derived, on a religious view, from man's status as being created in the image of God. In our society today they are enshrined and upheld in our democratic system of government and the rule of law. As we have agreed to time limits on the debate, I simply conclude on this note: I appeal, as I have just done, to all those solid citizens, ordinary Australians, who stood with us in opposition to Labor's Bill of Rights in 1986-and indeed to the ID card more recently-to do so again and to defeat this attempt to bring in a mini-Bill of Rights through the back door, for that is what it is. The Australian Constitution, as I said at the outset, quoting the Attorney-General himself, is right now a `living and working document relevant to the needs and capable of responding to the challenges of our own generation and generations to come'. It is so as it stands. It does not require any change, and I appeal to the people of Australia to recognise that in taking this stand the Opposition is not just opposing the Government for the sake of opposing; it is not being opportunist; it is not taking anything but a positive attitude to our Constitution. These proposals have been very carefully considered, and on both policy and technical grounds, the changes and their thrust are not on. I urge Australians to vote No to all four of these questions. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(10.53) —I do not know whether there has been another example in this Parliament on any occasion of a position that has been adopted by the coalition which has been so clearly one of naked political cynical opportunism. For the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards), for example, to appeal to the Australian people to reject all of those four referendums is an incredible exhibition. I have more respect for the personal integrity and the personal concerns of the honourable member for Berowra than to believe for one moment that that genuinely reflects his own concerns about the issues that are raised in these referendums. Clearly, he is supporting the coalition position-and, of course, he has a responsibility to do that-but clearly as well the Opposition's position has been adopted on opportunist grounds. I would like to have been present at the meeting of coalition members at the time they had the meeting to determine their position, because there are some comments that would have been made almost certainly, at least by the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair). He would have made these points: `We are not constitutional reformers. We are not constitutional lawyers. We are politicians'. I am sure that expresses the attitudes of those people who prevailed upon the coalition to adopt the position that it did adopt. Their attitude is: `We are politicians. We adopt a political position so far as these questions are concerned. Do not come to us asking us to adopt a principled position on any of these question. We will adopt an opportunist, political position'. That is precisely what the Opposition has done. People in Australia know the very great difficulty that has been confronted in attempts that have been made from time to time to vary the wording of the Constitution. One of the main reasons for that is the provisions which are necessary for those amendments to be made. We not only require a majority of people over the whole of Australia, but we also require a majority of people in a majority of the States. With six States, we need four of them, and that has proved to be very difficult. It is notoriously difficult to change the wording of the Constitution. But when the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) referred to the Constitution as a living document, he was referring to the fact that the Constitution has shown itself to be reasonably flexible. The honourable member for Berowra knows full well that one of the reasons for that flexibility is that we have depended upon the High Court of Australia and the intelligence, the judgment, the perception and the analysis of members of the High Court of Australia to interpret the Constitution in line with contemporary reality. If the honourable member prefers that a few men, a few enlightened judges sitting on the High Court Bench, should take the responsibility for determining what the Constitution means, that is the position he adopts. On the contrary, we believe that the Australian people collectively should be given the opportunity of determining what that Constitution says, how it says it and what it means. I prevail upon those members of the coalition as well to adopt a similar position. The Opposition talks in terms of its confidence in the judgment and the perception of the Australian people. It has no such confidence. For decades it has taken the Australian people for mugs. It has taken them for mugs for generations, and those days are finishing very quickly. They are finishing very quickly because the Australian people now are better educated, they are more sophisticated, they show better judgment and they show better insight. What better evidence does one need than that, for the first time in the history of the Commonwealth, the Australian people have been sufficiently educated and shown sufficient judgment, perception and insight to re-elect a Labor government for a third term-for the first time ever. What magnificent judgment. Has their judgment been vindicated? It has indeed been vindicated and it will be further vindicated, because I have confidence in the judgment of the Australian people. Some of the issues in those four proposals are of tremendous importance. Some of them are issues upon which the coalition campaigned in the last election. For example, the coalition was indicating its support for the right to trial by jury. Dr Harry Edwards —Of course we support it. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I will show the honourable member just how much the Opposition respects that. We had the Opposition foreign affairs spokesman, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), saying a couple of days ago that he believed constitutional guarantees of jury trial and other referendum proposals, as well as fair land compensation, were fundamental rights. I will tell the honourable member how the jury responded to that. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) said in response to that, `He won't be talking out again'. There is the Opposition's concern about trial by jury; there is its concern about fundamental rights of individuals. The honourable member for North Sydney speaks out against a position that the Opposition adopts, and what does the Leader of the Opposition say? What does he say in connection with that? Mr Reith —Four noes. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I hear the shadow Attorney-General interject; I suppose he endorses it as well, and then there are people cackling from the sidelines. Mr Porter —Not 12 but seven on a jury. Mr ROBERT BROWN —The Leader of the Opposition says in connection with the honourable member for North Sydney, `He won't be talking out again'. And the Opposition talks about its concern about trial by jury! I would not want any judgment made about me being dependent on the sort of judgment that Opposition members would make. Opposition members previously supported some of those questions. They now repudiate their position. They say that there is nothing among any of the four referendum proposals that they could commend to the Australian people. Mr Reith —That is right. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Despite the fact that the shadow Attorney-General gives that sort of response, those proposals were based on the recommendations of the Australian Constitutional Commission, which was made up of eminent Australians. He laughs now. That demonstrates the degree of respect that he shows for those people who contributed their great talents to the consideration of these proposals by the Australian Constitutional Commission. In addition, there is the proposal for four-year maximum terms and simultaneous elections for both the House of Representatives and the Senate. It has been pointed out that since the early 1940s we have had an average of one election about every two years. Every time we have an election it costs about $30m: every time we split the elections for the House of Representatives and the Senate the additional elections cost the Australian people about $30m. I am sure that the Australian people would be of the opinion that we could better apply those funds. The second provision concerns the question of fair elections, the fundamental principle of one vote one value. Some members of the coalition make the claim that they believe in that fundamental democratic provision as well. It seems that they do not want to destroy the rotten borough position that exists in Queensland, where instead of a tolerance of about 10 per cent among the numbers of people in each electorate the tolerance is up to almost 200 per cent. Of course that is the position that the members of the coalition want to preserve. If anyone believes that we have abolished in Australia property rights to determine the franchise, the right to vote by the Australian people, he is seriously wrong. He has only to look at Western Australia or Queensland to see the extent to which property rights still, in effect, give people in rural areas a voting power which is far in excess of that of people in the more built-up urban areas. The third proposal concerns recognition of local government. Over 850 councils have been in existence in Australia since before the Commonwealth Government was established, but there is not one mention of local government in the Constitution. Some of the States have recognised local government in their constitutions but there is no overriding recognition of local government to the extent that a responsibility should be placed on the States to establish and to provide for local government. The Opposition coalition knows the extent to which it is seriously out of touch with the attitude of the Australian people and responsible spokesmen for the Australian people in connection with some of these questions. The last provision I have already referred to-the question of whether the people will have enshrined in the Constitution their right to determine their religion. I am surprised that the honourable member for Berowra did not at least give some support to that type of provision. I am surprised that, despite the protestations from the Opposition side, Opposition members did not suggest that we should enshrine in the Constitution the opportunity for people to receive just compensation if their property is acquired by the Government. How seriously out of touch are Opposition members with the people they purport to represent? We have already seen the degree of importance that they place on the principle of trial by jury: the Leader of the Opposition acted as a jury and judge in connection with the honourable member for North Sydney when he indicated his concern about the position the Opposition adopted. In conclusion, not only are members of the Opposition out of touch with local government-over 7,000 aldermen throughout Australia and over 850 councils want to see local government given official recognition in Australia-they are also out of touch with all the business people they are supposed to represent. The business people have already indicated that they want four-year parliamentary terms. Opposition members are also out of touch with all those people who are concerned about enshrining fundamental rights of the Australian people. This is the last fortnight we will be in this building. There is no greater contribution that we can make to the integrity of the Constitution, to the contemporary character of the Constitution, than to give the Australian people the opportunity to make their judgment about these issues. I know Opposition members have made their judgment; we have made ours. The Australian people will reflect their perception, judgment and insight if they support the four referendum proposals. Madam SPEAKER —Yesterday, the honourable member for Farrer raised a point of order in relation to the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill 1988. In essence, the honourable member argued that clause 4 of the Bill does not come within the title of the Bill and as a consequence is in conflict with the provisions of standing order 213. Standing order 213 provides: The title shall agree with the order of leave or the notice of presentation, and no clause may be included in any bill not coming within its title. The title of the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill 1988 is as follows: An Act to alter the Constitution to provide for 4-year maximum terms for members of both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament. The long title enables the Bill to provide for `4-year maximum terms' but it does not specify how these terms are to be determined. Furthermore, it does not say whether members and senators are to have concurrent or different terms, only that the terms are to be for a maximum of four years. The title contains the words `to provide for' four-year maximum terms for members of both Houses. The expression `to provide for' is regularly used in the long titles of Bills without actually specifying how the provision is to be made. The clauses of the Bill then go on to make the detailed provision. The title of this Bill has to be read in the same way as those Bills. Clauses 5 and 6 provide for four-year maximum terms for members of both Houses. Clause 4 is consequential on clause 5, which sets the mechanism by which the four-year maximum terms of senators are determined. I cannot see that clause 4 is outside the long title of the Bill and I do not consider that the provisions of standing order 213 have been breached. I rule accordingly. Debate interrupted. Mr REITH(Flinders)(11.08) —I move: That Madam Speaker's ruling be dissented from. Madam Speaker, I have moved this motion of dissent after having had the benefit of your ruling on the point of order that was raised yesterday by the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), who I might say is a honourable member with fairly considerable parliamentary experience. I preface my remarks by pointing out that standing order 213 has a long history, not just in Australia but going back to the House of Commons. Similar provisions are still requirements at Westminster and are referred to in May's Parliamentary Practice, the authority on the Westminster Standing Orders. I make that point to emphasis that this standing order is of considerable importance in the conduct of the Parliament, a matter of considerable importance not just to members of the Opposition but to all members in this place-it is that important. Standing order 213 is reinforced by standing order 214: it is reinforced by the requirement that where a Bill does not comply with the provisions of 213 it must be withdrawn. I am informed that we have had only one prior occasion when this matter has been raised-back in 1984-but it is interesting that on that one prior occasion, the only precedent that we have, the result was that, on the ruling of the Speaker, the Bill was withdrawn. This provision is live and relevant, and of great significance to the conduct of this Parliament. Madam Speaker, to substantiate this motion of dissent I need to go back and look at the objectives of the standing order. We need to ascertain what is the mischief that is intended to be avoided, to be barred, by the provision in this standing order. I submit to you that one of the objectives of the Standing Orders is to ensure that members have adequate notice of the matters which they, as legislators-the primary function of members of the House of Representatives is as legislators-will have to address. This provision ensures that they know the matters that they will have to address. It gives them an opportunity to sit down, read, look at and understand the fine print of the provisions which come before this House for consideration. This provision reflects that objective. It provides guidance of members. It makes sure that we do not have legislation by stealth. It makes sure that the Executive cannot use this Parliament to ambush the members to push through its own legislative programs without proper consideration by all members of this Parliament. It also has, I believe, a subsidiary objective, and that is to provide the parameters for the question of relevance when we, as members, stand to debate the issues in this place. Madam Speaker, the ruling that you have given this morning is dependent on one argument, one point, and that is that the long title and the clauses within the Bill are in unison. You say that the latter clauses of the Bill before us are in consequence of the first clauses relating to the four-year term. Let us look at the title in detail. What does it say? It says: A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to provide for four-year maximum terms for members of both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament. That is the title. Now let us look at the actual clauses and see what it is that they intend to achieve. Let me put it in general terms. The honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown), when speaking on the Bill, hit the nail on the head. He conceded the very point upon which this motion of dissent is based. When talking about the four-year terms, he said, `Madam Speaker, we have two proposals before us-a proposal for four-year terms and simultaneous elections'. That betrays the reality of the objectives of this proposal, of this Bill, which we are debating today. The honourable member for Charlton was right. There are two distinct matters contained within this Bill. There is the provision relating to four-year terms. The other provision, of equal significance to this Parliament-in fact, one can mount a strong argument that it is of even greater significance-is the provision to do away with the rotation of the terms of senators. These two matters are independent, one from the other. They can stand alone. They are separate matters. Not only are they separate but in the past one of the issues has been dealt with separately. When the honourable member for Farrer seconds this motion he will reinforce the precedents of this House when he refers to previous cases. No system is currently operating in respect of the Senate terms which one could argue is in any way concurrent with the House of Representatives. When the founding fathers established the terms of both Houses they did so on the basis of a mandate at different points in time for both chambers. That system was established as a means of buttressing the essential characteristic of the Senate as a House of review. Four-year terms are proposed for the House of Representatives. The proposal is for up to four-year terms for the Senate, for a contemporaneous term for the Senate. This proposal does away with the one fixed element that we currently have in our Constitution. Its significance is that it places the Senate under the hammer of the Prime Minister. Madam Speaker, when you say that clauses 5 and 6 are merely incidental you reveal the political leanings of those who have drafted this proposal. What stands behind this comment of, `Oh, it is only incidental' is the real view of those opposite of the Senate. When we get to the bottom line the reality is that the Government wants to treat the Senate as merely incidental. We on this side of the House will stand here and oppose that year in year out because it is a basic attack on the bicameral nature of our system. To say that the Senate is only incidental is to deny the significance of the Senate when it stopped the Government's proposal for an ID card. It is to deny the significance of the power and influence of the Senate when it stopped the Government's Bill of Rights, which was not to enhance people's rights but to limit, restrict and regulate them. Madam Speaker, my submission to you today is that the standing order provision ought to be met and that this Bill ought to be withdrawn. An additional factor should have been taken into consideration when you came to your ruling. These Bills are not ordinary Bills. These Bills are to alter the Constitution, the No. 1 law in this country, the law that provides the framework for the maintenance of our democracy. That is how important these Bills are. These Bills and, in particular, the long titles will form the questions that will be put to the Australian people. The people of Australia are entitled to vote on questions that represent the fine print, the whole intent, of the Government's proposals. The failure to include this proposal in the question prejudices the capacity of the people to make an informed decision on the Bill. In so doing, it denies the people the right given to them in our Constitution that, in the end, in the last analysis, it must be the people who make the decisions about our Constitution. That is what the Government is doing. It is denying the Australian people, our citizens, the right to make an informed decision, to come to an informed view and judgment of the proposal before the House today. This question, this long title, is misleading. On any plain reading of what the title says and what is actually contained in the Bill, one would have to come to the conclusion that this question is misleading. Opposition members are not the only ones who are saying it. Yesterday Mr Morgan, one of Australia's top pollsters, somebody who asks questions every day of the week, looked at this matter and said that it is shonky. Mr Howard —That is right. He said it was a shonk. Mr REITH —As the Leader of the Opposition says, it is a fraud. It deceives people as to what the real consequences of this proposal are. It is ironic that this Government has put forward question No. 2-equally deceitfully, I might add-which is premised on a call for fair elections when it has fixed question No. 1 to produce the result that it wants. It is ironic that it should so put a proposition. Madam Speaker, we dissent from your ruling. We do not do so lightly. One could not find a matter of greater significance arising out of the forms and procedures of this House. It is a right of all members, on behalf of their constituents, to be given a Bill and for a Bill to be drafted which has within it a title that is an adequate and proper representation and statement of all the matters that are considered within it. It is the right of the people, when they come to vote on a matter, and cast their judgment, to have before them a question which absolutely reflects that which would come into being if they were to vote Yes. Section 128 of our Constitution is, to my knowledge, the only provision that we have in our parliamentary democracy for a system of direct democracy. It is the one provision which allows the people to be the masters of our democracy. It is the one provision which allows our people, our citizenry, to be the final arbiters as to the framework of the democracy that we are to have in this country. This is no plaything. It goes to the essence of the integrity of our system. The title, and thus the question, which will be put to the people is not a fair question. It is a misleading question. Madam Speaker, it is our submission that your ruling is wrong in fact and in law. We seek from the Government further consideration of this matter so that the Bill can be withdrawn, as it should be, and so that the question can be drafted in such a manner that when people vote on the question put by the Government they know what they are getting. I think that is a very simple and straightforward proposition, one which ought to be able to attract bipartisan support. Let us argue about these matters properly, in a public debate. We are prepared to have a fair fight, but let us make sure that when the people vote on polling day on these referendum questions the questions accurately reflect that which they are being asked to vote for. Madam Speaker, we dissent most strongly from your ruling. Madam SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded? Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(11.24) —I second the motion which was moved so ably by the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), and add that nothing is more central to the viability of our parliamentary democracy than the compliance of the proceedings of both the House of Representatives and the Senate with the Standing Orders. The Standing Orders lay down the rules for the passage of legislation through both Houses. As such, if those Standing Orders are breached, we have a very deficient legislative process and, by definition, a deficient parliamentary democracy. My credentials as a bush lawyer-for the benefit of the Canberra Times and Australian Associated Press, I am a National Party bush lawyer, but a member of the coalition team-are for others to judge. I point out to the House that I am a graduate of the ultimate university of hard political knocks, namely, the bear pit in Macquarie Street, the New South Wales State Parliament, where I served for 13 years and took my share of points of order. Yesterday I took a further point of order because I had studied the long titles of the Bills, albeit prompted by the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), the honourable member for Flinders and others. I took a substantive point of order under standing order 213 with regard to the long title of the first referendum Bill which the honourable member for Flinders has already read into the record this morning. The substance of that point of order was not so much central to clause 4 of the first referendum Bill, but highlighted the fact that there are two fundamental issues being dealt with under the first referendum Bill: firstly, the length of terms for members of the House of Representatives and the Senate; and, secondly and separately, the issue of simultaneous or concurrent elections so that the polling day involved will be the same for the lower House as for the Senate. That is the point which we asked you, Madam Speaker, to consider when ruling on this point of order. In giving your ruling here today you have sheltered behind just three words. You said in your ruling that in the long title the words `to provide for' somehow are deemed to cover that second fundamental issue. Those simple words `to provide for' are deemed to embrace the whole issue of simultaneous elections, concurrent elections and related issues that arise. I point out to the House that on no less than three separate occasions the second issue, in regard to this first referendum Bill, was deemed so important as to be put to the people and the Parliament as separate legislation and, I might add, by previous governments of both political persuasions. On 11 February 1975 a Bill was presented and read for the first time in the House of Representatives, the long title of which reads: A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution so as to ensure that Senate elections are held at the same time as House of Representatives elections. This is the exact second question embraced by the Bill which you, Madam Speaker, would contend is simply covered by the three words in the long title, `to provide for'. That was the situation in 1975. I move on to the time when the Government changed and a Liberal-National Party government presented and read for the first time on 16 February 1977 a Bill, the long title of which reads: A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution so as to ensure that Senate elections are held at the same time as House of Representatives elections. So a Labor government in the early 1970s put this significant, substantive question to the Parliament and the people and, subsequently, the Liberal-National Party Government in the late 1970s did likewise. What happened in the early 1980s? Yet again the question came up, albeit in a slightly modified form. I think it is relevant to say that on that occasion it concerned related legislation. It was not quite a similar analogy. I will not dwell on it, but it certainly dealt with the length of terms of senators which, as I mentioned, is the first fundamental issue under the Bill. The second fundamental issue is the question of simultaneous elections. In the time available to me I say that this whole matter relates to the misleading questions which are part of the whole thrust of the Government as it seeks to adopt its secret agenda to undermine the Senate in our Parliament, our Constitution and our nation. I know that the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) and others will dwell on this issue later in the debate on the referendum Bills. I think that the honourable member for Flinders highlighted it very adequately when he alerted the House to the fact that the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) and the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), himself a graduate of the bear pit of New South Wales State politics and well trained in these things, conceded obliquely that there were two questions involved. Madam Speaker, you were unavoidably absent yesterday. When I took that point of order, which was supported by the honourable member for Flinders, the Attorney-General intervened and said that in part the Bill provides for concurrent elections as well as for four-year terms. On this question the Attorney-General inserted into the Hansard the word `concurrent'. I agree with him that the Bill does provide for concurrent elections, but the long title in no way, shape or form mentions the word `concurrent'. It would be our submission that, if the Government were to withdraw this Bill and come back with a long title that added at least one word, if not three words, it would comply with standing order 213; but it does not. It should read something along the lines, `A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to provide for concurrent four-year maximum terms for members of both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament'. Alternatively, it should read, `to alter the Constitution to provide for four-year maximum terms for members of both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament, and to provide for simultaneous elections'. We would then have a reasonably accurate long title, which on this occasion is so significant because, as we know from the referendum machinery provisions legislation passed earlier this session, it is that long title which is then injected onto the ballot papers across this nation-perhaps in August or September this year. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has indicated, in fact that was the way the Government was heading as this legislation was in the pipeline-it was going to be a little more honest about the approach-when it decided to get street smart. It almost smacks of yet another plot from Sussex Street gone wrong. It would not be proper for me to dwell on this aspect when relating to a dissent motion, so I choose not to do so. Mr Howard —Loosely worded. Mr TIM FISCHER —I accept that it is very loosely worded, in fact so loosely worded that it is not unrelated to a recent case of criminal defamation brought in this country, because it is criminally misleading to provide four questions in these referendum Bills which are so shonky that in fact people are not being given a fair chance to judge the proposals before them. There is one other very relevant point relating to this whole question, and it goes to the question of drafting styles of long titles. We have before the House in cognate debate not one but four referendum Bills. I thought that perhaps the Chair was going to come back and say, `You have not really looked at this. We have got a problem because drafting styles, and the Acts (Interpretation) Act and so forth would completely cover this situation. You cannot go on at length and detail every aspect of a piece of legislation or even every major aspect of a piece of legislation'. What do we find on these four referendum Bills? The first one-to which our objections have been lodged and dealt with-deals with four-year terms but does not refer to simultaneous terms. We find the title of the second Bill to be even more misleading, but I will not dwell on that. The third title is quite specific: `An Act to alter the Constitution to recognise local government'. Then we come to the final title. Here we have a very interesting situation. There are no less than three separate matters embraced by the long title of the last Bill. Incidentally, it is exactly the same overall length as the title of the first referendum Bill. It was good enough in the eyes of the Government, of the Cabinet and of various Caucus committees to provide a long title for the fourth Bill which, amongst other things, was to extend the right to trial by jury, to extend freedom of religion and to ensure fair terms for persons whose property is acquired by any government. It is one of the longest long titles I have sighted in recent times. Why then is it not good enough to apply the same degree of honesty and accuracy to the long title of the first referendum Bill? Mr Porter —Because they want to mislead. Mr TIM FISCHER —Because the Government wants to mislead. The answer lies in that situation. This time, the Opposition submits, the Government has misled to such an extent that it has breached a fundamental standing order of this Parliament, standing order 213. We appeal to members of both sides of the House to think about this issue, not on partisan lines. We are not for the moment debating the underlying issue of whether there should be a four-year term for both Houses. We are not even debating the underlying issue of whether there should be simultaneous polling days, although naturally the Opposition objects to all four referendum questions in the strongest terms. We are submitting, as the honourable member for Flinders in moving this dissent motion so accurately submitted, that the people have a right to know what is in the proposals before they vote. For many of the people the reality is that they will see the referendum questions in any detail only when they see the ballot paper on referendum polling day. I know that the Yes case and the No case are circulated at great expense across the nation. The reality is that many of those Yes and No cases are like the B-grade mail of certain members coming from sources outside their electorate-it takes about 10 seconds to put it in the circular filing cabinet and there it resides. In this case we have a responsibility to the governments of this country and to the protection of the tapestry of our Constitution to provide that the questions which are referred to the people are accurate and not misleading. On this occasion, Madam Speaker, you have a responsibility, as your predecessor did in 1984, to determine whether a Bill does in fact comply with standing order 213 so far as the accuracy of its long title relating to the contents of the Bill is concerned. The Opposition rejects completely the contention that the words `to provide for' in the existing long title somehow pick up the enormous, significant, fundamental and separate issue of simultaneous elections. It is for this reason that we have moved this motion of dissent, and we ask that both sides of the House, in the interests of fair and accurate play for the people, support the motion. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(11.36) —The Government rejects the arguments submitted by the Opposition. We make the point that what you, Madam Speaker, have correctly ruled on we support, for these reasons: I acknowledge that the shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), accepts the fact that the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), because of what he terms his bear pit training, has an ability to point out something which, I might say in fairness to him, he did at the very outset of the debate. It is not a new matter. As soon as this debate started, the honourable member for Farrer took this point of order, and you quite properly said that you would consider it. Your consideration is accurate for these reasons: the proposition that has been put to the people is to provide four-year maximum terms for both Houses. It is the first time that that proposition has been put. The great fallacy in this dramatic appeal here today with arms waving, and with talk of criminal intent, which I object to completely, is the fact that the previous questions were talking about the date of elections. Can Opposition members not see, in their madness to pursue some objection, that there is a fatal difference between the date of elections and the terms of senators? Did they forget that? It is surprising that in the course of the debate objecting to this question all Opposition members but one have said that it was all right to have four-year terms for the House of Representatives. That is the way they debated it. Only one member of the Opposition has said what the Opposition's proposal would be for the term of the Senate. The honourable member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur) at last said, `I want eight years for the Senate'. What Opposition members want here is an amendment to the title to reflect their view. They want to put to the people a question which they have not been game to put up. I think they would run out of any argument on this matter in the debating forums of the nation, and certainly at the polls. They want the question to be four years for the House of Representatives and eight years for the Senate. Mr Reith —No, we want you to withdraw the Bill. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Naturally those opposite want me to withdraw the Bill because they are frightened of being beaten. How honest are they? The debate has been raging for a day and a half, and the only member to mention eight-year terms was the back bench member for Corangamite. I pay tribute to him. Why did the honourable member not mention it? Mr Reith —The Leader put it to you last week. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Let us come to the point. The honourable member has had his say; he dealt with the political history here today. Let me tell honourable members about the Bill. It is perfectly accurately drawn. It provides for the referendum question. I do not expect the honourable member to agree with me but the Bill is perfectly accurately drawn. It provides for four-year terms for both Houses. Mr N.A. Brown —Concurrent. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The argument of the Opposition is on an incidental clause as to when that may commence. If the honourable member for Flinders had any wit about him, he would understand that. I think the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown) has some wit because he always makes persuasive objections to what we put up. The sad part is that he is always on the back bench and not the front bench of the Opposition. That is the Opposition's problem, not mine. If the Opposition wants to move an amendment, it could well cater for its proposition. An amendment could be moved to start the second term of senators at some other time. God help the Opposition if it does that because separate elections would then need to be held. It is an incidental clause. Does the Opposition not understand that? This question has nothing to do with the date of elections; it deals with terms. The Opposition is so blinkered or so mad to oppose anything that it is hooked on the issue and is now accusing the Speaker, in an indirect way, of some criminal intent. Mr Reith —Come off it! Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Of course it has. The Opposition said that the drafting was a criminal intent to deceive the people. Mr Tim Fischer —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: as I was the one who used the word `criminal', I find it personally offensive that it is said that I in some way have accused you, Madam Speaker, of having proceeded with criminal intentions. I certainly in no way offered that to the Chair. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I would not have accepted that the honourable member would do so. Thank you. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —To whom did the honourable member for Farrer intend to refer? Mr Porter —The Government. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Me? I shall accept that if the honourable member thinks that is a fair comment. I do not think that is a worthy comment from any honourable member, irrespective of what side he is on. The facts are that the Government is providing for four-year terms, and I emphasise that point. Let me make a point about titles to Bills. In the Constitution Act, which ought to be of some interest to the Opposition, the title states, `An Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia'. It does not set out every provision in the Act. The Customs Act title refers to customs; it does not set out every provision in the Act. The Telecommunications Act title refers to the provision of telecommunication services within Australia. They are the titles. Many amending Acts such as taxation Acts merely state in their long titles that they amend the relevant Act. The key question in the Bill is to provide for four-year terms for both Houses. The question is fair and proper. For the benefit of Mr Morgan, who thinks that that will be the end of it, everyone will receive information about the Yes and No cases. If they receive B-grade mail, it is because they believe the answers that the Opposition will prepare for the No case should fall into that category. The Opposition is bereft of the ability to put an argument, which it is entitled to do. For the benefit of Mr Morgan, the No case will be written by the Opposition. The Opposition will need to do better than it has done in this debate, but at least it might address its mind to the fact that the proposal provides for four-year terms for both Houses. An incidental factor is when we would be able to start the terms. The Opposition is entitled to say they should be started at any other time, but the Government is saying that they should be started at the same time. The issue is overcoming the problems of the need for separate elections. The Opposition wants to amend the question to provide for simultaneous elections. The question involves reducing the current term of some senators. Some have three-year terms, so the proposal will extend their terms by one year; some have six-year terms, and the proposal will bring them back to four years. They are two separate terms. That is the question to be put to the people. The Opposition's argument is to reject this question, even though its attempt is half-hearted. The Opposition likes the first part of the question. It wants four-year terms for one group but not four-year terms for the other. The Opposition does not know what it wants for the other group. The honourable member for Corangamite wants eight years. Why does the Opposition not put up that question, if that is its question? So far as the Opposition is concerned, the argument has nothing to do with when the terms start; the big argument is that, in the view of the Opposition, the Government is reducing the powers of the Senate. The Government is not affecting the powers of the Senate; it is talking about the terms of senators. That is the Opposition's question, yet it will not put it up. The Opposition is arguing a false issue that has something to do with simultaneous elections. The Opposition can move an amendment to say that, if the question is carried, the terms of senators should start at some other time. The Opposition can do that, but its argument now has nothing to do with the question of four-year terms. For these reasons and because the House has taken so long debating a matter that has no validity, I suggest that if the debate is to be concluded in reasonable time-we have taken a lot of the speaking time away from those who want to make contributions-it would be far better to continue uninterrupted. Madam Speaker, the Government concurs with the ruling you have already given. Question put: That the motion (Mr Reith's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 74 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 23 —— Adermann, A. E. McArthur, F. S.Aldred, K. J. McGauran, P. J.Beale, J. H. MacKellar, M. J. R.Blunt, C. W. Macphee, I. M.Braithwaite, R. A. Miles, C. G.Brown, N. A. Millar, P. C.Burr, M. A. Moore, J. C.Cameron, Donald Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Peacock, A. S.Carlton, J. J. Porter, J. R.Cobb, M. R. Pratt, M. P.Cowan, D. B. Prosser, G. D.Dobie, J. D. M. Reith, P. K.Downer, A. J. G. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.Fife, W. C. Ruddock, P. M.Fischer, Tim Shack, P. D.Fisher, Peter Sharp, J. R.Goodluck, B. J. Shipton, R. F.Halverson, R. G. Sinclair, I. McC.Hawker, D. P. M. Sullivan, K. J.Hewson, J. R. Taylor, W. L.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Howard, J. W. Wilson, I. B. C.Jull, R. C. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Lloyd, B. Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A.Beazley, K. C. Johns, G. T.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Kerr, D. J. C.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V.Brumby, J. M. Lavarch, M. H.Campbell, G. Lee, M. J.Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J.Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J.Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Courtice, B. W. Milton, P.Crawford, M. C. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. O'Keefe, N. P.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dubois, S. C. Price, L. R. S.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Sawford, R. W.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Sciacca, C.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Snowdon, W. E.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Harvey, E. R. Theophanous, A. C.Hollis, C. Tickner, R. E.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. Willis, R.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright. K. W. Question so resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Mr PORTER(Barker)(11.56) —The major question about the referendum proposals has been reinforced by the debate we have just had. I ask the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen): Why has there been an obscene rush to pass these Bills? Why does he reject the legitimate questions raised by the Opposition? The questions he is going to put to the people are misleading. Why does he not withdraw the legislation and add the words that are sought to be added by the Opposition so that at least the questions properly reflect the actual intention of the Government? Why does he want to rush these proposals in? He ended his speech today by saying, `We have got to get on with this debate. We have got to get these Bills through'. Why? What is the rush? Mr Lionel Bowen —There is no rush. Mr PORTER —There is a rush. The Attorney-General rushed these proposals in before the Constitutional Commission, his Commission, even published its report. The point is that this rush is all part of an attempt to distract the nation's attention from the real concerns in the electorate: concern about falling living standards, the growing concern that we are being left behind in international trading stakes and concern about growing housing and hospital queues. The Government is rushing these electoral reform proposals in to divert people's attention from the growing concern that this Government only looks after its rich mates and the growing smell of corruption hanging around this Government. Why did the Government decide the referendum questions before the publication of the $6m Constitutional Commission report? All this sudden haste in presenting these Bills adds weight to our concern that the Government is operating on a political agenda rather than seeking genuine constitutional reform. Perhaps the timing has more to do with the Attorney-General's prospective exit from this place. It is his going away present. If that is so, it is an extraordinarily expensive gift. The referendum will cost over $30m-and all for nothing. The major question is a corrupt and cynical attempt to undermine the power of the Senate and it will fail. This ill-fated campaign will cost over $30m-30 million hard earned taxpayers' dollars will be spent on this fraudulent exercise. The Government wonders why it is seen as having lost touch with the people. This is not the first time that the Government has charged off down a taxpayer funded gold plated dead-end road. Remember the disastrous proposal for an ID card? The taxpayer was slugged $4m for that stupidity. Remember the Government backed plan for timed local telephone calls? The taxpayer was slugged $600,000 in that aborted attempt to sell timed telephone calls to the public. Remember Priority One? It was a taxpayer funded attempt to promote the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and an attempt to gain kudos for the Government amongst young people. It was an unmitigated disaster costing $2 1/2m in the last two years. Remember the fringe benefits tax? The Government spent $2.3m selling that to the public. Mr Price —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to the relevance of the comments being made by the honourable member to the debate listed on the Notice Paper. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —It is my view that in a debate of this sort, where four Bills are under discussion and arguments are being made by analogy, particularly in relation to the likely success of the outcome of matters that are to be put to the people, they are appropriate to be canvassed. Mr PORTER —I thank the Chair. The honourable member is concerned about the relevance of my remarks. What about the relevance of his Government's $6m Constitutional Commission? Is that not relevant? Why on earth are these Bills being rushed through here today? The referendum questions were decided before the $6m Commission even published its report for us. The Commission spent over two years wasting its time and our money, because we now know the Government formulated the proposals before the final report was even published. Talk about a shambles! Even worse, the first and most important question, on the four-year parliament, is in conflict with the Government's $6m Commission report. This Government not only thumbs its nose at the taxpayer but also it is now thumbing its nose at its own Commission. Any shred of credibility or a semblance of a genuine desire to reform the Constitution went out the window when the Government adopted its political agenda and dumped its own reform Commission. The paper thin facade was ripped asunder to reveal the Government's real intention, which, of course, is to gut the Senate. The fraudulent nature of this referendum campaign is highlighted by the questions which are to be put to the people. They appear harmless but they clearly misrepresent the true position. If they were subject to the Trade Practices Act the Government would be found guilty of misleading advertising. Gary Morgan, an opinion pollster well known in Australia, would put more questions in a day than this Government has ever put to the people. What does he say? He claims that the Government's questions are `blatantly biased'. Why are they blatantly biased, according to Gary Morgan? He says that it is to obtain a Yes vote to the questions. `The questions', he says, `do not honestly convey the issues being asked'. He has warned that the questions in their present form will be rejected. Why? He says that one of the reasons is that there will be a debate about the questions being fraudulent. If this Government wanted a genuine constitutional reform, one would think that it would at least be honest enough to set out in the questions that it is to put to the people the real intention of the legislation. The first question is perhaps considered by most to be the most important. It involves two questions. Firstly it proposes a four-year term for members of the House of Representatives and for the Senate. Secondly, in clause 4, on a quite separate issue, it proposes the removal of the Senate election timetable from the Constitution and the provision of simultaneous elections, involving the same polling day for each chamber, to be inserted in the Constitution. That second ingredient, an entirely separate issue, is deemed so important that previous governments-a Labor government and a coalition government-put it as a separate question at separate referendums all of its own and on both occasions it failed to be passed. In 1974 and 1977 constitutional referendum amendments for simultaneous elections were put to the people. Question No. 1 involves those two questions-four-year terms and concurrent elections. The wording of the question to be put ignores the second element. The Government says that it is only as a consequence of four-year terms that both Houses must go to the polls together. If this was a genuine attempt to pick up community concern for four-year terms, why did the Government not seek a bipartisan approach? Why did the Attorney-General not seek a bipartisan approach to these referendum questions? We have said, and it is on the record, that we are in favour of four-year terms, but we are not in favour of gutting the Senate. We would have been quite prepared to sit down with the Government and negotiate the questions to be put to the people in order to provide for four-year terms but our proposals for four-year terms would involve the protection of the long-standing constitutional independence of the Senate. The four-year term question that is being put by the Government is only an excuse. It is an excuse to gut the power of the Senate. I note that I have spoken for 10 minutes, and we have been asked again to contain our comments to 10 minutes in this obscene rush to push this legislation through, so I will be brief. The second question again is misleading and is designed to transfer more power to the Commonwealth in respect of State elections. The proposal, if carried, will not stop gerrymanders. It is an attempt by this Government to impose on State electoral systems conditions which do not apply to the Senate. The Senate, as a States House, is based on representation of the States interests. In other words, regardless of the number of people in each State, each State and its interests are entitled to equal representation of 12 members in the Senate. This proposal would prevent a State from doing in relation to its representation in its own upper House what is provided for the Senate. It represents a fundamental attack on the rights of the States and imposes conditions on elections for State upper Houses which do not apply to the Senate. The third question seeks constitutional recognition of local government. The proposal seems innocuous enough, but what does it do for local government, which is the creation of State governments? If carried, the proposal will not give local government autonomy, guarantee funds for local government or prevent amalgamation, dismissal or regionalisation. In fact, it could be the thin end of the wedge to achieve Labor's longstanding objective of centralising power in Canberra and administering that power through regional councils, thus abandoning the federal system. The fourth question purports to extend the rights of trial by jury, freedom of religion and fair terms for persons whose property is acquired by any government. The concern that I and many others have, and we expressed it during our debate in the public forum on the Government's Bill of Rights, is that once we start writing down rights for people we actually start to put restrictions on people's rights. No-one is suggesting that Australians do not have religious freedoms now. No-one is suggesting that our jury system is wrong. Our common law approach will continue to protect those fundamental practices. We do not need this Government to tell us what our rights are. The States do not need Canberra to tell them what rights the people in each State should have. I come to the question relating to religion. That to me is especially dangerous. To start with, the proposal will amend the section in the Constitution originally inserted not as a guarantee of religious freedom but as a guarantee that there would not be an established church in Australia. The wording of the proposed new section in the Constitution actually omits the current reference to the making of such a law. The result is that, under the literal terms of the proposed new section, any act of government in Australia requiring any form of religious observance could be prohibited. That may have the potential to prevent religious observance in certain schools and raise doubts about normally accepted religious ceremonies associated with public events. Instead of guaranteeing people's rights, it could well be that the proposals put by the Government will restrict rights. The most important and fundamental of the four questions is the first, which is the proposal to implement four-year terms and, in so doing, gut the powers of the Senate. The real question involved is the extension of the term of the House of Representatives to four years, with which the Opposition agrees, as we have said on many occasions. However, inextricably linked with that question as proposed by the Government is, firstly, the reduction in the term of senators from six years to four years and, secondly, a change in the basis of election of senators. Instead of electing only half the Senate at each general election, as proposed by the founding fathers, this Government proposes to make the Senate a rubber stamp for the House of Representatives by having the whole of the Senate elected at each House of Representatives election. The purpose of the Senate is that of a House of review, which is enhanced by having half its members elected at a time different from that of the current government. There is, of course, provision for double dissolutions, when all senators are elected at the same time as the House of Representatives. However, that is provided only to overcome disputes between the House of Representatives and the Senate. It was not proposed to be, and has not been, the normal method of election of senators. However, the Government seeks to make it the normal method of election of senators. Whilst I strongly support four-year parliaments, I strongly oppose this fraudulent proposal, which seeks to undermine the power of the Senate as a House of review. I believe our system of government has served us well and that the Constitution has stood us in good stead. Any proposal to change it must be better thought through than this shonky proposal to reduce the power of the Senate. I strongly support the coalition's stand in opposing all four referendum questions. Mr JENKINS(Scullin)(12.13) —I have pleasure in supporting the four Constitution alteration Bills. It is a sad indictment that throughout Australia's history there has been such difficulty in getting constitutional change. It is of note that, of 38 proposals to alter the Constitution, only eight have been successful. I am referring to alterations to a document that was first put together at the turn of the century when the six colonies gathered together as the Federation that became the Commonwealth of Australia. Australia, at the turn of the century, was a very much different place. The Constitution has served us well; that is not in question. All the Government says and all it proposes is that, by putting together questions to be put to the Australian public, through the work of such organisations as the Constitutional Commission, we might come to agreement on ways of improving the Constitution. It should be seen to be, as the Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) said in his second reading speech, a living document. It should be adaptable. There is some question about whether we should continue to rely on the good offices of members of the High Court of Australia in their interpretation of the Constitution as the way in which the Constitution should adapt to a changing society. In looking at the decision on external powers, often mentioned by the Opposition, it must be understood that in 1901 Australia was a member of a very different international community. There were not the international bodies on which Australia is presently represented. Even with the best wisdom in the world, those who framed the Constitution in 1901 could not have contemplated the sorts of obligations that would be required of Australia as a nation. It is worthy of merit that the High Court in its decisions on the interpretation of the Constitution has reflected Australia's changing international role. It saddens me a little that in this debate honourable members have been subjected to a cantankerous Opposition which has seen fit to oppose the four propositions, in some instances on purely political grounds. What else can we conclude when we hear the debate among the coalition parties about their decision to oppose all four proposals? We really must look at some of the proposals and past statements made by the coalition. It is Opposition policy to support a four-year term for Federal Parliament. Therefore, why do the Opposition parties oppose the referendum proposal? In their policy manifesto at last year's Federal election, the Liberal and National parties supported the constitutional recognition of local government. Why today are they in opposition to the proposal? Liberal Party policy documents support the right to trial by jury, the right to religious freedom, and the right to compensation for individuals when their private land is acquired by government. Again we must ask why the Opposition now opposes those proposals as they are put before the House. It is strange that we are having this current debate. We have the spectre of the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) being reprimanded by his Leader because he made the observation that the policy statement of the Liberal Party of Australia referred to the extension of trial by jury and the right to compensation. He saw that that was a contradiction, but he was brought into line with the Party decision. The honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) was quoted as saying that he would support the one vote one value question. He is quoted in the Herald of 16 May as follows: A former South Australian Liberal Premier, Liberal member Steele Hall, who effectively engineered his own electoral defeat by abolishing the playmander-the gerrymander which kept Tom Playford in office for 26 years-said the question of one vote one value was one he had fought long ago and he would be supporting the proposal. Other prominent members of the Liberal Party have expressed their disapproval of the Opposition's stance. Queensland Liberal Leader, Angus Innes, said that he was disappointed with the coalition's stance and claimed that some people could not see the nose on the end of their face. Liberal Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Sallyanne Atkinson, indicated that she was in full support of the proposal to recognise local government, even though it would be against the Party line. Today's papers indicate the difficulties that the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) has with the decision of the coalition parties. Let us look briefly at the proposals before us-firstly, the rights and freedoms question. In general, the Australian Constitution does not attempt to guarantee individual rights and liberties in the comprehensive manner of the first ten and the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. The nearest equivalents are placitum (xxxi) of section 51, section 80 and section 116. Section 51 (xxi) states that the acquisition of property from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws will be on just terms. Section 80 states: The trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury . . . Section 116 states: The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth. What does the proposal before the House today suggest that we should be putting to the Australian people? It suggests that those rights be extended to say that the States and Territories should cater for them; simply that and no more. Yet we have the Opposition trotting out the idea that this is a Bill of Rights in disguise, that we want to whip up debate in the countryside again. There is no questioning by those opposite of the way the present sections of the Constitution inhibit rights. There is just the suggestion, without foundation, that in some way the placing of these proposals in the Constitution will be a restriction of rights. I find the notion completely absurd. I look forward at some stage to getting an explanation of the conclusion that has been put forward by the Opposition. I now turn to fair elections. The Bill before the House seeks to introduce into the Constitution two basic principles to guarantee fair elections: that in a democracy all elections should be conducted on the basis of one vote one value; and that citizens in a democracy should have an enforceable, inalienable and constitutional right to vote at elections. It would probably come as a surprise to many Australians to learn that such rights are not already guaranteed to them. What is it really that honourable members opposite are opposing? Why should they be worried? Perhaps we should look at an article in this morning's Australian headed `No English-no vote'. The article states: Australian citizens who cannot speak English should not be given the privilege to vote. Who said that? It was the eminent historian Professor Geoffrey Blainey, again proffering his views on multiculturalism. He is reported to have argued that citizens who could not speak English would vote too recklessly. Are those the sorts of rights that we want citizens to have? Is it not worth enshrining in the Constitution protection against that sort of notion? If we look back at 1901, at the start of this nation, we did not have complete adult suffrage. In many of the colonies females did not have the vote. Do we want to revert to those days? Was it not unjust that in the original Constitution we did not have such a proposal as we are putting forward at this time? Because of those facts, I believe that this proposal is worthy of support. Finally, I shall speak to the proposal to give constitutional recognition to local government. At the insistence of the Whitlam Government, local government was represented at the first meeting of the Constitutional Convention in 1973. At the Constitutional Convention in 1976 the then Prime Minister, J. M. Fraser, had this to say: In this item we are asked first to recognise local government's fundamental role in Australia's system of government. My Government has already taken steps to give practical recognition to the importance of local government and its potential to improve the community's quality of services. Twelve years later the Howard-led Opposition will campaign to deny local government formal recognition in this role. It is no wonder that local government bodies have slammed that decision. The Municipal Association of Victoria accused the Federal Opposition of showing contempt for local communities by refusing to support constitutional recognition for local government. The president, Councillor Boucher, is quoted as saying: By advocating a `no' vote, the Opposition is saying that local communities should be willing to be kicked around by State and Federal governments. We have the notion put forward to us by people opposite, such as the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), that somehow this is a move towards centralist government. The proposal calls upon the States and Territories to do certain things to recognise local government. Already all but Tasmania and Queensland have done that, so where is this notion of this being some centralist conspiracy? Unfortunately, in trying to cooperate with the time restraints, I cannot go on about the further proposals. I make the observation that I am quite happy with that. I am the twenty-fifth member of this House to speak on this set of legislation. I do not see it as some obscene rush to put the legislation through, as the honourable member for Barker, who spoke before me, claimed. In conclusion, I should like to raise the very valid point put by the Attorney-General in his second reading speech. I believe this is very important. Those opposite are criticising the notion of the Constitutional Commission. The Constitutional Commission gave us an ability to get consultation, to take changes to the Constitution out of the hands of politicians and to enable the community to have some say. I find it a bit disquieting that that sort of concept should be criticised. It is important to note what the Attorney-General said. He outlined that the Parliament had an important role in proposing change and that the judicial decisions of the High Court had a profound influence on defining change. Importantly, he stressed: But the ultimate responsibility for deciding for or against change rests with the people. And that is how it should be. He said: It is not the politicians' Constitution. It is not the lawyers' Constitution. It is the people's Constitution. I commend the proposals before the House. I commend them to the Australian public for their consideration later in the year. Mr IAN ROBINSON(Page)(12.27) —The legislation before the House to authorise a referendum to seek to alter the Constitution has one motive and one motive only: to ensure that the power of the Senate will be reduced. It is a proposal masterminded by the Australian Labor Party with the intention to achieve the policy objectives of the Australian Labor Party. It is nothing more and nothing less. The power of the Senate has been attacked by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) time and time again. It has been attacked over and over again by the adherents of the philosophies of the Australian Labor Party. In this House and outside it they have for several decades vilified the power of the Senate. It is an historical fact, of course, that the platform and constitution of the Australian Labor Party for so long sought the abolition of State parliaments and the abolition of the Senate. Mr Snow —It does not now. Mr IAN ROBINSON —The honourable member for Eden-Monaro says it does not now and he shakes his head. Of course, he admits right away the alternatives; and the alternatives are the very matters we are dealing with in this debate. Because Government members found that people were not likely ever to accept the extreme propositions of yesteryear, they have now, in the second half of this decade, moved strenuously towards alternatives, to centralise power and to seek to change the fundamental processes of democracy in this nation. This legislation seeks to produce a circumstance in which the people of this country would be asked to support, through a referendum, changes that would accord with the philosophies of the Labor Party, this Government in office, which, of course, have been frustrated by the democratic processes-not wilfully and not with any malice, but simply because the decisions of the people through the ballot box have, as a consequence of the power of the Senate, prevented the implementation of a number of measures which were alternatives to those earlier rather incredible propositions that the platform and policy of the Party proposed. These changes were sought in a number of ways-the Bill of Rights, the identity card and a host of other measures, some of which have been put forward, some of which have not. The difficulty that the Government has encountered with its policy has been part and parcel of the democratic process of the Senate making decisions and rejecting some of the extreme legislation that has been proposed. Now we have before us for consideration four questions which the Government wishes to put to the people. The first, and the main thrust of all this is the question: `Do you approve an Act to alter the Constitution to provide for four-year maximum terms for members of both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament?'. Embodied in that, without question, is the proposition to reduce the power of the Senate. Speakers on this side of the House in this debate have amply explained to the Australian community what the real intent is. Yet the honourable member for Scullin (Mr Jenkins) a moment ago, in a very naive fashion, said that we did not understand the proposition. There is no question about understanding it. There is no doubt that the community at large is beginning to understand it. It observes that because the Government was irked that it could not get its way it established the Constitutional Commission as an alternative to the processes that had gone on for a long time-debate through the Constitutional Convention. In moving to this other platform, the Constitutional Commission, many things were proposed and debated and a report was rushed in. From the statements in the other place by the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) it is obvious that the Constitutional Commission was wound down or was forced to take a certain course in the hope that the propositions now before this House could be rushed in and could be seen to be respectable. I say to the Attorney-General and Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen), who is at the table, that it is indeed unfortunate that the scramble that he has now created will rebound upon him. The first question is the fundamental one; the other three are intended as the sort of smokescreen, the cover, to create an honest broker approach in the hope that the electors of this country will accept the lot and say, `Yes, this is fundamentally right. This is what both sides of politics have sought in the past. Let us support it'. But now the cat is out of the bag and we can see clearly that the whole proposition falls to the ground because it is based on the unfortunate premise of being just too smart by half. We see an attempt in this proposal to get around the difficulties that have confronted earlier governments. If we look at the record we see very clearly that a previous referendum to seek simultaneous elections for the Senate and the House of Representatives failed when there was almost universal support. The Government on this occasion has sought to use another device to have some cover. So the other three questions have been foisted upon the community with a totally unrelated case that is not fair and honest or genuine. I refer of course to the second question, which refers to providing for fair and democratic parliamentary elections. Let us think of what has occurred just in recent times in New South Wales: for example, the change in the system of voting to try to ensure that the Australian Labor Party would be helped to face a crisis. In the event, it was not successful. It has now lost power in New South Wales despite all its attempts. Since the Australian Labor Party came to office in this place it has sought to change the system and the processes of election. It has moved to implement a range of changes to the Commonwealth Electoral Act. I refer to public funding in particular and all that was said in regard to the deal on that. It is funny that the architect of it, the honourable member who I think masterminded most of the changes, is no longer here. Again it was a case of being too smart by half. The Government's bringing in propositions that in the end muddy the system, instead of being realistic and honest, is of no ultimate value to this nation. Time precludes me from covering the other questions as I would like to. The third question is to provide for recognition of local government. This is again complete dishonesty because there is no proposition to take up. What is really spelt out by recognition of local government in the Constitution? There is no mention of whether local governments would have any recognition at the Premiers Conference or the Australian Loan Council or in the taxation structure? There is not one word about that. The whole vexed question of the status of local government is a complete veneer. It in no way has been accounted for in the proposition that has been put for the recognition of local government; it refers merely to recognition by the States. There is nothing about the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia recognising local government as the third tier of government, which is what local government has sought and what is totally denied in this proposition. I shall now conclude so that I observe the time limit. The fourth question is: `Do you approve of the extension of the right to trial by jury, to extend the freedom of religion and to ensure fair terms for persons whose property is acquired by any government?'. What do we see there? We see the Bill of Rights sticking out a mile. The Government was unable to achieve its end with the Bill of Rights so this is the alternative. Let everyone beware. In our society there is total freedom of religion. Are we now to have foisted upon us, through this proposed change, if it succeeds-and it will not-a circumstance in which all manner of outside influences could be accommodated in this country? We have seen the sects that have come in here. I do not want to name them in this debate. We have seen the damage that they have done. We know that the Government has been appalled at some of the things that have occurred in recent years and it has expressed that view. Yet here it is blindly saying, `We will give the right of recognition of religion without regard to any premise upon which that should be based'. I put it that the fundamental consideration of recognising the family, Christianity and what has made this nation in the past 200 years is to be cast overboard. Are we to see these things undermined? Certainly a move in this direction would be a means to an end-the encouragement of the breakdown in marriage, the breakdown of family as we have known it. The laws now create a difficult situation which I know the Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General has sought to grapple with. He did not bring the situation about. His predecessors did. Now he is faced with the awful problem of how to remedy the unfortunate drift that has occurred in the marriage laws of this country. Are we to see a further drift in religion, respect and the other values that are so important to every man, woman and child by opening the door and saying, `Here is the means for anybody to attempt to do anything under the banner of religion'? I oppose the legislation before the House. I have no doubt that the people of this country will do likewise. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(12.41) —Today the honourable member for Page (Mr Ian Robinson), a great exponent of the red chamber, has tossed red herrings all over this chamber. He thinks that if one cannot win an argument, one should introduce issues like marriage breakdown, religion-although he attacks the freedom of religion implicit in these referendum proposals-and public funding, but not deal with the questions. The four proposals we have before us today are also four tests. They are a test of the Government's will to persevere in seeking from the people agreement to sensible changes to the Constitution. It is true that a low percentage of questions have been supported in referendums. I often wonder whether the Aboriginal question which we dealt with in the 1960s would be dealt with today as it was then. Things have improved for the Aboriginal people since that referendum. Plenty of people in the community do not like to see things improve for the Aboriginal people. People tend to say no when they are in doubt. The Government has had to try to overcome that tendency in its approach. I can recall people voting to stick to 6 p.m. closing for public bars in Victoria in a referendum held in 1956. Yet, if one asks people's views in Victoria today they are absolutely certain that there is less drunkenness in Victoria, less of a drinking problem, simply because of the extension to 10 p.m. of the closing time of bars. The referendum proposals also test the will of the Opposition to defend its own declared policies. It has declared its affirmation of the need properly to compensate people for the acquisition of their land. Yet here today the Opposition is saying no. It has declared its support for recognition of local government in the Constitution. Yet here today it is saying no. It has put forward definite proposals for a four-year term for the House of Representatives. Again, here today it is saying no. It has supported the right of the people to regular elections. Yet now it is telling us that senators ought to have an eight-year term instead of the current six-year term. The Opposition supports the right to freedom of religion. It says we have that freedom now. So did pre-Hitler Germany. But that freedom can be lost if it is not enshrined in the Constitution, which is the point being made by the Government. Opposition members know that their own honest answer to each of these questions is yes, but they are not prepared to say it. The Liberal leaders know that the honest answer to these questions is yes. The honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson), who is present in the chamber today, knows that the answer to at least one of these questions is yes. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) has also said that the answer is yes. The Liberal Party of Australia has no respect for its leaders. Its leaders have become like jelly. On issues like the consumption tax, television ownership and the referendum the Liberal leaders have not been able to go what seems to them to be the logical way. They are thrashing about trying to win votes as a party. They are prepared to compromise their principles. Liberal Party members are apathetic about whether their leader remains as leader or resigns. They are not prepared to have the courage of their convictions and vote on their own declared beliefs. The Opposition has betrayed its own declared policies. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 101a. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour this day. The honourable member will have leave to continue his remarks when the debate is resumed. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr HOWARD —Does the Prime Minister agree with the comments last weekend by the United States Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific that the Soviet fishing agreement currently under consideration by the Government could be used by the Soviet Union for destabilising activities in the South Pacific? Mr HAWKE —I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I will come to the point of his question in a moment, but I will preface my answer with some more general observations. I inform the honourable gentleman that when a Soviet fisheries delegation visited Australia last month it made a number of proposals relating to the negotiation of a fisheries agreement, including commercial feasibility of fishing, access to Australian ports for its fishing vessels for resupply and servicing, access to Australia for Aeroflot charter flights to transfer the crews of fishing vessels, and supply of fish to Australian fish processing factories. I give the honourable gentleman that background so that he can understand the range of proposals that was put to us for our consideration. In our consideration of the Soviet proposals the Government, as I think the honourable gentleman would expect, from the outset has been very much aware of the need for caution. The proposals that have been put to us by the Soviets are currently under consideration. To this point no response has been given to the Soviet Union. I assure the honourable gentleman that in our consideration of these proposals full account will be taken by the Government of factors such as national security, direct and indirect economic benefits to Australia, the interests of the Australian fishing industry and, specifically in regard to the point of the honourable gentleman's question, our relations with the Pacific island states. I am not sure whether the honourable gentleman is aware of this point: in so far as our alliance relationship is concerned, any comments that have been made would have been made by my friend Admiral Hays in total good faith. It should be noted that both the United States and Canada have with the Soviet Union fisheries agreements which allow port access. Let it not be thought that Admiral Hays, in any comments that he has made, is talking from a position where the United States does not have with the Soviet Union fisheries agreements which allow access to ports. As I understand Admiral Hays's comments, he was not in any sense questioning the capacity of Australia to make sensible decisions in regard to any proposals that may be put to us by the Soviet Union, nor was he questioning the capacity of Australia-should it respond positively to any of the Soviet proposals-to police the operation of those agreements. The concern he was expressing was that, just as the United States in regard to any agreements that it has, would have the capacity to monitor and police those agreements, so, he understood, would Australia. I think he was wondering whether some of the smaller Pacific island states, by nature of their size and the capacities at their disposition, would have the same degree of capacity that the United States and Australia have to monitor those agreements. As the honourable gentleman knows, over the last two or thee years we have warned our friends in the South Pacific that when they are contemplating approaches from the Soviet Union in these matters they should be wary of what the Soviet Union is about. I remind the honourable gentleman that in the discussions that I had in Australia in March last year, when the Soviet Foreign Minister, Mr Shevardnadze, was here, I made it very clear to him-I think the honourable gentleman would be in total agreement with me-that we would be watching with very close interest the operation of any agreements that the Soviet Union had in the South Pacific in regard to fisheries matters. The honourable gentleman could not disagree that the Soviet Union is a legitimate Pacific power; it has a legitimate interest in the Pacific. But we believe that any commercial arrangements that are made should be strictly commercial arrangements and not be a cover for any other activity. In other words, particularly in regard to fisheries, the agreements should be fisheries agreements and nothing more. My colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and I have consistently put exactly that position, and we will continue to do so. I do not think that the interests of Australia, our allies or our friends in the Pacific are in any significant way advanced if we seek unrealistically to deny that the Soviet Union is a Pacific power and that it does have an entitlement to have an interest in this region. Having said that, equally, we have an interest to ensure that whatever commercial interest it seeks to pursue should be a commercial interest. I give the honourable gentleman my total assurance that this Government will continue to monitor in the future those activities with other countries. Also, by necessary definition, in regard to our own considerations we will take into account our own national interests and those of our allies and friends. Finally, I make the point to the honourable gentleman that this Government-again, in a move which I am sure would meet with his total approval-has made available free to the Pacific island states patrol boats which we have built. I think he will appreciate that the provision of those facilities will be of assistance to them in undertaking whatever surveillance they may find necessary in the event that they enter into such agreements. In addition, the honourable gentleman would know that the facilities of the Royal Australian Air Force and the Royal Australian Navy are available in terms of their activities in the region. I accept the good sense and integrity of the question that has been asked by the honourable gentleman. I assure him that any decision that we take on this matter will take full account of our national interests and those of our friends. We will be forthright in advising the South Pacific islands of the caution that they should exercise and, as far as it is within our capacity, we will provide them with the facilities to exercise appropriate surveillance. Mr CHARLES —I refer the Prime Minister to the unrest in Vanuatu. Could he give the House an update on the present situation in that country? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for his question. I am sure that all members of the House would be interested to know the current situation, and I can answer that very briefly. Our High Commissioner was contacted this morning, and I am pleased to report that he reports to us that the situation in Vila remains quiet. Again I am sure honourable members would be pleased to share our satisfaction to know that Vanuatu Ministers have expressed their extreme gratitude for Australia's prompt and positive response to the request that they made. The Royal Australian Air Force Hercules arrived in Vila yesterday as scheduled and it unloaded quickly and effectively without incident. The material and the equipment have been handed over to the Vanuatu authorities, but so far, I am very pleased to say, it has not been necessary for that material or equipment to be used. Very importantly, I can confirm to all honourable members that no Australians were injured in the disturbances on 16 May. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Treasurer. I remind him that, since the stock market crash of October, the State Government Insurance Commission of Western Australia has been involved in several transactions with companies associated with certain well known entrepreneurs to such an extent that quite wide community concern has arisen. Bearing in mind that unaudited returns of this organisation are regularly, if voluntarily, forwarded to the Commonwealth Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner, I ask the Treasurer whether he has sought to examine these returns. If so, what conclusions has he drawn? If he has not examined the returns, can he explain why he has not done so? Mr KEATING —I have not encountered such a foolish question for a long time. Let me say why. I can understand the honourable gentleman wanting to have a swipe at the State Government Insurance Commission of Western Australia, if he so chooses. He should get up on the adjournment and do it under the standing order which allows that, but not try to address it in a question to me about an issue for which the Commonwealth has no constitutional responsibility. The Commonwealth and the Treasurer are not responsible for State Government insurance offices. Mr Howard —Ha, ha! Mr KEATING —Old giggle Gertie here may have a giggle, but that is the fact of the matter: we are not responsible for the State Government insurance offices. As far as I know, the State Government Insurance Commission of Western Australia is an entirely solvent body. So why should I be inspecting some return it sends to some obscure database in Canberra to see whether in fact its investments are of the kinds I think it should make? I mean, really! Dr CHARLESWORTH —My question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services and Health. I refer the Minister to a speech made by Senator Peter Baume at the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science Centenary Conference yesterday on the political implications of inequalities in health. Senator Baume warned in that speech about the potential health impact of service cuts in welfare, health, housing, economic services, programs for the unemployed and education. Can the Minister inform the House of the significance of Medicare and related Government programs as a basis for improving health and reducing inequalities in health in this country? Mr Tuckey —You have 40,000 on the waiting lists. Dr BLEWETT —I was fortunate to hear Senator Peter Baume deliver that speech and have also read it since, and I can recommend it for reading to all members of the Opposition, but, given his interjection, particularly to the honourable member for O'Connor, and also, of course, to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. In that speech Senator Peter Baume very skilfully articulated what we on this side of the House have always acknowledged: health is not just a matter of providing health services. As he pointed out, individuals' health is largely dictated by their social and economic circumstances; that is, if people are born into a wealthy family, they are more likely to have the life opportunities which would enable them to achieve good health, whereas if they are born into a poor family these same opportunities do not exist. That is something that the Opposition needs to be constantly reminded of, and it is something particularly-- Mr Tuckey —Nothing has changed. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker-- Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member for O'Connor have a point of order? Mr Tuckey —Yes, I do, Madam Speaker. I have a responsibility to the 40,000 people-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will-- Mr Tuckey —on the waiting lists-- Madam SPEAKER —I name the honourable member for O'Connor. Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the honourable member for O'Connor be suspended from the service of the House. Madam SPEAKER —The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion say aye, the contrary no. I think the ayes have it. Honourable members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! This is the middle of a shouting match. I have named the honourable member for O'Connor. The Leader of the House has moved the motion and I have put the question. Is a vote required? Mr Howard —Madam Speaker, may I have your indulgence? Madam SPEAKER —You may have my indulgence. Mr Howard —Madam Speaker, you have named my colleague on a point or order. You are responsible, as Speaker, for the proper conduct of this House, and one of the elements of the proper conduct of this House is to preserve not only the reality but the perception of equal treatment of both sides of the House. Madam SPEAKER —The Chair has named the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr Howard —Are you terminating my indulgence, Madam Speaker? Madam SPEAKER —I have terminated your indulgence. Mr Howard —Okay. Well, you have terminated the trust of this side of the House. Madam SPEAKER —The Chair has named the honourable member for O'Connor. The Chair has twice spoken to the honourable member for O'Connor today, and on many other days. The Chair then warned the honourable member for O'Connor. The honourable member for O'Connor then took the microphone on a point of order and started his shouting across the table. The Chair will not put up with it and the House should not put up with it. Mr Howard —I take the point of order, Madam Speaker, that every day you allow on the Government side a stretching of the rules-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. He is totally out of order. The Chair has named the honourable member for O'Connor and has asked the Opposition: Does it require a division? Mr Howard —You are forfeiting the respect of this side of the House. Madam SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition will not reflect upon the Chair. Does the Opposition require a division? Mr Howard —Yes. Madam SPEAKER —The House will divide. Ring the bells. Question put: That the motion (Mr Beazley's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 56 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A.Beazley, K. C. Johns, G. T.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Kerr, D. J. C.Brumby, J. M. Klugman, R. E.Campbell, G. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Charles, D. E. Langmore, J. V.Charlesworth, R. I. Lavarch, M. H.Chynoweth, R. L. Lee, M. J.Cleeland, P. R. Lindsay, E. J.Cohen, B. McHugh, J.Courtice, B. W. McLeay, LeoCrawford, M. C. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Dubois, S. C. O'Keefe, N. P.Duffy, M. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Sawford, R. W.Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D.Gorman, R. N. J. Sciacca, C.Grace, E. L. Scott, J. L.Griffiths, A. G. Simmons, D. W.Hand, G. L. Snow, J. H.Harvey, E. R. Snowdon, W. E.Hawke, R. J. L. Staples, P. R.Holding, A. C. Theophanous, A. C.Hollis, C. Tickner, R. E.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. Willis, R.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W. Adermann, A. E. Lloyd, B.Aldred, K. J. McArthur, F. S.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McGauran, P. J.Beale, J. H. MacKellar, M. J. R.Blunt, C. W. Macphee, I. M.Braithwaite, R. A. Miles, C. G.Brown, N. A. Millar, P. C.Burr, M. A. Moore, J. C.Cadman, A. G. Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Donald Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ewen Porter, J. R.Carlton, J. J. Pratt, M. P.Cobb, M. R. Prosser, G. D.Cowan, D. B. Reith, P. K.Dobie, J. D. M. Robinson, IanDowner, A. J. G. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shack, P. D.Fischer, Tim Sharp, J. R.Fisher, Peter Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Halverson, R. G. Sullivan, K. J.Hawker, D. P. M. Taylor, W. L.Hewson, J. R. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Howard, J. W. Wilson, I. B. C.Jull, D. F. Woods, R. L.Katter, R. C. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor is suspended from the service of the House for a period of 24 hours. The honourable member for O'Connor thereupon withdrew from the chamber. Dr BLEWETT —Madam Speaker, as I was pointing out when that intervention took place, Senator Peter Baume had a clear idea about the nature of health inequalities that develop in our society. He pointed out-and I agree-that although by international comparisons Australia is one of the healthiest of nations in the world, our society still has significant and stark inequalities in health status-between working class and executives, between men and women, between ethnic and non-ethnic, and most specifically between Aborigines and non-Aborigines. Already this Government has done much to overcome those health inequalities. Medicare is the most obvious of those reforms. It is universal, so no-one is denied essential health care because of cost. Its payment is based on payment according to means and it provides equality to access to Australia's medical and hospital services. Medicare is an important component of the social wage. If the Opposition bothered to read the report on Medicare of the Economic Planning Advisory Council, it would see that the report pointed out the advantages that Medicare has brought to the less well off in this community. However, providing successful health services is not sufficient. As Senator Peter Baume pointed out, and this Government knows, good health is not simply dependent on one government department. The achievements of this Government in the family assistance package, in the elimination of poverty traps, in increased resources in public housing, in the massive expansion of child care, in the creation of one million new jobs, and in the reform of education to better match employment and career opportunities have all contributed to health in this society. As Senator Peter Baume recognises, they all contribute to better health. Not only does the potential for better health exist when the social structure is changed, lifestyle opportunities are improved, and the circle of poverty is broken but so does the incentive to those who have been less well off in society. More needs to be done, and the Government acknowledges that, but much has been achieved by this Government. The Opposition talks about massive cuts in expenditure; the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has supported expenditure cuts of $2.5 billion. Where will those cuts come from? They will come from those areas that benefit the poor and the needy. The cuts suggested by the Opposition will come from health, from housing, from social security and from education. They have been identified by the Business Council of Australia. That is where those cuts will be made, and that will add to inequality in our society and to ill health. Again I leave the Opposition with the words of Senator Peter Baume, a most perceptive Opposition commentator: Those who may wish to move Australia in a different political or economic direction must understand that it is not acceptable to give large tax cuts for the better off, if they are to be financed by cuts in services to the most needy and the poorest. Mr MOORE —I refer the Attorney-General to the voluntary provision of unaudited returns by public sector insurance agencies to the Commonwealth Insurance and Superannuation Commission-that obscure data base. In reference to the fact that the National Companies and Securities Commission is currently undertaking an investigation of the circumstances surrounding the purchase of 40 per cent of Bell Group Ltd by the Western Australian State Government Insurance Commission and the Bond Corporation, I ask the Attorney-General: Has he sought from the Treasurer or the obscure database any of the returns from the Western Australian State Government Insurance Commission which may assist him in his assessment of the NCSC's investigation of the SGIC and Bond Corporation deal? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, I have not sought any information from the Treasurer for the very good reason, as I told the honourable member yesterday, that I still have not got the information from the NCSC. Mr Howard —You sit on your hands. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I do not have to sit on my hands. The members of the Opposition are very difficult. They know that there is an arrangement which I do not think is very satisfactory from the point of view of accountability. I make it very clear that the NCSC is not accountable to any Minister. The question asked was whether the NCSC wanted to make any inquiries of the Insurance and Superannuation Commission. I am sure that it has the mental capacity to do it. Mr Beale —Haven't you got any initiative? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I will give the honourable member some initiative next week, if he will only pass the legislation, instead of sitting there making stupid interjections and barracking for a scheme that has got no accountability at all. Why do those opposite not look at themselves? I thank the honourable member for his third question too. The thrust of the question is whether the NCSC wants some information. That is surely a matter for the NCSC. It is a question of whether the NCSC wants information to satisfy itself about transactions taking place in Western Australia. All I can say is: it just shows the unsatisfactory nature of the position. I will be told as and when the NCSC wants to tell me what the honourable gentleman wants to find out. That is the simple position. It in no way relates to information that might be deposited under the Treasurer's portfolio. The information directly relates to the NCSC's inquiry. Has the honourable member not got that through his thick head? He knows that. It is perfectly ridiculous to have an Opposition barracking for a scheme that went out of existence in about 1978, or should have. The honourable gentleman boasts of being the architect of the scheme-he is very proud of it-and he is asking me questions as to why I cannot get any information. Mr Moore —I could get it when I was Minister. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member must have got something to which he was not entitled. As a result of the questions yesterday, let me give those opposite a priceless piece of information: the NCSC had a telephone meeting of all commissioners on 17 May and decided to do something. Mr CUNNINGHAM —Will the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business advise the House what action has been taken by the Australian Customs Service (ACS) about the complaints made by Australian Cement Ltd and Blue Circle Southern Cement Ltd about alleged dumping of cement from Japan? Mr BARRY JONES —The Australian Customs Service has examined the complaint made by Australian Cement Ltd and Blue Circle Southern Cement Ltd about portland cement from Japan and is satisfied that, prima facie, sufficient information and evidence of the threat of dumping material injury and causal link exist. The ACS publicly notified the initiation of formal dumping inquiries on 16 May. This action follows new arrangements for dumping inquiries adopted in September last year. These have already demonstrated their effectiveness. The present status of the cement case has been reached in just half the time provided for under the new arrangements. Customs has now begun its formal investigation into the allegations that the portland cement was to be dumped here. In the view of Customs there is sufficient information and evidence of the likelihood of dumping as well as the threat that material injury could result to the Australian industry. The case is a significant precedent because the dumping has not actually taken place. The first shipment has not yet left Japan. That is a very important precedent which I draw to the attention of members of the House. Customs, through its Tokyo representatives, will approach the Japanese manufacturers and exporters in the next few days for their evidence and submission on the allegation. The Australian importer Independent Cement and Lime Ltd, too, will be asked to supply evidence and lodge a submission. However, it must be stressed that the initiation of dumping complaints is the responsibility of industry, not the responsibility of government. But without anticipating legislation before the House at the moment, with the setting up of an anti-dumping tribunal there will be the appropriate expertise to speed up the processes where dumping is alleged and a prima facie case exists. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Treasurer. I refer him to his answer to my question of 9 December last concerning the reported large exposure of some banks which had advanced unsecured loans to certain companies experiencing difficulties in the wake of the stock market collapse. He stated: I add that the Government regards it as being very important in the wake of the stock market crash to keep the financial system liquid and to provide the right climate and the time for some of these large holdings to be rationalised. In view of the large number of transactions involving the Western Australian State Government Insurance Commission, the Bell Group Ltd, the Bond Corporation, Australian Consolidated Press, Mr Warren Anderson and others, I ask the Treasurer: Is this the rationalisation process to which he referred? Mr KEATING —I regard the honourable member's question as just another attempt to try to draw imputations about the Western Australian State Government Insurance Commission under the guise of Question Time. He referred to a quite proper reply of mine in relation to the stock market that indicated that the Australian Government did everything that other governments did to keep their domestic monetary systems liquid at the time of the stock market crash and to see that banks were not withdrawing lines of credit which would have collapsed companies, to the cost of many small shareholders who would have been left with much larger losses than they have now, or resulting in losses impacting on banks. The fact that Australia came through that period with such ease and, dare I say, with such grace indicates that the Government's policy was correct and that the bank's behaviour was correct. What the Western Australian State Government Insurance Commission does is a matter for it. Honourable members opposite are always defending shareholders' rights. Mr Moore —Yes. Mr KEATING —There is a doyen of the old Brisbane Stock Exchange. Mr Moore —You're a 1960s version. Mr KEATING —An early 1970s version too; that is right, we remember. Honourable members opposite talk about the Western Australian State Government Insurance Commission. We could just as easily be talking about Monaco; the Goodman Fielder options deal; the Opposition's Federal President, Mr Elliott; Mr Weisner; and the brains trust, Mr Scanlon. Have a look at some of their deals. Mr FREE —I ask the Minister for Employment, Education and Training whether he has seen reports of opinion polls which purport to show that there is some opposition to the proposals contained in the report of the Wran Committee on Higher Education Funding. Has the Minister noted that the polls to which I refer, as reported today, appear to offer entirely contradictory results? Can he say what this might mean for his consideration of the Wran recommendations? Mr DAWKINS —I have seen two polls which purport to measure community attitudes to the Wran Committee's proposal. One was produced in the Australian today, a Newspoll, which records majority support for the proposal broadly as outlined in the Wran Committee's proposals. Another poll released today is about something else entirely. What we can certainly say about that poll is that it has nothing to do with the Wran Committee's proposals and cannot in any way be seen to measure community attitudes to them. In the first instance, the second poll was conducted on the weekend before the Wran Committee's proposals came out and then again a mere two days after they were released. The poll asked questions about whether people agreed with the imposition of an up-front fee of $2,000. That is certainly not what the Wran Committee proposal is about. Secondly, the poll asked whether people were in favour of the imposition of a special additional new tax on students once they complete their studies. Again, that is certainly not what the Wran proposal is about. It is about asking those who benefit from a higher education to make a 20 per cent contribution towards the cost of their courses if and when they can afford to do so. The fact that it is collected through the taxation system is simply an efficiency and equity measure which the Committee has proposed. If one wants to measure community attitudes, one should ask questions along those lines and not ask questions that measure something entirely different. I raise no objection to the methodology employed by AGB McNair, which undertook the survey. However, I point out that the questions asked were those submitted by the firm's clients, and I shall quote from page 1 of the poll, which states: AGB face-to-face omnibus is a survey in which various clients submit their own exclusive questions. The Higher Education Round Table tried to predict what might be in the Wran Committee report and, quite simply, it got it wrong. This is evidence of something which I understand in computing jargon is called GIGO-garbage in, garbage out. If one asks questions that are garbage, one gets answers that are garbage. What is surprising about the results of this survey is that it was able to record only a 70 per cent opposition to the imposition of a new tax. I would have thought that if it had tried a bit harder with its questions, it would have got to 90 per cent or even 100 per cent opposition when asking people whether they would enjoy the prospect of a new tax. Beyond that, the Government is not even sure whether the questions accurately measure community attitudes to anything. When I received a copy of the poll results, I consulted another distinguished Australian pollster, ANOP Research Services Pty Ltd and referred to it no other brief than to give to the Government a commentary on the results published today. Without taking too much of the time of the House, I refer to what ANOP said about the wording of the question: All the questions are (or from the information available, appear to be) hypothetical and the sort of questions that produce negative ``knee-jerk'' responses. In summing up its response, ANOP states: The results are hypothetical and simplistic, and confused by the survey timing. The Government is interested in community debate about this proposal and, indeed, just today the appropriate Caucus committee decided to establish a special panel to work with me on looking at the details of the Wran Committee, as well as any other alternative proposals that may arise. In relation to this particular survey, not only have the members of the Higher Education Round Table wasted a lot of money but, more importantly, they do an enormous disservice to their members who are both students and academics in our higher education institutions. The Government is trying to establish a new deal for higher education. This is not a cost-cutting measure; it is a measure to provide new, additional funding for higher education, which will allow for its expansion in a way that most of the higher education sector has been asking for some time in order to reduce the queues of people who are unable to get into our universities and colleges. This measure will create more places; it will provide more funds for capital and equipment so that academics can better do their work of teaching their students. Of course, it will provide the Government with a capacity to offer more access through better support for Austudy, that is student assistance, to a larger number of students. These proposals are about new money for higher education-not cost savings-to be provided by those people who directly benefit from the system, if and when they can afford to do so. It is a new deal for higher education. Mr NEHL —Is the Minister for Community Services and Health aware that, following the Government's decision to reduce the margins of pharmaceutical wholesalers from 15 per cent to 10 per cent, these reductions have been passed on to individual family pharmacies, therefore threatening their viability? Does the Minister support this short-circuiting of the Government's intentions by wholesalers? Is he aware that even though the Department of Community Services and Health offered incentives to pharmacists to invest in computers to speed up the processing of claims under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme by submitting them by disc, payment from his Department is still frequently delayed, further threatening the viability of small pharmacies? How can the Minister justify setting a ceiling on pharmacists' renumeration when no such ceiling exists for pharmaceutical wholesalers and when there is no ceiling on the prices paid by small family pharmacists? Dr BLEWETT —I am aware of the issue that the honourable member has raised. Firstly, I point out that the matter was taken before the Pharmaceutical Benefits Tribunal. It decided that it would make no adjustment at this stage, even though the pharmacists presented that argument. Although I cannot interpret the reasons for the Tribunal's decision, it must be noted that there has been a big increase in pharmacy prices during the past 12 months, particularly a drift to higher priced drugs. Because pharmacists have a 25 per cent markup on all drugs, obviously they have had significant windfall gains as a result of those significant drifts in drug prices. Those factors entered into the Tribunal making the decision in relation to the point raised by the honourable member. In the past 12 months the Government has done much to improve the payment to pharmacists. It is now certainly much improved on what it was 12 to 18 months ago. However, pharmacists have helped very much in that because many of them have gone to computer systems that are able to link in with the Department. I am told that something like 50 per cent of pharmacy claims come in that way. There has generally been a significant improvement in payment times. Dr KLUGMAN —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. When receiving a well- deserved reward for helping refuseniks, in a speech last night the Prime Minister urged the Soviet Union to allow Soviet Jews to go to Israel. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is the policy of Australia and all other democracies that all citizens-and I emphasise `all'-should be allowed to leave their countries and to go to any-and I emphasise `any'-other country prepared to accept them on a temporary or permanent basis? I urge the Prime Minister to exert pressure on the Soviet Union and all other dictatorships to behave in such a civilised manner. Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question and for his parenthetical observation. I believe profoundly that a distinguishing characteristic of a reasonable society is that it allows its citizens unqualified freedom to leave their country, of their own choice, and to go to any country that is prepared to receive them. Any country that is not so characterised is not entitled to be called a free society. I can therefore give the honourable member the assurance that I and my Government will continue to press on the Soviet Union that it should allow those of its citizens who wish to leave the Soviet Union the right so to do. As I said last night, I believe it would be churlish of us if we did not recognise that, in relatively recent times, there has been an improvement in the attitudes of the Soviet authorities but that does not mean that we should rest satisfied with what is happening. Certainly I can say to the honourable member that we will not rest satisfied; we will continue to impress upon the Soviet Union that it should allow those who wish to leave to do so. The honourable member is perfectly correct and logical in saying that that is simply not a principle we would seek to see applied only in the Soviet Union. It should be applied to all countries, and it would be the case that, where that freedom does not exist, they are not entitled to be categorised as free. It is the responsibility not only of governments, I believe, but also of all concerned citizens to press upon such countries, including the Soviet Union, the necessity that they allow their citizens this fundamental right. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House) —Pursuant to section 83 of the Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Act 1984, I present the annual report of the Merit Protection and Review Agency for 1986-87. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect) —Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Dr KLUGMAN —Yes. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Dr KLUGMAN —I should like some of your indulgence, Madam Speaker, not in time, but in mentioning the matter, because I believe it raises the whole behaviour of this Parliament. As you undoubtedly know, Madam Speaker, although I do not know whether other people do, a letter dated 17 May, yesterday, was sent to you by four members of this House, which letter basically suggests that I have breached the privilege of this Parliament. Later there was a handout to the media on notepaper headed `Shirley Walters, Senator for Tasmania'. It stated: MEDIA CONFERENCE 10.30 a.m. WEDNESDAY 18 MAY 1988 SENATE COMMITTEE ROOM 5 Re: A matter of breach of parliamentary privilege by the chairman of the Joint Select Committee on video material, Dr Klugman, by wilfully causing to be published false reports of proceedings of the Committee. There is then a lengthy media release two pages long. I do not want to go into the details of it, although I will have to mention something about it. The Press or media having got to this conference on the basis that there was a breach of privilege alleged against me-and I was not told about the conference or any other aspects of it-late this morning I was given a sheet of paper dated today which stated: Dear Madam Speaker We wish to withdraw our letter to you of the 17th May requesting you to consider a matter of privilege against the Honourable Member for Prospect. We believe the matter has been resolved and we no longer wish to proceed. I did not participate in the resolution of this matter. Apparently the resolution of this matter is to get on the media and make certain allegations against me, which I will be happy to rebut. In very brief terms, the allegation is that I have said that certain things were carried by a majority on the Joint Select Committee on Video Material and that a recommendation dealing with the establishment of a category of non-violent erotica was carried by six votes to five on the Committee. I do not think anyone would dispute that that is a majority on a committee consisting of 11 people. The second recommendation was what the contents of that non-violent erotica classification should be, and that was carried by five votes to nil, with six of the members of the Committee not participating. I consider a vote of five to nil to be a majority; if people abstain, I think the others are a majority. Anyway, it is an argument which I do not think is terribly profitable for this House to pursue. It is certainly not a matter of privilege as I see it. My objection really is to people using the forms of the House-and I believe they are relatively serious forms of the House when one talks about breach of privilege-to get media attention and then withdrawing the allegation of breach of privilege. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs) —Madam Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member should approach the Chair on these matters. However, I shall accept his personal explanation. Mr CHARLES —I wish to make just one point. I was one of the members who were signatories to the letter. I wish to make the point that the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) left off at, and we will not want to debate the actual contents, as the honourable member for Prospect did not wish to-- Mr Howard —Go ahead; we will give you leave. Mr CHARLES —Just a minute. There was a point of privilege brought up in the Senate on which Mr President, if my memory serves me correctly, brought down a decision yesterday in which he said that it was a serious matter, but that the situation over there was not to bring it before the Bar of the Senate. In those circumstances, the members who signed the letter felt they had to do something. They had several courses of action to take. One was to raise a matter of privilege. That was done, with the calling of a Press conference and the issuing of a Press release. After the Press conference and the Press release this morning, it was felt that we had made our point-that the findings of the Committee had been misrepresented. We felt we had made that point. We then agreed that it really was not worth pursuing the matter of privilege and we withdrew the letter. I wish to make the point that at no stage did the four people who signed the letter issue the letter to you, Madam Speaker, asking for privilege as a stunt in any way, shape or form. Opposition members-Ha, ha! Mr CHARLES —Honourable members opposite may laugh, but four members signed the letter and three political parties were represented. At no stage was it a political stunt. We pulled it out for genuine reasons, but we thought that we had made our point and that the privilege matter should not proceed. However, it was brought up in the Senate. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is going beyond the indulgence that the Chair was giving him. Madam SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion. As the honourable member for O'Connor has been suspended from the service of the House, he is unable to propose the matter. Motion (by Mr Donald Cameron) proposed: That so much of Standing Orders and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Moreton moving forthwith: That this House condemns the Government for using the Australian Bureau of Statistics to further their social and political objectives. Mr Beazley-The motion is accepted. Question resolved in the affirmative with an absolute majority. Motion of Condemnation Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(2.59) —I thank the Leader of the House (Mr Beazley). I move: That this House condemns the Government for using the Australian Bureau of Statistics to further their social and political objectives. This motion of condemnation now before the House has arisen largely as a result of the exposure in recent days given to consideration by the Statistician's office of delving into the area of blood testing and even more recent surveys investigating the sexual practices of individuals in our community. I speak with credibility when I speak about the direction the Australian Statistician's office has been going in recent times. Besides, as the wording of this motion states, the Opposition believes that the Hawke Labor Government is using the Statistician's office to further its own political ends. If one examines the platform of the Australian Labor Party and the changes incorporated in its thirty-sixth national conference in Canberra in 1984, one finds under a section called `Longer Term Planning', words that say: `Deficiencies in the availability of information essential for responsible decision making will be corrected and the Australian Bureau of Statistics'-listen to this!-`will be strengthened to ensure that all relevant statistical information for planning is collected and published promptly'. This has been set down in the Australian Labor Party's policy platform. I refer to the household expenditure surveys as but one example of the role of the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). A household expenditure survey was attempted in Australia in 1910. A second one was attempted in 1913. After that, 61 long years passed before a household expenditure survey was set upon the people. In a household expenditure survey people have to tell everything about themselves in terms of every cent that goes in one pocket and out the other. It was the Whitlam Government, a Labor Government, a socialist government, that reintroduced the household expenditure survey which had been dormant for 61 years following the eclipse of the Labor Government of the period from 1910 to 1913. So excited was the Whitlam Government with its household expenditure survey that it introduced another one in 1975. The first one, in 1974, had been limited to capital cities; the 1975 one was Australia-wide. I mention that history because it shows that it is Labor governments and not Liberal governments that delve into the hearts and minds and pockets of people. The Fraser Government did not conduct one of those surveys. The next one was held in 1984. Who was back in power? Labor. That survey is completely in accordance with Labor's stated policy objectives. During the 1984 household expenditure survey the Statistician, no doubt at the direction of the Government, included questions which referred to income of a fringe nature-fringe benefits. Under the force of law, fellow Australians were forced, on the threat of a fine of $100 per day until they did, to cough up all the facts about what they earned through fringe benefits. There was such excitement in the Statistician's office that a few months later, in a labour survey, additional and more probing questions were included on fringe benefits. Some time after that the Hawke socialist Government confidently announced that it was going to introduce a fringe benefits tax. For a lot of people, compliance with ABS surveys amounts to throwing a noose around their necks. The Government is using the Australian Bureau of Statistics to further its own ideological aims. There is another survey planned for later this year-again being conducted in the time of a Labor government. I believe the Hawke Government-whether or not the ABS is compliant or acting under direction-is destroying the integrity of the ABS. I firmly hold the view that Australians everywhere have reached the point that they are entitled to think when the knock on the door comes, `What is this going to mean for me in the long term? What right is going to be taken away from me?'. I turn my attention to the recent health surveys. Not for the life of me can I understand how an organisation that was originally put together as a people counter and a fact collector could have reached the stage where it is acting not only as Big Brother but also as big doctor. It might well be explained by its staff levels. As I mentioned in this place yesterday, in the United States of America there is one statistician for every 18,178 persons. In the United Kingdom there is one for every 15,555 persons. Honourable members may wonder where I get that information. I had a 30- to 35-minute discussion with the American Statistician, Mr John G. Keane, and a 20-minute discussion with the then United Kingdom Statistician, Sir John Boraham. That is where I obtained these facts. When I say that there is one statistician in Australia for every 4,411 Australians and that that does not compare well with the position in the United States, the Australian Statistician jumps up and says, `Oh, Cameron's figures do not include all the other agencies which exist in the United States'. I assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that my figures are correct, that my figures for the United States represent all the agencies that work with the United States Statistician. So what do we have in this country? A great abundance of people-more than 3,500 in fact-who work for the Australian Statistician's office. I am not suggesting for one moment that the vast majority of those people are motivated by anything other than goodwill. What I am suggesting is that the abundance of people in the Statistician's office is allowing the Australian Statistician to have a work force which probably sits there week in, week out, working out what survey it can do next. As a result, we have a statistician that is prying deeply into the lives of the people of this country. I referred yesterday to a matter that was received with some mirth-a survey which commenced in March and which has run through to May this year relating to the bowel and bladder problems of various individuals in Australia. There were some five questions to people on that subject. With all my heart, I cannot accept that that is the role of a statistician. I cannot accept that people out there should be faced with a fine of $100 a day until they answer-if they say, `Get nicked! That is my business'. I believe that there is an utter misuse of the powers which were originally given to the Statistician's office. What is more, the ABS has not denied the recent claims that the Statistician was going to force people to have blood tests. The most it has come up with is to say that the examination would not in any circumstances be compulsory. I question its integrity and honesty in that response. Only on 31 March-I had written earlier about the bowel and bladder survey saying questions like these should be voluntary ones-the answer came back once again, because I have raised this concept many times: `Oh no, we are not going to allow it to be voluntary'. I believe that the ABS has gone wild. I believe that the people of Australia are entitled to jack up on it. The people of Australia are entitled to say, `I am not answering any questions until I have spoken to a Labor member of parliament on the telephone or been interviewed in his or her office'. I call on fellow Australians not to break the law and say, `No, I am not going to be part of your survey'-I would never encourage people to break the law-but to say to the Statistician's collector, `Come back after I have talked to a Labor member of parliament because at this point I believe you are being too intrusive'. I conclude on another aspect of the willingness of the ABS to get involved with Labor politics. Kate Legge, a journalist with the now defunct National Times on Sunday, wrote, on 21 September 1986: Treasurer Paul Keating is considering a proposal by the Australian Bureau of Statistics to expand its household expenditure survey to get more information on the distribution of income and wealth in Australia . . . The Australian Bureau of Statistics' proposal to expand the household expenditure survey has been put forward as an alternative to a separate wealth inquiry. The Statistician runs around this country saying, `Trust me' and-knock, knock-a sweet-looking lady at the door says, `I am here to help you. I am from the Statistician's office'. However, it is fast becoming, `I am here from the Labor Party'. That is the way the Labor Party is manipulating the ABS. The ABS is willingly being used to engineer this nation socially. It is an utter disgrace that the ABS should have offered any government an opportunity to get off a political hook. The Australian Labor Party was torn asunder by the wealth inquiry issue. There were those against it and those for it. But we learn that the Australian Bureau of Statistics went to the Treasurer and said, `We will do it for you'. In conclusion-- Mr Griffiths —Again? Mr DONALD CAMERON —Come the next election it will be a conclusion for the Hawke Labor Government. I take this opportunity to advise fellow Australians that the only way the Hawke Government is going to get the message that the ABS is being misused is if the ABS goes to the Hawke Government and says, `We have lost the cooperation of the nation'. I call on my fellow Australians to make it difficult for the collectors until such time as the Government is prepared to announce an immediate review of the role of the ABS, particularly in relation to its incursion into what is nothing other than hard ALP politics. Mr Deputy Speaker, you are one of the few Labor Party members in the chamber. I ask that you make sure that the Treasurer (Mr Keating), who yesterday was half smart in his reply to me when I first raised these issues, gets the message. We are not going to tolerate a misuse and abuse of a facility that has served this nation well in bygone years. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Is the motion seconded? Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(3.13) —I second the motion. The issue that is involved in the motion that has been moved by my colleague the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) is how much information the Government has about each citizen in Australia and the purpose to which that information is put. The Government has a history of collecting data about the citizens of this country. It begins with its concept of medical insurance. The Health Insurance Commission knows each health transaction of every man, woman and child in Australia. That information is available to the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett). We have seen how, without too much difficulty, it can become available to other people in the community. It has become available to other members of this House, to journalists and to police forces in dealing with very sensitive criminal matters. The Government's approach of building a personal database within the bureaucracy on each citizen continues. We now have a direct exchange of data between the Department of Social Security and the Australian Taxation Office with respect to the payment of family allowances. Every family in Australia that seeks the payment of a family allowance has its income records checked against the Australian Taxation Office. So somewhere in the bureaucracy-we are not sure who has access to it; I would like the Government to tell us who has access to it-is a database that builds up information on every family and child in Australia and compares it with the family's income. In addition, we have a swap of information for the proposal for eligibility for Austudy. That is the beginning of a database on students in Australia. The Wran Committee on Higher Education Funding recommends the introduction of a graduate tax. I would like to divert for one minute. If we are going to tax graduates on the basis of their education we will have to give the Tax Office access to their education history. That is another personal database. We will have to know what they studied, when they studied it and whether they passed or failed. Who will have access to that information? The Australian Tax Office. That will build on the data the Australian Tax Office will have when it starts running, within its own area of activity, the Maintenance Collection Agency. The Maintenance Collection Agency will have access to some of the most socially sensitive data available on any Australian-on his marriage and children. That information is also going to be held in the Tax Office. My colleague the honourable member for Moreton has correctly pointed out that only the Australian Labor Party has this insatiable appetite to build up a database on citizens. What is its purpose in building up this database? It is to give the Labor Party more control, more fine-tuning, more accuracy in the planning of its policy measures to govern this country. Increasingly, Australians are dissatisfied with the way this country is governed, and so they should be. The information that is being collected by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) is being collected with the full force of the law. One does not have the right to refuse an ABS request. One has to comply. And if one does not comply one can end up in gaol. That is the civil libertarian approach of the other side of the House. It is prepared to use the ABS, with that sort of compulsion, to get personal data. If one does not supply personal data one pays the penalty. The penalties begin with fines and end with a gaol sentence. The sort of data the ABS is collecting is extremely personal. The household expenditure surveys have only ever been conducted by Labor governments. The questions they ask are tantamount to a wealth inquiry. If we know how a family spends every cent of its income we know what assets it is likely to acquire, we know where its personal consumption preferences are and we know what disposal income it has left to save. Before introducing the fringe benefits tax this Government through the household expenditure survey, started to ask questions about the nature of fringe benefits remuneration available to Australian families. Low and behold, the next tax dreamed up by the Treasurer was a fringe benefits tax. Now the ABS, in its insatiable desire to do the bidding of this Government-because it, like this Government, likes to build up a comprehensive database on individuals-proposes to ask questions about wealth in Australia. The ABS in recent years has extended its activity into opinion surveys-not the collection of straight statistics. I wonder where the conflict of interest is there and whether the ABS is doing opinion surveys that have a political motive. It would be worth while if someone had a look at who directed that those surveys be conducted. As I said, the ABS proposes to ask questions about wealth in Australia. We had a major debate on this side of the House about whether there should be a wealth inquiry. Everybody on the other side of the House would have liked one. It was just a question of how much political nerve they had at the time. The proposal came up when the Labor Party was down in the polls and the nervous nellies-or perhaps the pragmatic Right or whatever they call themselves these days-decided that it was not appropriate to conduct a wealth inquiry. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) sat on the left wing, as he is prone to do, and said that there would not be a wealth inquiry. Of course, he knew that there was another way to get the data for the Treasurer, because the Labor Party is hell-bent on bringing in some sort of wealth tax. We face the possibility of the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Government statistical agency which is supposed to provide the necessary database for this country to know what is happening within our economic framework, being used for the political purposes of the Labor Party, and volunteering to do so. This raises a very important question-that is, the independence of the ABS and the power and authority of the ABS. I remind the House that the ABS is under the direct control of the Treasurer. Of course, the Treasurer, with his insatiable desire to raise additional income, would not hesitate to use the database being built up by the ABS on individual Australians to concoct new taxes. The real risk, based on what the honourable member for Moreton has said, is that we are building information on Australian families, on Australian wage and salary earners, on everybody, from the paper boy-if he happens to be selected for this survey-to the frail aged in our society, as to their income, and, potentially, what their wealth is and what assets they hold. That would allow the Labor Party to pursue its social objective of redistributing income and wealth. That is its social objective-not the creation of wealth, but the redistribution of it. That is its fundamental mistake. It should be trying to address the creation of new wealth, not the redistribution of wealth as it exists at present. The integrity of the ABS is being corrupted by the political motives and philosophical direction of the Government. The next question that we should ask the Treasurer (Mr Keating) is this: When will we see his wealth tax proposal? Will it be contained in the May economic statement or do we have to wait until the August Budget? Will it come up if the Labor Party is lucky enough to win the next election? I bet that that is its plan. It takes some time to plan such matters. Undoubtedly, the left wing is very keen to have this wealth inquiry conducted. Of course, it will not happen because Australians are already rebelling at the sorts of questions that the ABS is asking. Business has had enough. There would not be a member in this House who has not received numerous complaints about ABS surveys. Mr Chynoweth —I have never received one. Mr BLUNT —The honourable member is not doing his job. It is probably because he is so remote, as are the other Labor Party members. He is so remote that he probably does not even deal with the people who vote for him. He probably has no contact with business. I say to him that small business, medium sized business, farmers and big business have all had enough of the cost of preparing ABS surveys and the invasion of their business activities that those surveys represent. They are increasingly questioning whether they can give information to the ABS and be confident that it will remain confidential and not give a competitive advantage to their competitors. These are some of the questions that businesses are asking about the ABS. I guess that the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) does not speak to his constituency enough to realise that the problem with the last household survey was the stress that it placed on a number of people. People had to account for every cent of their income by detailing in a form how they spent every cent. Some people have enough difficulty coping with life-I refer to the aged, people living on a pension, those who rely on their relatives to help them with the chores and pressures of daily life-without having this household survey arrive on their doorstep. I wonder whether Government members have even seen what it looks like, how comprehensive it is, how consistent the answers must be, what questions are asked of one if the answers are not consistent, and for how long the ABS pursues one until the right answers are given. Can Government members not agree with me that the ABS is going too far in building this database? The other question that arises is what happens with the linkage of this data. The question has been raised in recent months concerning personal identification of the answers to census questions. I am still waiting for a definite answer from the Government in terms of the identifying number that the ABS admits to applying to census returns. This Government has no commitment to the privacy or the rights of the individual. We have seen its position regarding the identity card. It probably does not bat an eyelid that somewhere in the ABS there is an identifying number on every individual census return. I am still waiting for the Government to tell us exactly what has been done and what assurances can be given to the Australian people that there is no breach of personal confidentiality in census returns. Let us return to the household expenditure survey. Does the ABS put an identifying number on that survey? Can any honourable member on the other side of the House assure us that the individual data that a citizen of Australia provides to the ABS in terms of that survey will never be revealed to the public in a form that will embarrass him or his family? That was the assurance given by the Minister for Community Services and Health in terms of the health records of Australians held by the Health Insurance Commission. We have seen what happened to them. Service provider numbers on them revealed who was involved and what services were provided. Health insurance records were made available in a rape case in Victoria. Health insurance records became available when it suited the political convenience of the Government in terms of some doctors in Newcastle. Data from the Health Insurance Commission has been published in the Sydney Morning Herald. I wonder how long it will be before data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics is published in some newspaper in a way that embarrasses or identifies an Australian citizen. We have seen that records of the Department of Social Security are not secure. At one stage the entire records for Victoria were made available. They were for sale. Only at that time did the Department move to provide for the security of those records. The question before the House concerns the abuse of the powers of the ABS. The ABS has considerable powers to require any person in Australia or any business to answer its questions. The Government has not given convincing answers in terms of the Bureau's intentions to ask questions which would require an Australian to have a blood test. That is the ultimate invasion of privacy-to ask a question of an Australian that requires him to go along to a doctor, perhaps not even the doctor of his choice, have blood drawn and the necessary pathology tests done. Mr Griffiths —That is untrue and you know it. Mr BLUNT —If it is untrue, I suggest that the honourable member go to the Minister and get him to issue another Press release that categorically denies that a blood test will be requested, because that assurance has not been given. That is very important. I sincerely hope that the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths) is correct in that assertion because the one thing that I would hate to see in this country is the power of the ABS being used against Australian citizens in that way. It is bad enough to compel them to reveal their expenditure patterns; it is bad enough to propose to ask them what wealth and assets they have; it is bad enough to ask them a whole stack of personal questions; but to suggest that one could even consider compelling them to have a particular medical service undertaken is an absolute disgrace. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(3.28) —The approach that the Opposition has taken on this issue would be laughable were it not so damnable. While it certainly provides fertile ground for humour and political mischief-making, I will confine my remarks, hopefully, to an objective assessment of the contribution of the Opposition and respond in a way that puts on the public record the truth in relation to this issue. Let me, first and foremost, respond to the comments of the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt). In doing so I reflect on what one of his colleagues in another place, Senator Boswell, indicated in relation to the League of Rights and the impact of that organisation on his political party, the National Party of Australia. It is worth pointing out that Senator Boswell, in damning that organisation, took steps to damn the type of tactics that it has used to get about a message-often a reprehensible message-regarding what is or is not being conducted in terms of contemporary Australian politics. The type of approach that Senator Boswell-who is one of the parliamentary colleagues of the honourable member for Richmond-condemned is precisely the type of approach that the Opposition has taken in relation to this issue. Before I quote from a news release issued last Sunday by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), I implore the Opposition to restrain itself, if it can, from using Australian public servants as political footballs in what I believe to be a most damnable way. They are defenceless, they do not have the opportunity of responding and it does them no good to listen to members of the Opposition putting the proposition, either implied or explicit, that members of the ABS are in some way joined with the Government in abusing fundamental civil rights in this country in a way that is totally and utterly inconsistent with their positions of public trust. I think the Opposition ought to refrain from using those tactics and it ought to be condemned for the way it has used them today. The news release put out by the Australian Bureau of Statistics last Sunday, 15 May, is headed `Needless alarm on Health Survey' and it says, inter alia: The fears are groundless because the statements are false. The Bureau adverts, of course, to statements made by both the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) and the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) who quite properly was evicted from this place earlier today consequent on his juvenile and improper behaviour. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member shall not reflect on members who are not here. He might withdraw the allegation of improper behaviour. Mr GRIFFITHS —I am happy to withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker. I also make the obvious point that the eviction stands as eloquent testimony to the behaviour of the honourable member for O'Connor in today's Question Time proceedings. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I knew the honourable member for Maribyrnong would find a way to express it to his satisfaction and mine. Mr GRIFFITHS —I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your encouragement, if not your support. Mr Braithwaite —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I think the reflection that you just made was rather biased on the part of a Deputy Speaker. It was a reflection of your opinion on the matter under discussion and I think that should be withdrawn also. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If the honourable member for Dawson had listened carefully he would have known that I was saying that it satisfied the forms of the Parliament. Mr Braithwaite —You didn't say that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I said `to my satisfaction'; my satisfaction being the satisfaction that it conformed to the forms of the Parliament. Mr Braithwaite —That wasn't explained. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Well, it should have been apparent to anyone listening, and I thought the honourable member for Dawson might have seen the apparentness in it. Mr GRIFFITHS —I hope I am not interrupting an interesting conversation between honourable members who are using up my precious time. On a more serious note, and going to the Press statements issued by the respective members to whom I have just adverted, and the news release issued by the Australian Bureau of Statistics on Sunday, 15 May 1988, I quote the following paragraphs from that news release. It states: The fears are groundless because the statements are false. I can state categorically that the Bureau has never had, does not have, does not want and has never contemplated seeking the power to require anyone to have a physical examinations. It is hard to comprehend a more definitive statement from such an organisation in terms of the particular allegations that were made against it. Let me go on to a more serious issue and quote from the Press release of the honourable member for O'Connor who said, inter alia: The assistance that statistics provide for economic management is beyond question, . . . That is a fairly important weight being attached to the need to garner and collate information for broad public policy reasons, what are those reasons? Let me advert to one of them. Recently, in fact I think on 12 May, the National Heart Foundation of Australia-hardly I would have thought to be regarded as a co-conspirator of the Australian Labor Party in these outrageous allegations and which is regarded very well throughout the Australian community on a bipartisan basis-made an objective contribution to this debate. I may be subjective, but the National Heart Foundation certainly cannot be so accused. The Press release, adverting to the scurrilous allegations made by members of the Opposition, said: `These implications are completely untrue' said Dr R. L. Hodge, the Heart Foundation's Director. `The truth is that the Foundation and the Bureau have been discussing how we can combine our surveys to obtain better and wider information in a cost-effective manner. Compulsory testing of blood has never been proposed or even contemplated'. The most damning response to the Opposition's scurrilous allegations is that the National Heart Foundation, discharging what is clearly an important role in our community, has now found it necessary to withdraw from cooperation in this area, as a direct result of the Opposition's bringing its organisation into disrepute by misrepresenting, and indeed grossly and deliberately misrepresenting, its position. The end result of that ought to be obvious to every member of this chamber. To the extent that that cooperation cannot now continue, although I hope that position will be reviewed, the end result is that the fight against heart disease, to take just one example, will clearly not be advantaged. What does that mean for the people in the electorate of the honourable member for Moreton and those elsewhere around Australia? It quite clearly has the possible implication that it will be detrimental to the health of Australians. The Opposition can laugh that away. An independent, non-partisan and highly respected organisation, the National Heart Foundation of Australia, is being forced, because this matter has been brought into the political bear pit, to withdraw from involvement in these issues. That, of itself, condemns the Opposition, and it properly should condemn it. I refer also to a Press release in the Sydney Morning Herald of 18 May 1988 headed `Health row shows social divide, says professor'. It quotes Professor Tony McMichael. No-one is alleging that this gentleman has a partisan position in these issues, but he says: There was a serious lack of systematic information in Australia about differences in health status, health-related behaviour and access to health resources between different segments of society . . . Indeed this is not a controversial point because members of the Opposition, in a bipartisan contribution on important health policy issues, in fact endorsed the sentiment that the honourable member for O'Connor has endorsed, that there is a need to collate these sorts of statistics. We would literally be back in the cave if we were not to use this sort of statistical data for a whole range of public policy purposes. It would be absurd not to use it. But it is not an attempt, as the Opposition reprehensibly has tried to colour it, to engage anyone in compulsory physical examinations. That sort of approach would make the League of Rights blush, in my view, and it reflects very badly on a discredited and divided Opposition, that with all the momentous issues around today, it has to come into this House and push this utter garbage. I do not get upset very often in this chamber, but I believe this is really plumbing the depths. The way the Opposition has conducted this attempt to smear, mislead and importantly, to scare people, reflects extraordinarily badly on it. The honourable member for Moreton, in his contribution, implied quite clearly that anyone who is going to engage themselves in responding to ABS surveys is `putting a noose around his neck'. That sort of garbage is beyond the honourable member for Moreton. He ought not to demean himself, and particularly ought not to demean this chamber, by implying that any response to ABS surveys will be used against individuals. That is a disgraceful way for the honourable member to conduct himself in this chamber. In the short time available to me, I shall respond to the specific matters raised by the honourable member in his Press release. He said: For the Bureau to claim that submissions to force Australians to take blood tests and to divulge their sex life are only part of discussion papers is nothing more than they're taking fright. As I said earlier, that reflects badly on the professional competence and standing of the public servants in the ABS to whom the honourable member was referring. It is interesting to note that they have little opportunity to respond to those allegations. Let me make the following responses to the specific allegations made by the honourable member. As I indicated earlier on the record, the first point is that the ABS has clearly and without question thrown those allegations out the door on any objective and impartial understanding. The second point, made explicitly by the ABS, was that blood tests would not and could not be compulsory. The ABS pointed out that it had made no decisions about the content of the survey. This is known to the honourable member for Moreton and the honourable member for Richmond. Both are clearly aware of that position, yet they continue this charade and their disgraceful behaviour in this chamber. Thirdly, the documents being quoted are a wish list from users and clearly do not represent ABS policy. Anyone is entitled to go to the ABS and ask it to collate certain information, but one would have to take a quantum leap from that position to then imply that the ABS would simply embrace any suggestion regardless of its merits and propriety. That is not the case and it will not happen. The honourable member for Moreton said that the Bureau threatens people with a $100 a day fine. I invite the honourable member to use his limited research capacity to find out on how many occasions in the history of the Federation that $100 fine has been used and in what circumstances. I can tell him that it is only where there is almost wilful obstruction. It is not an issue, and it demeaned the honourable member for him to put it to the House today. The comparison with the 3,500-plus staff to whom the honourable member referred is invalid. Clearly it was from someone who not only does not understand statistics and statistical surveys but also cannot even make a comparative analysis between organisations embracing different roles. The essence of it is that the ABS is a centralised agency, but the agency in the United Kingdom is more decentralised with different roles and numbers. As my time has almost expired, I shall conclude on this note. The public record now has the Opposition damned because of its embracing of the gutter tactics of the League of Rights, which, on the admission of the National Party, has infiltrated that component of the Opposition. This reflects badly on the Opposition. It is fertile ground for humour, as I indicated at the outset, but it saddens me and it ought not be allowed to continue. I move: That the question be now put. Question resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the motion (Mr Donald Cameron's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 76 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 23 —— Adermann, A. E. McArthur, F. S.Aldred, K. J. McGauran, P. J.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Beale, J. H. Macphee, I. M.Blunt, C. W. Miles, C. G.Braithwaite, R. A. Millar, P. C.Brown, N. A. Moore, J. C.Burr, M. A. Nehl, G. B.Cadman, A. G. Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Donald Porter, J. R.Cameron, Ewen Pratt, M. P.Carlton, J. J. Prosser, G. D.Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDowner, A. J. G. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shack, P. D.Fischer, Tim Sharp, J. R.Fisher, Peter Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Halverson, R. G. Sullivan, K. J.Hawker, D. P. M. Taylor, W. L.Hewson, J. R. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C.Jull, D. F. Woods, R. L.Katter, R. C. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Lloyd, B. Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A.Beddall, D. P. Johns, G. T.Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Kerr, D. J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lavarch, M. H.Charlesworth, R. I. Lee, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J.Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J.Cohen, B. Martin, S. P.Courtice, B. W. Milton, P.Crawford, M. C. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. O'Keefe, N. P.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dubois, S. C. Price, L. R. S.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Sawford, R. W.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Sciacca, C.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Snowdon, W. E.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Harvey, E. R. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. Wright, K. W. Hall, Steele Duncan, P.Spender, J. M. Fatin, W. F.Cameron, Ian Hayden, W. G. Question so resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Before the debate is resumed on the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this Bill and the Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) Bill and the Constitution Alteration (Rights and Freedoms) Bill. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(3.54) —Before the suspension of the sitting for lunch, I said that the Government had the will to persevere with the need for changes to the Constitution-changes that had been accepted by the Opposition until today. Now the Opposition has gone further down the road of self-destruction. It has turned back on its own policies and its leaders on these matters, just as it did on the consumption tax and the television ownership issues. The referendum is a test for the Government which the Government has passed; it is a test for the Opposition which the Opposition has failed. It is also a test for the people. It tests the ability of the people to look at the questions properly. Gone are the days when people did not vote Yes because it had more letters than no. Gone are the days when people invariably thought, `When in doubt, vote No'. I believe that times are changing. The number of people going to year 12 is twice as high as it was five years ago, and people who were not particularly interested in referenda questions now look at them and make a decision on the basis of the knowledge they have developed. We need to look at these questions sensibly, particularly the question of local government. I believe that the Opposition has failed to do this. Alderman Hope Marland of Queanbeyan City Council and a former Liberal candidate for the State seat of Eden-Monaro recently expressed her amazement and disappointment at the Federal Opposition's decision to oppose the local government recognition referendum question. She stated: Although there was strong support within the Coalition Parties for the Local Government question, it appears that a deliberate strategy has been adopted to oppose the package of four questions regardless of their individual merits . . . This attitude is an insult to the intelligence of the Australian voting public. The Federal Liberal Party's policy issued in June 1987 had made a commitment that the next Liberal Government would `examine', in conjunction with the States and Local Governments, appropriate Constitutional recognition and protection of Local Government in Australia. The National Party's policy at the same time unequivocally supported the Constitutional recognition of Local Government. Ald. Marland challenged the National Party Leader to reconcile the Party's decisions last night with his Party's policy. Not only Alderman Marland, who is a distinguished member of local government in New South Wales, but also the President of the Australian Local Government Association, has made some very important remarks in relation to the Opposition's attitude. The Local Government Association President has pointed out, quite rightly, that local government is in a good situation to recognise duplication in the community through various government departments, to recognise poorly designed programs and lack of coordination, because local government is on the ground. It has members and staff who are very much on the ground in local communities. As the President of the Local Government Association said, governments and oppositions should be doing more to support a trend towards local government having more say and more involvement in government activity that is close to the people. The President stated: Local Government will be disappointed to realise that those statements- that is, by the Liberal and National parties- are mere platitudes to be rejected as soon as it is politically suitable to do so. It is that approach to politics that led to the downfall of the Fraser Government and has kept the Opposition out of government ever since. We have four tests, four questions which are being put to the people. The Government has passed the test and has introduced sensible, non-party political questions. The Opposition has failed the test. It is thrashing about miserably, trying to find its identity, and in doing so is blowing with the wind, often finding that the wind changes, and it will change again in this case because the people will pass the test if support groups throughout the community take the lead in the debate. I strongly urge organisations such as the Local Government Association, those who advocate proper compensation for people for acquisition of land, those who advocate a four-year term for the House of Representatives, those who support the rights of people to reasonably frequent regular elections, those who support one vote one value and the right to other freedoms such as the freedom of religion, to get behind the questions. Even though those things are taken for granted in many States, they are not enshrined in our Constitution and they need to be. I support the legislation. Mr WILSON(Sturt)(3.58) —I rise to take part in this debate because during my career in this Parliament I have taken a particular interest in the constitutional development of our nation. I rise to comment on two of the Bills before us with a feeling of commitment to a deeply held principle that I have advocated over many years. Because I have advocated this view over such a long period, as a matter of integrity I feel that I must place before the House my strongly held views on these topics. The Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) Bill and the Constitution Alteration (Rights and Freedoms) Bill now being debated are designed to put to the Australian people four proposals for the amendment of the Constitution. I personally believe that the Constitution should provide for extending the maximum term of the House of Representatives from three years to four years. I personally believe that it should provide for fair and democratic elections, that it should give recognition to local government, and that it should provide for just terms for compulsory acquisition, the right of trial by jury and freedom of religion. But I do not believe that the power, influence and role of the Senate should be prejudiced and I do not believe that the constitutional prohibition of malapportionment without at the same time having constitutional prohibition of gerrymandering provides a guarantee of fair and democratic elections. I am sure that the intelligent Australian electorate will examine the four proposals on their individual merits. I agree with the reported comments of Sir Maurice Byers, the Chairman of the Constitutional Convention, which appeared on page 3 of the Australian of 13 May this year. He said, `The Constitution should be above party political manouevring because it is the property of every Australian and our heritage'. I hope that, in examining the very important issues involved in the four proposals to be put to the Australian people for their consideration, should they pass this House-as I believe they will, in spite of my concerns about the first and second proposals, though I am supportive of third and fourth proposals-the people will examine each of the questions very carefully, weigh them on their merits and vote in accordance with their belief as to the way in which this country should be governed into the future. I want to speak on the matter of the constitutional recognition of local government. I have been involved in this area as chairman of the Liberal-National Party committee on federalism in earlier years, as a representative the Liberal Party of Australia at the Constitutional Convention and as a representative of this Parliament on the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations while it was in existence. During that period I supported, with my colleagues, the concept of the development of local government into the third sphere of government within Australia-not a creature, in a derisive sense, of State governments, but a third sphere of government under a triangular arrangement whereby there was a Commonwealth Parliament to deal with national issues, State parliaments to deal with the concerns of the people of the States and local government close to the people to deal with local affairs. I advocated and supported, and my colleagues likewise, the concept that local government should be recognised within the Australian Constitution. We did that because we were strong believers, as I still am, in a federal system of government. Federalism works by means of divided sovereignty. This involves the distribution of both legislative and executive power between several spheres of government. In my view, local government should be one of the sovereigns of the Australian federal system and no longer a creature of State governments. One could say that the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory is a creature of this Parliament. Legally, that is true, but the Northern Territory self-government legislation has taken that Territory along the road of constitutional development to the point that I do not believe that any Commonwealth Parliament could effectively deny the self-government that has been conferred on the people of the Northern Territory. That sort of development is happening, has been happening and should be encouraged in relation to local government. Local government should be made one of the sovereigns, not a serf of State governments. Local government wants to be one of the sovereigns, it deserves to be one of the sovereigns and it should be invested with sovereign power. Australians are opposed to a system which places legislative and executive power in too few hands. They support the provision and maintenance of effective barriers to authoritarian control. They recognise that the checks and balances that flow from divided sovereignty are a guarantee of democracy itself. Throughout the world there is a wide variety of systems of local government. Local government is most significant in constitutional terms in those countries where it is an integral, autonomous and independent part of a federal system. To be a sovereign within a federal system, local government must have the power to legislate; must, through an adequate tax base, have command over the resources needed to make its legislative decisions effective; and must have the executive power to administer the laws it legislates. But, more importantly, its powers should be guaranteed in such a way that they cannot be taken away without its consent or the approval of its electors. Local government should be made a de jure partner in our federal system, a system of government that should be recognised as comprising the three spheres of government. It should not be subject to interference by, nor should its continued existence be controlled by, another sphere of government. It should be recognised not only in State Constitutions but also in the Australian Constitution in a manner which effectively confers on it powers which cannot be withdrawn by unilateral action. Only in this way can there be a genuine division of power between the three spheres of government. The constitutional recognition of local government proposed by the Government does not use the words that I would choose, but it makes sensible progress along the path of constitutional recognition for local government. Local government itself has pointed out that constitutional recognition will not centralise power. To the contrary, it will strengthen the system of decentralised, community based government. Local government has pointed out that constitutional recognition will acknowledge that Australia's federal system comprises three spheres of government working in partnership, and it believes that no longer will these sentiments be mere rhetoric. My Party, in election after election, has made a commitment that has been properly interpreted by local government as a commitment to find ways and means of giving constitutional recognition to local government. Constitutional recognition has been understood as being recognition within the Australian Constitution. We have given local government a clear expectation that we would find a way of recognising it within the Australian Constitution. It is mere sophistry now to say that we will not support Labor's referendum. As I said, the words used are not those that I would use but, if they are a token, they are a real token. The description `tokenistic' is sometimes used in a derisive, dismissive way, but local government, I believe correctly, sees the words, inadequate though they may be, not as a dismissive gesture but as a positive symbol. If they are written into the Constitution, local government will be given a stature and status that it properly deserves and that all political parties in the past have promised they would give to it. I therefore support the change in the Constitution to include the constitutional recognition of local government. I turn now to the fourth referendum proposal; that is, to change the Constitution to require acquisitions by governments, State as well as Commonwealth, to be made on just terms. Governments have the power to acquire; they should not have the power to confiscate. As part of the election policy platform on which I contested the last election, my Party had a commitment to give a guarantee that constitutional change would be proposed to enable the Australian people to say whether they wanted to reduce the power of governments, to take away from them the power of confiscation by requiring that their rights of acquisition be limited to a right to acquire on just terms. I, therefore, for reasons of longstanding commitment, propose to support the fourth referendum. I remember arguing in this House with the then Minister for Territories that the legislation that established the Territory Government in the Northern Territory should include the same constitutional restraint in relation to acquisitions as is imposed upon the Commonwealth Government. It was done then because the government of the day believed that all governments should be subjected to the same constraint, not merely the Commonwealth Government. If the people of the States want to leave their governments in a situation where they can confiscate property, so be it, but at least those people should be given the opportunity of determining whether they want to take away from their governments powers by which individual rights could be abused. Similarly, the changes in respect of freedom of religion and trial by jury should be endorsed because they expand the rights of people and reduce the rights of government. They do not transfer powers to government or transfer powers from State governments to the central government. Therefore, I shall support those two proposals. However, in view of the fact that the questions will be put to the Australian people because the Government has the majority in this House, I have decided that I will not vote against the third and fourth referendum proposals, which, in the first case, is the Bill to give Australians the opportunity of voting for the constitutional recognition of local government and, in the second case, is the Bill that requires that acquisitions by any government be on just terms and that guarantees freedom of religion and the right of trial by jury. I shall not vote for the legislation that will put those questions before the Australian people. But when the referendums are before the people, I shall vote Yes on those two questions. I wish now to speak about the Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill. As I mentioned earlier, in my view that Bill is totally deficient. It seeks to make malapportionment unconstitutional by requiring, as the Americans would say, `equipopulous' electorates. However, it fails to make unconstitutional the gerrymandering of electorates; it fails to require that boundaries must be drawn in a fair way. Malapportionment and gerrymandering are two techniques that are wed to give unwarranted political leverage. Malapportionment and gerrymandering achieve the same basic evil-minority rule. When malapportionment was found to be unconstitutional under the Constitution of the United States of America, gerrymandering was resorted to with growing frequency. It is for that reason that I regard the proposal of the present Government as being totally inadequate for it does not address the question of gerrymandering. The inventive cartography that is used to muffle and muzzle oppositions, and which is made much easier with the use of computers in developing proposals and plans for the allocation and location of electoral boundaries, results in discrimination against a political party. That discrimination becomes discrimination against the set of voters which that party represents. Gerrymandered electorates set up a self-perpetuating system. It makes it very difficult for voters to throw out a party, so by drawing the lines a party perpetuates its majority and by that means it can again draw the lines. Until there was a massive swing in New South Wales, that action was happening in that State and it is happening in my own State, South Australia. In that State it happens in a situation where electoral commissioners are quoted as saying, `We think we should concentrate on communities of interest and let the voting patterns follow as a consequence'. Letting the voting patterns follow as a consequence makes it easy to manipulate electoral boundaries in the traditional gerrymander. The abolition of malapportionment will in no way overcome the true gerrymander. If we are to have a referendum that guarantees Australian people the right to fair elections, we should not falsely create the perception that an objective has been achieved when by doing only half the job, the potential dangers for the Australian people are actually increased and the opportunity of fair elections is denied. In my view it is possible to establish a judicially manageable standard to determine whether a redistribution involves a gerrymander-one vote may have one value for electing a member of parliament but not when determining the party that should govern. The Australian people have as much interest in one vote having one value in determining the party that should govern as they have in one vote having one value in determining the member who will represent them. I would have hoped that a Labor Party that has professed concern for fairness in electoral systems would have done a comprehensive and sensible job and put into this proposal a requirement that the electoral boundaries be sensitively drawn so that the outcomes of elections on the basis of a two-party preferred vote would result in a change of government in favour of the party that polls 50 per cent plus one of the two-party preferred vote. Therefore, I am very critical of the referendum proposal that goes under the guise of achieving a fair electoral system. If we go down the American track, the pretence of achieving that will result in a more sinister, subtle and, in terms of democracy, dangerous system that entrenches in power minority governments. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(4.17) —It gives me much pleasure to speak in support of the Constitution alteration Bills. The problem is that the successful passing of the four referenda proposals by the Australian people will be made far more difficult as a result of the opportunistic and narrow-minded opposition to the proposals by the Liberal and National parties. The first of the constitutional amendments proposes four-year maximum terms for both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The second amendment provides a constitutional guarantee of one vote one value for all House of Representatives, State and territorial electoral boundaries. The third amendment guarantees trial by jury, extends to the States the prohibition on interference with religious freedom and ensures that government acquisition of private property be on just terms. The fourth amendment provides for the constitutional recognition of local government. The four amendments are eminently reasonable and practical. Apart from the inclusion of a suggested four-year term for senators, the amendments were given full support by the Constitutional Commission. It is important to note that the Constitutional Commission was established by the Federal Government on 19 December 1986 to consider possible amendments to a Constitution that is 100 years out of date. The Commission comprised six eminent and highly respected Australians, namely, Sir Maurice Byers, the Chairman of the Commission, Professor Enid Campbell, the Hon. Sir Rupert Hamer, the Hon. Mr Justice J. L. Toohey, the Hon. E. G. Whitlam and Professor Leslie Zines. The Commission was assisted by five advisory committees comprising 37 people from a wide range of backgrounds who have achieved distinction in various fields of Australian life. Despite the distinction and experience of those people, the Liberal-National Party coalition in parliament has seen fit to announce its total opposition to the constitutional amendments on grounds which can be described only as political expediency and bigotry of the worst kind, coupled with a complete lack of intellectual vigour or understanding of the urgent need to amend the Australian Constitution to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century. It is one of the great tragedies of this Parliament that, at a time when Australia needs statesmanship rather than party political gamesmanship, it is faced with an Opposition in which, while some individuals show their unhappiness with their Party's position-and I should acknowledge the last contribution from the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson), which was a statesmanlike contribution; I did not agree with all that he had to say, but I certainly admired his sincerity-the majority are opposing with sterile and unimaginative arguments. Of course, this is not the first time we have seen the conservatives oppose constitutional amendments sponsored by a Labor government which were both practicable and beneficial to the Australian people. On 18 May 1974 and on 1 December 1984 constitutional amendments were proposed which would have ensured that Senate elections were held at the same time as House of Representatives elections. The proposals were defeated as a result of Liberal-National Party opposition. What was worse, they also ensured the defeat of the same proposition on 18 May 1977, despite its sponsorship by their own Government, all on the basis of the same erroneous argument that they are using against the four-year term proposal-that the power of the Senate would be reduced by such a change. That argument is untrue; all the political commentators have shown it to be untrue, yet the Opposition persists in its untenable position of opposition. It is this kind of obduracy which has resulted in only eight of the 36 constitutional amendments which have been proposed to the people since Federation actually succeeding. However, I do not want to rest the case on my opinion alone. I would now like to turn to the views of the Constitutional Commission, which, as I have pointed out, have been based on the experience of many eminent and notable Australians. The two volumes of the first report published in April provide interesting reading. I wonder how many members of the Opposition have actually read what the Commission had to say. Let us look at what it had to say in regard to four-year terms. I quote from page 339 of the report: All State legislatures except Queensland have changed to a four year system and it is the Federal Parliament which is now out of step. Tasmania extended the term of its lower House to a maximum of four years in 1973, New South Wales in 1981, Victoria in 1984, South Australia in 1985 and Western Australia in 1987. In each case, State parliamentarians have seen four years as the optimum maximum period for the life of a Parliament. In New South Wales, where the amendment had to be approved by referendum, the proposal was supported by the electors with a 66% vote in favour. At the Adelaide session of the Constitutional Convention (1983) the vast majority of delegates, representing all major political parties, supported an extension of the maximum term. It continues: We do not agree that increasing the parliamentary term by one year would decrease parliamentary accountability. Accountability is dependent upon many factors besides frequent elections, including openness of government, debate and questioning in the Parliament and freedom of the media. Finally, it states: Further, the vast majority of countries with a democratic system of government have four or five-year terms. Of the 143 Parliaments . . . only 12 have terms of three years while another three have shorter terms, leaving the remaining 128 with terms of four or more years. Of course, I am aware that the Commission did not recommend a four-year term for the Senate, but the Commission also made it clear that it did not consider that option. The fact is that Senate majorities have been contemptuous of the will of the people, as represented by the popular vote in the House of Representatives, the people's House. It is high time that senators accepted the responsibility that goes with the ability to frustrate the will of the House of Representatives. The founding fathers had always thought of the Senate as the States House, but almost from the beginning of Federation it has been controlled by political parties. The Senate is as much a product of the party political system as is the House of Representatives and it is political pretension of the worst kind to suggest that the Senate is a protector of States rights. The Senate, for the greater part of the history of our Commonwealth parliamentary system, has been the protector of conservative power and privilege, and to allow senators to have eight-year parliamentary terms would be a retrograde step, particularly for a country which needs to radically alter its economic and social system so that the majority of Australians can benefit from twenty-first century technology. I turn now to the proposition for one vote one value to be enshrined in the Constitution. This would have a significant impact on States such as Queensland. Queensland has an electoral distribution system which means that a country vote is worth three times as much as a city vote. The Constitutional Commission, after receiving many submissions on the issue, came to the conclusion-and I quote from page 247: We believe one vote one value is an essential principle of democracy. It is fundamental to a sense of meaningful participation in Australia's democratic polity. The principle of one vote one value should be entrenched in the Constitution for electoral divisions where members of the House of Representatives or the legislatures of a State or Territory are chosen. I am aware of the arguments used by Queenslanders and West Australians to justify their maladjusted electoral boundaries, mainly based on the view that the interests of county voters will be ignored and overridden by the needs of the big city populations of voters. In my view, the Constitutional Commission, in referring to a judgment of the United States Supreme Court in a 1964 case-Reynolds v. Sims-covered this matter very well. The court observed: Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislatures are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests. As long as ours is a representative form of government, and our legislatures are those instruments of government elected directly by and directly representative of the people, the right to elect legislators in a free and unimpaired fashion is a bedrock of our political system . . . if a State should provide that the votes of citizens in one part of the State should be given two times, or five times, or 10 times the weight of votes of citizens in another part of the State, it could hardly be contended that the right to vote of those residing in the disfavored areas had not been effectively diluted. Mr Tim Fischer —How does that relate to Tasmania? Mr MILTON —I am asked how that relates to Tasmania and other States in our Federation. It relates to them because our Constitution was based on the Constitution of the United States of America. That is why it is relevant to Australia. Let us get down to the real facts. The honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), who is at the table, represents the National Party of Australia. The Queensland National Party Government is concerned only with holding on to power at all costs and not with the rights of Queenslanders, whether they live in the country or the city. I move now to the third constitutional amendment, which relates to the need for local government to be recognised in the Constitution. This proposal is one which should gain the majority support required for it to become part of the Constitution. There are 836 individual municipal authorities with some 8,000 elected councillors and alderman, and serviced by approximately 170,000 employees. The opposition of the Liberal and National parties to this amendment is the most difficult of all to understand. Local government representatives have long sought recognition of local government in the Australian Constitution as the third area of government. I have been lobbied by local councillors and local council officers from all over Victoria on this issue for some years and I have always expressed my strong support for the proposition. It is interesting to note that it was not until 1979 that Victoria was the first State to formally recognise local government in its own Constitution, with Western Australia following in 1979, South Australia in 1980 and New South Wales as late as 1986. Queensland and Tasmania have not yet given formal recognition to local government in their State Constitutions. In my view, the argument that recognition of local government as an institution with which the other levels of government should consult and negotiate would accord with the right and responsibilities of local government as a democratically elected level of government is most persuasive, particularly because local government is being required to support and finance many of the social and economic responsibilities which used to be the sole responsibility of State and Federal governments. Mr Beale —Your time has expired. Mr MILTON —Here is the honourable member who walked into the Commonwealth Bank in Blackburn and shouted out, frightening all the people in there, the employees and the customers, that he and his Party would take over the Commonwealth Bank and sell it. Mr Beale —Your time has expired. Mr MILTON —The honourable member will hear more about that later. He talks about irresponsibility. I was going to close my remarks, but I cannot let the honourable member for Deakin get away with that irresponsible act. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! Mr MILTON —I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker; I was provoked. I did promise the Whip that I would end my remarks and give the honourable member for Bennelong, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), a chance to get on with the political gamesmanship, which the Opposition is so fond of doing and which it is going to do now. I say to the Australian electors, `Listen to what the Leader of the Opposition has to say and you will find it a really clear exercise in political gamesmanship'. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(4.30) —I enter this debate to say a few things on behalf of the Liberal and National parties about the overall context of our approach. The first thing that ought to be said is that by no stretch of charity or imagination could anybody seriously say that the Government or the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) is in the business of trying to achieve genuine constitutional reform. There are two reasons why I make that charge. The first reason is that the Government made no serious attempt to get bipartisan agreement on the most important of the four questions that is to be submitted to the people in September. Undoubtedly the most important is question No. 1, which seeks not only to increase the term of the House of Representatives from the nominal three years to a nominal four years but, significantly, to reduce the term of the Senate from six years to four years. The honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) and the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) have already pointed out very effectively the essential deceit and dishonesty of the way in which this question is being put to the Australian public. It is not so much a referendum about parliamentary terms as a referendum to reduce the term of the Senate. Mr Milton —That is nonsense. Mr HOWARD —The honourable member interjects. The basic principle put into the Constitution about parliamentary terms was that the term of a senator should be double the term of a member of the House of Representatives. I ask the Attorney-General why he does not have the honesty to tell the Australian public that he is trying to overturn that fundamental principle. He had the opportunity. He could have had bipartisan agreement on this. Mr Lionel Bowen —I saw you. Mr HOWARD —I saw you. Mr Lionel Bowen —What did you offer? Mr HOWARD —I will tell the Attorney-General what I offered. We said we would support this measure on two conditions. He has invited me to tell him and I will tell him and the Parliament what I said. One condition was that there should be a corresponding increase in the term of the Senate. The second was that I offered Liberal-National Party support for a further amendment to provide that if the Senate sent the Representatives packing to the people it would have to go as well. The Attorney-General rejected those two conditions that we offered because-- Mr Lionel Bowen —What about the five years for both? Mr HOWARD —What happened then? The Attorney-General said he would go away and think about it and I said I would go away and think about the five years proposal, and that evening the Attorney-General made an announcement. I know the Attorney-General is very sensitive about it. He made an announcement. He is so serious about bipartisan agreement that within four hours of that discussion, with the understanding that we would each consult our respective parties, the Attorney-General made an announcement unilaterally terminating any hope of getting bipartisan agreement. So he should not come into this Parliament and start lecturing me. Mr Lionel Bowen —You are making a defence from the dock. Mr HOWARD —Oh? If ever there were the body language of somebody in the dock it is from the Attorney-General, the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith, at present. He is not seriously interested in having bipartisan agreement on this. He is really not. He knows as well as I do that the spirit of the Constitution is that the term of the Senate is twice the term of the House of Representatives. He also knows that the reason why people want a longer term for the House of Representatives is not the existing constitutional provisions, it is that Prime Ministers on both sides of this Parliament-I admit that quite openly-have abused the facility to call early elections. That is the reason-- Mr Lionel Bowen —Both sides. Mr HOWARD —I said that. I do not deny that. One would have to be a very uncharitable person to suggest that the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is the only one that has gone early to Yarralumla, although he has a 100 per cent success record on that. He has done it twice and he has a 100 per cent success rate. The real reason why the public is attracted to the idea of having a longer term for the House of Representatives is not so much that people find three years-if it were served out-and six years for the Senate, as being objectionable. They do not mind that. But they resent the fact that since 1945 the average term has been two years. The Attorney-General knows quite well, given the disposition of politicians, that, if he were to put into the Constitution a term of four years for the House of Representatives and eight years for the Senate, in practice over the next 20 or 30 years we would end up with terms of three years for the House of Representatives and six years for the Senate, which, strange as it may seem, is precisely what the founding fathers had in mind. The Attorney-General made an announcement a couple of years ago about a referendum for a term of eight years for the Senate, did he not? Mr Lionel Bowen —No. Mr HOWARD —Oh yes, he did. He was toying with the idea of having that, and then he got cold feet on the proposal. I say to the Attorney-General that if he were not really intent on destroying the power of the Senate, or reducing the capacity of the States' House to act as a House of review, if he was not intent on destroying the check and balance put into the Constitution to protect the less populous States, he would have seriously tried to get bipartisan agreement on this first question. But he was not interested in doing that, and that is why this whole referendum package is a political fraud. That is why this whole referendum package betrays him not as somebody interested in serious constitutional reform but as somebody who is still on a sort of Whitlam vengeance kick. He cannot forget 1975. He is drawn back to it like a nagging magnet, like a sore tooth. Time and time again he has to come back to 1975. The reality is that the Attorney-General passed up an outstanding opportunity to have a bipartisan position. We are going to vote against that first question because it would significantly erode the power of the Senate, upset the Federal balance and undermine and weaken the position and power of the States. I move to the second question, the question so euphemistically described as the one vote one value, fair and democratic elections question. Government members nod their heads with great self-satisfaction. Let me say a couple of things about State elections. I am not very happy with the electoral boundaries in a number of States. I do not think the Queensland electoral boundaries are fair and I have said that. I will say it to any of my National Party colleagues and I say it to my Queensland colleagues. I think the electoral boundaries in Queensland have worked to the disadvantage of the Liberal Party of Australia in that State. I also believe that the electoral boundaries in New South Wales are crook. It took Nick Greiner and Wal Murray 52 1/2 per cent of the vote to gain office, and that is with the precious Labor Party redistribution. If the Government is seriously asking the Australian people to believe that simply ramming down the throats of the States through a constitutional referendum the same principle that applies in relation to Federal elections will cure gerrymanders in the States it is kidding itself. I utterly and completely endorse the concept of fair and democratic elections but I hold very strongly to the principle that the conditions governing elections for the States should be a matter for the parliaments of the States. It is not a basis of Father Bowen knows best and of the Federal Parliament knowing what is best for the States. Let the State parliaments decide. I say to members, particularly of the Queensland State Parliament, that if the members there after the next election are not happy with the zoning system let those who are not happy with it combine to get rid of it. That is the right and proper thing to happen. That properly respects and upholds the principle of fair and democratic elections but it also quite properly upholds the very basic and important principle in a Federal system of government that the electoral laws of the States ought to be matters for the States. If the Attorney thinks that is solely the view of the Liberals and Nationals, let me remind him of what Brian Burke, the Labor Premier of Western Australia, had to say in December 1985 when there was talk that you lot were going to do the same thing in relation to Western Australia, that somehow or other the Federal Government was going to intervene. He said, `Keep your grubby hands off it. There may be a case for changing the electoral laws in Western Australia, but that is a matter for the Parliament of Western Australia; it is not a matter for the Parliament of the Commonwealth'. The Attorney has brought down this proposal, but not because he has any highfalutin commitment to electoral justice. If he did he would not have been seen dead with his colleagues in New South Wales after the shonky redistribution that the Wran-Unsworth Government brought in in that State that forced my Party and the National Party of Australia to get almost 53 per cent of the two-party preferred vote in order to win government in that State. The Attorney and his pious colleagues should not come into the House and give us a lecture about what has to be done to achieve electoral justice in this country. We are opposing this measure for the good and proper reasons that I have advanced. We will be happy to continue to explain to the Australian people the basis of our opposition. Question No. 4 is seductive on the face of it. Who could possibly object to the idea of putting into the Constitution a guarantee of freedom of religion? Who could possibly object to putting into the Constitution a guarantee of acquisition of property on just terms, or of trial by jury? I put it to the House seriously that, quite apart from the political arguments about the Federal Government and the State governments, there is a very powerful and cogent argument that once governments and nations try to define rights strictly they run the risk, not of enhancing and expanding those rights, but of limiting them. There is a long history, particularly in the British common law tradition, which suggests that countries which have not necessarily been obsessive about defining rights in their Constitutions have in many cases produced some of the most liberal and democratic societies. Is anybody seriously suggesting that the United Kingdom is a less liberal, less democratic society than the United States? Mr Beazley —Yes. Mr HOWARD —The good old Minister for Defence says, `Yes'. That shows the mind-set of the people who sit opposite. The mind-set is that it should be written down and entrenched in some kind of pious Bill of Rights. The real guarantee of any democratic society is not to be found in the written words of its Constitution, it is to be found in the strength of its institutions, the freedom of its Press and the incorruptibility of its judiciary. They are the three great cornerstones of any really democratic society. All these apologists for written Constitutions who sit opposite-- Mr Beazley —You are a joke. Mr HOWARD —The shrill intervention of the Minister for Defence only encourages me to go on. The protection of democracy in this country is not to be found so much in the written words of the Constitution but in the strength of our institutions and the commitment of our people to those institutions. We could have, as the Weimar Republic had in the 1920s and 1930s, the most pious dedication to human rights and religious freedom. The words jumped out at one. Religious freedom was guaranteed under the Reich in the 1920s. But that religious freedom did not prevail when the institutions crumbled and the people went to sleep and were taken over. Is the Government seriously saying that the litmus test of whether one believes in religious freedom is whether one votes for this proposition? That is what you mob are going to say over the next three months. Honourable members opposite will run around Australia and say, `Howard is against religious freedom because he is against this proposal'. Honourable members opposite think they come to this debate with clean hands. They come to it as humbugs. Religious freedom in this country is not under attack. I do not get deluged with letters from people complaining about assaults on religious freedom. Have honourable members opposite forgotten that the reason section 116 was put in the Constitution in the first place was not so much as a guarantee of religious freedom but rather as a guarantee that there would not be an established church in Australia, as was the case with the Anglican Church in the United Kingdom? That is the lineage, the history, of section 116. The Government is going to try to graft on to that section a provision that will cover not only the Commonwealth but the States. Interestingly, it has omitted the words `to make a law'. It is now going to gather up executive Acts. Is it seriously saying that there is no possibility under its new proposal that executive Acts of government requiring some kind of religious observance, no matter how benign, might not fall foul of that provision? Can the Attorney give a guarantee that the High Court of Australia will not, at some stage in the future, give the kind of ruling that the American Supreme Court has given about prayers in schools? Mr Lionel Bowen —Yes. Mr HOWARD —We will be fascinated to hear the Attorney-General give us a guarantee that some of the most benign and inoffensive forms of religious observance will not be challenged by some group in the community because of the wording of this section. We are now going to hear Bowen, J, or Bowen, CJ, perhaps-there is an interesting silence on the Government benches-give us such a guarantee. Quite apart from the argument as to what the respective constitutional roles of the States and the Federal Government should be, there is a genuine argument, which I hold to strongly, and which I will have the greatest of pleasure putting throughout the country during the referendum campaign, that when we seek to write down people's rights we run the risk of limiting and retarding them rather than expanding them. The great danger with definitions is that we may not get it right, we may leave something out. The greater guarantee of freedom is to have free and effective institutions. That is the cornerstone, the real basis and impetus of our objection to issue No. 4. I started my remarks by saying that these referendum proposals were not born out of a genuine desire for constitutional reform. I am not saying that the Attorney-General may not, in some of his calmer moments, like to see some reform. But we must examine the conduct of the Government and observe its complete refusal to treat seriously its own Constitutional Commission. The Government attacks me for proposing the abolition of the Constitutional Commission. At least I was honest and up-front and said it ought to be abolished. The Government kept it going. It spent millions of dollars on it and then, at the critical moment, it took no notice of it. It came out with its proposals and took absolutely no notice of it. The other black mark against the Attorney, and the other thing that brands him as a humbug on this issue, a person who is not really interested in serious constitutional reform, is that he passed up a heaven-sent opportunity to have a serious bipartisan approach on this issue. The Attorney, the Prime Minister and their Party passed over the opportunity of having bipartisanship. The Attorney could have come and talked to us about the four-year term. He refused to do it. He is indicted. He is the person who tore up the possibility of bipartisanship and he deserves to lose each of the four proposals-which he will. Debate (on motion by Mr Cunningham) adjourned. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House)(4.49) —I move: That, in relation to the proceedings on the following Bills, so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the House making one declaration of urgency and moving one motion for the allotment of time in respect of all the Bills: Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill 1988; Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill 1988; Constitution Alteration (Local Government) Bill 1988; Constitution Alteration (Rights and Freedoms) Bill 1988. Having discovered that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) believes that the House of Lords is more democratic than the United States Senate, we have come to the point when we can usefully put these matters to a vote. Mr FIFE(Hume-Manager of Opposition Business)(4.50) —The Opposition strongly opposes the motion. Mr Lionel Bowen —I am surprised! Mr FIFE —The Deputy Prime Minister says that he is surprised. I am sure that he is saying that in a very cynical way. I want to say to the House, particularly to the Deputy Prime Minister and to the Leader of the House (Mr Beazley), that since the Parliament resumed after Christmas there have been occasions when there has been very little business. Indeed, one Bill that will be listed as being urgent was first listed for debate on 27 April. It was listed in the Notice Paper prior to 27 April, yet today, in the closing stages of the autumn session, the Leader of the House will have the audacity to say that that Bill, along with nine others, is urgent and that he will curtail debate. I also point out that it is the Government's intention to have one of the longest winter recesses in the history of parliament in Australia. Parliament is not due to meet again until 22 August. Another motion to be moved by the Leader of the House will do two things. It is important that the Australian people know this. First, he will break the 11 o'clock rule. It is the intention of the Leader of the House to keep us here until all hours of the night and perhaps early into the morning. He is going to legislate by exhaustion. Secondly, he is going to curtail debate on a large number of very important issues. They include: the Industries Assistance Commission Amendment Bill 1988; the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988-the one I referred to a moment ago-and the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill 1988. This piece of legislation is going to make far-reaching changes to the administration of education in the Commonwealth. Only about half an hour has been allocated for debate on it. The other Bills are: the Employment, Education and Training Bill 1988; the Interstate Road Transport Amendment Bill 1988; the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 1988; the Commonwealth Employees' Rehabilitation and Compensation Bill 1988; and last, but certainly not least, the United States Naval Communications Station (Civilian Employees) Bill 1988. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member for Hume is not speaking to the motion before the Chair. Mr FIFE —I am drawing attention to the fact that the Government, by this motion and by others that will follow, will severely curtail debate on very important issues, some of which the Opposition wishes to move amendments to. Some of those amendments are very detailed and complex and will require a great deal of time. The Opposition deplores the way in which the Government is starting to treat the Parliament. Yesterday during Question Time the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) asked the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) whether the Government still has under active contemplation a possible merger of the Commonwealth Bank with one of the existing private banks. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Again, the honourable member is not speaking to the motion before the Chair. Mr FIFE —I want to remind you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the Government is disregarding this House more and more. In answering that question the Prime Minister said: I certainly do not intend to use this forum to make announcements concerning the Commonwealth Bank. In other words, he is going to send us into recess early and bring us back late. In the meantime he is going to curtail debate. The Opposition strongly opposes the motion. Question put: That the motion (Mr Beazley's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr J. G. Mountford) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 53 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 25 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A.Beddall, D. P. Johns, G. TBilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Keating, P. J.Blewett, N. Kelly, R. J.Bowen, Lionel Kent, L.Brown, John Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Kerr, D. J. C.Brumby, J. M. Klugman, R. E.Campbell, G. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Charles, D. E. Langmore, J. V.Charlesworth, R. I. Lavarch, M. H.Chynoweth, R. L. Lee, M. J.Cleeland, P. R. Lindsay, E. J.Cohen, B. McHugh, J.Courtice, B. W. McLeay, LeoCrawford, M. C. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dubois, S. C. Price, L. R. S.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Sawford, R. W.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Sciacca, C.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Snowdon, W. E.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Harvey, E. R. Theophanous, A. C.Hawke, R. J. L. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis. R.Humphreys, B. C. Wright, K. W. Adermann, A. E. Katter, R. C.Aldred, K. J. Lloyd, B.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J.Blunt, C. W. MacKellar, M. J. R.Braithwaite, R. A. Miles, C. G.Burr, M. A. Millar. P. C.Cadman, A. G. Moore, J. C.Cameron, Donald Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ewen Peacock, A. S.Carlton, J. J. Porter, J. R.Cobb, M. R. Pratt, M. P.Cowan, D. B. Prosser, G. D.Dobie, J. D. M. Reith, P. K.Downer, A. J. G. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.Fife, W. C. Ruddock, P. M.Fischer, Tim Shack, P. D.Fisher, Peter Sharp, J. R.Goodluck, B. J. Shipton, R. F.Halverson, R. G. Sinclair, I. McC.Hawker, D. P. M. Sullivan, K. J.Hewson, J. R. Taylor, W. L.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C.Howard, J. W. Woods, R. L.Hunt, R, J. D. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Jull, D. F. Duncan, P. Hall, SteeleFatin, W. F. Spender, J. M.Hayden, W. G. Cameron, Ian Question so resolved in the affirmative, by an absolute majority. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House) —I declare that the following Bills are urgent Bills: Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill 1988; Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill 1988; Constitution Alteration (Local Government) Bill 1988; Constitution Alteration (Rights and Freedoms) Bill 1988. Question put. That the Bills be considered urgent Bills. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr J. G. Mountford) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 54 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 24 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A.Beddall, D. P. Johns, G. T.Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Keating, P. J.Blewett, N. Kelly, R. J.Bowen, Lionel Kent, L.Brown, John Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Kerr, D. J. C.Brumby, J. M. Klugman, R. E.Campbell, G. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Charles, D. E. Langmore, J. V.Charlesworth, R. I. Lavarch, M. H.Chynoweth, R. L. Lee, M. J.Cleeland, P. R. Lindsay, E. J.Cohen, B. McHugh, J.Courtice, B. W. McLeay, LeoCrawford, M. C. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dubois, S. C. Price, L. R. S.Duffy, M.J. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Sawford, R. W.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Sciacca, C.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Snowdon, W. E.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Harvey, E. R. Theophanous, A. C.Hawke, R. J. L. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. Wright, K. W. Adermann. A. E. Jull, D. F.Aldred, K. J. Katter, R. C.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B.Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S.Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J.Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Brown, N. A. Miles, C. G.Burr, M. A. Millar, P. C.Cadman, A. G. Moore, J. C.Cameron, Donald Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ewen Peacock, A. S.Carlton, J. J. Porter, J. R.Cobb, M. R. Pratt, M. P.Cowan, D. B. Prosser, G. D.Dobie, J. D. M. Reith, P. K.Downer, A. J. G. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.Fife, W. C. Ruddock, P. M.Fischer, Tim Shack, P. D.Fisher, Peter Sharp, J. R.Goodluck, B. J. Shipton, R. F.Halverson, R. G. Sinclair, I. McC.Hawker, D. P. M. Sullivan, K. J.Hewson, J. R. Taylor, W. L.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C.Howard, J. W. Woods, R. L.Hunt, R. J. D. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Duncan, P. Hall, SteeleFatin, W. F. Spender, J. M.Hayden, W. G. Cameron, Ian Question so resolved in the affirmative. Allotment of Time Motion (by Mr Beazley) put: That the time allotted in connection with the Bills be as follows: (1) Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill; for the remaining stages, including the third reading, until 5.50 p.m. this day. (2) Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill; for the remaining stages, including the third reading until 6 p.m. this day. (3) Constitution Alteration (Local Government) Bill; for the remaining stages, including the third reading until 6.10 p.m. this day. (4) Constitution Alteration (Rights and Freedoms) Bill; for the remaining stages, including the third reading until 6.20 p.m. this day. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr J. G. Mountford) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 54 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 24 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A.Beddall, D. P. Johns, G. T.Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Keating, P. J.Blewett, N. Kelly, R. J.Bowen, Lionel Kent, L.Brown, John Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Kerr, D. J. C.Brumby, J. M. Klugman, R. E.Campbell, G. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Charles, D. E. Langmore, J. V.Charlesworth, R. I. Lavarch, M. H.Chynoweth, R. L. Lee, M. J.Cleeland, P. R. Lindsay, E. J.Cohen, B. McHugh, J.Courtice, B. W. McLeay, LeoCrawford, M. C. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dubois, S. C. Price, L. R. S.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Sawford, R. W.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Sciacca, C.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Snowdon, W. E.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Harvey, E. R. Theophanous, A. C.Hawke, R. J. L. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. Wright, K. W. Adermann. A. E. Jull, D. F.Aldred, K. J. Katter, R. C.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B.Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S.Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J.Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Brown, N. A. Miles, C. G.Burr, M. A. Millar, P. C.Cadman, A. G. Moore, J. C.Cameron, Donald Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ewen Peacock, A. S.Carlton, J. J. Porter, J. R.Cobb, M. R. Pratt, M. P.Cowan, B. Prosser, G. D.Dobie, J. D. M. Reith, P. K.Downer, A. J. G. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.Fife, W. C. Ruddock, P. M.Fischer, Tim Shack, P. D.Fisher, Peter Sharp, J. R.Goodluck, B. J. Shipton, R. F.Halverson, R. G. Sinclair, I. McC.Hawker, D. P. M. Sullivan, K. J.Hewson, J. R. Taylor, W. L.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C.Howard, J. W. Woods, R. L.Hunt, R. J. D. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Duncan, P. Hall, SteeleFatin, W. F. Spender, J. M.Hayden, W. G. Cameron, Ian Question so resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed. Mr ALLAN MORRIS(Newcastle)(5.16) —What we are witnessing today gives ample support to the comments made in recent weeks by an American visitor about Australia being negative. The fact is that any change is easier to stop than it is to initiate and proceed through to success. We are watching an Opposition half-heartedly and disbelievingly try to find explanations, excuses and justification for opposing the mildest, most moderate and most constructive proposals ever introduced for referenda. The Opposition has found great difficulty in finding the logic or the strength of argument to justify its position and is resorting to cant and hypocrisy. We saw the spectacle of approximately 16 members of the Opposition missing during the division because they could not bring themselves to be placed on the record as having voted with the Opposition this afternoon. We will see this increasingly in the weeks and months ahead. The Federation fathers had great difficulty framing our Constitution, difficulty compounded by communication, by distance and by State rivalry. In the 88 years that Australia has been a Federation, that difficulty has shifted to one of political polarisation. Now all constitutional issues are seen as political issues, whereas they are community issues. The suggestion is that Australia has two communities that have totally different views on the form the Constitution should take. Frankly, that is not true and, furthermore, it is destructive to building the kind of nation that we want. It is understandable that visitors to Australia ask how Australians can be so negative about their potential, when the Opposition sees its role in life to oppose everything, come hell or high water. The community at large, watching and listening and trying to understand these changes, will no doubt be bemused, puzzled and quite likely angry at the perception that will result. The proposed changes, which are claimed to be so hostile and threatening, and the idea of four-year terms for both Houses do not appear all that terrifying. By imputation, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) is being made out to be some kind of Svengali, orchestrating changes that threaten the very foundations of the individual freedoms of Australians. What thinking or observing Australian would ever believe that? What kinds of changes are implied in the recognition of local government? This is a very mild and moderate proposal which at least places on the record that, as a nation, the third tier of government officially and formally has a role. If the changes were to spell out all the details and procedures of that role, perhaps people could feel threatened; but the recognition of local government threatens no-one or nothing, except perhaps the vested interests of the Opposition in how it perceives its role. Why on earth should the formalisation of the right to trial by jury be opposed? Why on earth should the Opposition see these referenda as political issues? The Constitutional Commission comprises a range of eminent, experienced and predominantly wise Australians. Why would one move from a broad-based commission to a total political argument? The Government has not chosen that position; it seeks to avoid that. As a country we are either frozen into a set of circumstances, a Constitution forever and a day, or we see our Constitution as reflecting current values that adapt, flex and change with time in the community. Quite frankly, if these questions fail, I doubt whether many Australians will ever again try to update the Constitution and the structures by which we administer the affairs of this nation. For the last five years we have tried to formalise relations between the States and the Commonwealth on simple matters such as the packaging of food and State preferences. In those five years we have actually overcome some long term in-built competition and perhaps conflict between the States. It has taken us five years; it should not have taken us any time at all. Everybody agrees that it was in the national interest. If we suggest that these changes threaten States rights, weaken the Senate or threaten the rights and freedoms of individual Australians, then quite frankly what we have managed to do as a parliament, with the Opposition Liberal-National Party efforts, has been further to degrade and devalue the role of this chamber in the affairs of the nation. Thinking Australians will reject the hypocrisy and the cant involved, and if they do not do that they will reject the role of the Parliament in the affairs of the nation. Those on the other side who question the standing of parliament in the eyes of their constituents can look to themselves to start redeeming it. They should vote, speak and campaign as they think on this community issue, not as they are being told and not as they perceive the political advantage. I commend the legislation to the House. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(5.22) —It ill becomes members of the Australian Labor Party to stand here as they have throughout yesterday and today and lecture members of the Liberal and National parties about voting on conscience. If there is one thing as sure as death, it is that a member of the Labor Party in this place will never vote on his conscience. Mr Shack —They will get expelled. Mrs SULLIVAN —That is right; they would be expelled if they voted in any way other than a Caucus decision. It is not only inappropriate, it is absolutely offensive to me as a Liberal to have that sort of sentiment expressed in this context. I suggest to members of the Government that the next person who gets up and says that in any debate ought to be somebody who has crossed the floor and voted against the Labor Party in this place. Mr Cleeland —But you are not Liberal; you are neo-conservative. Mrs SULLIVAN —One way of winning a debate is by changing the subject. The speaker before me, the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Allan Morris), was, with a bleeding heart, talking about how members on this side ought to vote other than the way that has been determined in the Party room. I have heard that sentiment expressed many times in the last two days by members of the Labor Party. I will repeat my statement so that the honourable gentleman can understand what the subject is: it is utterly inappropriate for members of the Labor Party-who have never done, and would never do, other than accept the imposed will of the majority-to suggest that members of other parties are unprincipled because they are not going to cross the floor on the suggestion of members of the Labor Party. We are debating cognately the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) Bill and the Constitution Alteration (Rights and Freedoms) Bill, about which four Bills there has been some speculation. It is quite common for governments to put forward a number of referendum proposals. It is not quite so common to have them structured as these four Bills are. I suggest to the House and to the Australian public that in these four proposals there is a hook, and that hook is the first proposal. The other three proposals are simply there as bait on the hook. I remember a newspaper editorial in a similar situation several years ago when the people of Australia voted in a form which neither of the major parties had recommended. They voted No on one proposal and Yes on three others. The heading on the Australian newspaper editorial at the time was, `They swallowed the bait, but not the hook'. The bait on this occasion is a proposal relating to so-called fair elections, a proposal relating to local government and then something termed rights and freedoms. But the real issue is the first Bill, the misnamed Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill, which sets out to absolutely destroy the balance of parliamentary power in this country. It is proposed under the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill that no longer would the Senate have a fixed term and no longer would senators' terms be double those of members of the House of Representatives-namely, a fixed term of six years. For 13 years the Labor Party has been trying to get the Senate; in fact, it has been longer than that. From the time that the Whitlam Government was first elected, referendum proposals were put to this Parliament and to the people relating to the Senate. For that length of time the Labor Party has been trying to emasculate the Senate. After the dismissal of the Whitlam Government in 1975 it became a manic obsession with the Labor Party. There are those, myself included, who were in the Senate in 1975 and who would entertain certain proposals in relation to the Senate-those proposals have been canvassed-to meet a number of the objections to the situation that was faced in 1975. However, at no stage has the Labor Party entertained any proposal other than one that would effectively destroy the Senate's independence and role in our parliamentary system. The proposal that is to go to the people this year is in that same mould. It is yet another expression of the Labor Party's determination to destroy the Senate. That determination preceded 1972. There was a long period when it was in the Labor Party's platform that the Senate should be abolished. The Labor Party knows that that cannot be achieved. Its objective now is to so emasculate it by destroying its independence that it might as well be abolished. This proposal would put senators at the mercy of the government of the day. The Senate, as a States House and particularly as a House of review, has behaved in a way in recent years which has made a major contribution to good government in this country. I know it is frustrating in government when a minor party or independents hold the balance of power. But I simply say that so long as it is the will of the people voting in elections that that be the composition of the Senate, then it is something governments have to live with. Senators have known, double dissolutions apart, that they have a fixed term and that they cannot be bullied by a Prime Minister seeking an election from a Governor-General on trumped-up grounds. They have that measure of independence. They know that the fixed term of the Senate is there as a brake on opportunistic early elections. The only way a Prime Minister can overcome the Senate's fixed term is through a double dissolution. The realities of politics in Australia today are that if a Prime Minister were to take only the House to an early election and the Senate, say, within the following 12 months, then that in itself would be reacted against by the people of Australia, who do not want frivolous and overly frequent elections. The Government might say that this proposal also provides four-year terms and this means that the public would not be troubled by so many elections. I only wish that I had ever served a three-year term in this parliament. From speculation that is abroad, the term that I am presently serving will also apparently be truncated by an early election. The hypocrisy of a government that is looking now, less than 12 months after the last election, at its options for an early election next time-suggesting to the public that this referendum proposal has something to do with less frequent elections! I also wish that in my time as a senator I might have served a six-year term. Some honourable members feel free to say that senators just want to serve a long term. I was elected to the Senate 14 years ago today, on 18 May 1974. I was re-elected in 1975; I was re-elected in 1977. I managed to skip the 1980 election and was re-elected in 1983. During my 10 1/2 years in the Senate, I stood for election four times and actually managed to miss one. So much for the sinecure of the six-year term! If we had had three-year elections, I would have faced fewer elections or spent longer in the Senate. The people would simply like to see the Government serve for three years and be satisfied with that rather than the two- or 2 1/2-year terms which have become the trend and which may now become even less, according to the present figuring of the Government. What have we got? The Government is dangling under the noses of the people the prospect of some rather attractive changes. It is suggesting elections every four years; it is suggesting fair elections; it is suggesting constitutional recognition for local government; and it is suggesting rights and freedoms. I like the ring of the last one. I am confident that the people of Australia will see this entire exercise for the hoax it is. As has been the case in the past on all occasions when the people have had put to them proposals which would emasculate the Senate, but which appeared under misleading and spurious headings, I am confident the people will reject this proposal. I for one will be urging them to do so. The second proposal seeks to put into the Constitution conditions which currently apply to House of Representatives electoral distributions and to extend them to the States. I cannot vote against that proposal. However, I regret that even the proposal as put forward will not do the flowery, fancy and wonderful things for democracy that have been suggested by Government members today. It will not ensure fair elections; it will go some distance towards establishing a framework which could ensure fair elections, but much will still depend on the legislation in the States and, for that matter, in the Commonwealth and the way boundaries are drawn. It is the policy of the Liberal Party of Australia in Queensland to support the principle of one vote one value, and I have no intention of moving away from that principle. So far as the third item is concerned, I believe local government should have constitutional recognition. I agree with what it appears to me are the principal purposes of the amendment the Government is putting forward: firstly, the right of local government to exist; and, secondly, the right to have responsibility for those things over which it may be given authority under State legislation. Although I have no objection to what that referendum proposal appears to do and what the Government claims it will do, I do not believe it is good enough. I do not believe the assurance is there that local government will have the right to exist and not be dismissed at the whim of a Minister for local government. I do not believe the right is ensured so that, for example, if a local authority decides unanimously, that a quarry is not to be put into a national park, that will not be overridden at the stroke of a pen by a State Minister. The referendum proposal does not do that, but I do support constitutional recognition of local government. I would like to see an amendment to the Constitution which ensured the objectives the Government has set forward. The fourth question contains a number of items that appear at first blush to be rather attractive. However, when one considers the items covered in the proposal, one realises that it comes down to a mishmash. Why have these items been picked out if not to soften things up for the future? I do not believe there should be a Bill of Rights in our Constitution. The Constitution is not essentially about rights; it is essentially about the rules under which we practice politics in this country. I accept that, in a couple of areas, there is already reference in the Constitution to such things as freedom of religion under Commonwealth law. That was included for particular reasons. It would be interesting to read the 1890s debates on the Constitution to see why that was put in. To select these random items and put them in the Constitution is an irrelevant act. Some people have real concerns about it, and I do not believe it deserves support. In conclusion, I reiterate what I said at the beginning of my remarks: the referendum proposal is about the role of the Senate and the balance it gives to the exercise of political power. The Government's objective is to change that and to destroy the effectiveness of the Australian Senate. The other items are only an enticement for people to think kindly about the first proposal. I am confident, on the track record of the Australian public on referenda, that they will see through that and will vote intelligently. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(5.37) —in reply-I have only a few minutes in which to answer a debate that has been continuing for more than 11 hours with contributions from more than 30 speakers. I thank everyone who has made a contribution, even though honourable members would appreciate that I do not readily agree with all the submissions that have been made. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) spoke for the first time this afternoon and said that one of the problems he had was that the proposition had been rushed. It is important to reiterate the fact that I established the Constitutional Commission in December 1985. I did so on the basis that I felt there needed to be an independent assessment of the evidence in Australia about claims for constitutional reform. The claims are many; the report of the Commission covers and will continue to cover a wide range of defects in the Constitution. The referendum proposals basically deal with parliamentary reform, in which we are interested, as well as the rights of people against governments. They give no more power to a Commonwealth government; they give no more power to State governments; they give power to the people. That is the simple situation that should be understood. It is a tribute to the Commission that it went across Australia and took so much evidence from so many people. There certainly were some highlights in the evidence presented to it. The Commission comprised Sir Maurice Byers, Professor Ziens, former politicians such as Sir Rupert Hamer and Gough Whitlam, Mr Justice John Toohey, who resigned when he was appointed to the High Court of Australia, and Enid Campbell, also an eminent constitutional lawyer. They have spent a lot of time on this issue. The report is excellent, but the question has arisen that the matter is being rushed. Five advisory committees reported last year and the five reports were tabled in the Parliament last August. They dealt with a large number of matters. This was not just a superficial approach. It dealt with areas of trade and national economic management. It dealt with individual and democratic rights, the Australian judicial system, the distribution of powers and executive government. It is very interesting and it is worth while repeating that in every case there are recommendations for constitutional reform. It will take a long while to get all those reforms through because of the difficult nature of having to go to the Australian people, as we are now with these four questions, and to have them understand and vote on them. We must get not only a majority of the people, but also a majority of the States. There have been 38 referendums and only eight have been carried. It would have been relatively easy to understand why they should have been carried. One can see that on the more difficult issues one will always run into some problems. The Leader of the Opposition-and I think it has to be understood how he sees the situation-again today said that he favours bipartisanship. He said, `We all favour four-year terms', but the bipartisanship seems to fall down on the term of the Senate. There is a long history about the term of the Senate. For the first 50 years of Federation, there was no problem about the term of the Senate. It was always working in parallel with the House of Representatives. Of course, the voting for the Senate was a little different. It was first past the post. Therefore, the Federal Parliament decided to bring in proportional representation in 1949. That in itself, an action taken by us, has created instability in that we have had elections basically every two years on average since 1949. I came to this Parliament in 1969. Prior to that, there was a House of Representatives election in 1963, a half-Senate election in 1964, a House of Representatives election in 1966, a half-Senate election in 1967, a House of Representatives election in 1969 and a half-Senate election in 1970. When we consider the number of elections is it any wonder that the business community went to the Commission, and said, `Look at what is happening to the Constitution and the frequency of elections.'? Elections continued after the 1960s; there were elections in 1972, 1974, 1975 and 1977. What was the rationale behind that? In some cases-for example, Mr Malcolm Fraser said this in 1977-it was said that the reason was to bring the two Houses back into kilter. We all agree-I do not think there is any argument-that elections for the Federal Parliament ought to be held at the same time. One cannot afford to have $50m, independent elections running each year. The fact is that we have had so many elections every two years that the business community and others in Australia say, `Why can we not get some sense into this?' The Commission made a valiant attempt and it made an interim report to this Parliament. It said, `All right, the best we can do is to say that in the first three years the Parliament will not be able to pass any laws unless the Senate allows it and the Senate will not be able to reject Supply in the first three years'. It was argued here furiously in October by the Opposition that that would be a dreadful denial of the Senate's rights. It said, `The Senate would not be able to reject a government because that government would have the power of veto over Supply'. That was the argument. There was no sudden rush. I then said, `I shall reassess the situation', because I could see the problem. How could we have a government that could not pass any laws in the first three years, and would it not be a legitimate argument for the Senate to say that it could not block Supply, because that is the big axe it hangs over our heads. It is unfair of the Leader of the Opposition to use words like `humbug' and `sham' when I said that the best thing to do is to make both Houses answerable for their conduct. Everybody wants four-year terms and I want the Senate just to be answerable for its conduct. It can still block Supply. It can still send us to the wall twice a year when it deals with Supply. These are the things that ought to be put fairly in debate. Why should not senators who decide to sack a government be answerable to the people? Why are they exempt? They were never intended to be exempt. What is this suggestion that senators are independent? They are members of our parties. Ministers of governments have been in the Senate from the time it started. Are they independent? Do not Senators Chaney, Durack and others participate in the party room and make decisions in the same way as our Ministers do? Does the Opposition believe they go into the Senate and say, `I have to look at this impartially.'? That is ridiculous. Because of proportional representation, we now have third party and other representation in the Senate. It is very simple for the Opposition perhaps to use those people to deny a government's Supply. Once that happens, that government has to go to the people. All that this proposition says is that, if that happens those senators also must stand up and offer themselves for re-election. It is not a big problem. They should be answerable. I cannot understand this nonsense of saying we are interfering with the powers of the Senate. We are not interfering one iota with its powers. We are recognising now and for all time that those in the Senate who have no powers to initiate money Bills and no powers to amend money Bills have a power to veto money Bills and deny the very lifeline of the Government. That is why we say that the Senate should have four-year terms. The Opposition rejected the recommendations of the Commission which contained the unusual proposition that we should have a status quo for three years and attack each other for four years before a double dissolution. I do not know what that was going to do for stability or for continuity of government policy. The business community quite legitimately and honestly put the proposition forward that something ought to be done intelligently about having fewer and fairer elections. The second proposition deals with fair elections. It cannot readily solve gerrymanders, but it can certainly talk about the balance in electorates. One cannot have the High Court dealing with gerrymanders because it might be gerrymandered; we have to allow for the sense of the people, knowing full well that if the electorates are balanced, we might get better government. Is it not needed in Queensland, where there has been rorting and corruption of the political system and where the Government did not care whether or not the Parliament existed because it did not need to answer to it; the Executive ran the government in Queensland as its own preserve. This is coming fiercely now in the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct and all power to the Liberals in Queensland for urging something to be done. They know it is a rotten result; it is not democracy. A small group got hold of the boundary system there and ran it to its own patronage. The problems that one gets from patronage have infiltrated and permeated every aspect of society. These are the problems that must be solved, and I am delighted to see the Liberal Party of Australia in Queensland facing up to them. This proposal will clean them up. It may not stop the gerrymander to the extent that we would want it to do, but there will at least, be legitimate tolerances between various electorates. Local government comes to the Federal Government from all over Australia. It went to the Commission. The Opposition was not interested in constitutional conventions for a long while, because it did not have any between 1978 and 1983, but it had local government representatives on them before then. I have a letter here from the distinguished Leader of the Opposition, dated 10 February 1988, stating: My Dear Attorney-General: I enclose a letter from Ryde Municipal Council concerning recognition of local government in the Australian Constitution. I fully support council's request that a chapter should be inserted in the Constitution dealing with local government. He was not altogether against it. He says that the Western Australians did not want anything done. I have a letter here from Mal Bryce, Deputy Premier, dated 22 February this year, which states: There are two important referendum questions which I believe the Commonwealth Government should ask. They are about Democratic Elections and Parliamentary Terms and Powers. He makes the point that the Western Australian Government can no longer get any reform because of the attitude of the National Party of Australia in Western Australia and he asks whether we can help. I make this point in answer to the Leader of the Opposition's suggestion that we were intruding into some area where we were not wanted. The Bills are not about the power of politicians or political parties. They are about the rights of people. All those rights that the Opposition parties referred to today on the basis that they were new are already in the Constitution, in section 80, section 116 and section 51 placitum (xxxi). The referendum proposals seek to guarantee that the people get the same rights from State governments. What is wrong with that? The Opposition pretends to give rights federally and takes them away on a State basis. It is nonsense. These proposals are legitimate recommendations from the Constitutional Commission. I thank all honourable members for their contribution. I understand the debate now has to conclude and I will conclude. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 55 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 24 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A.Beazley, K. C. Johns, G. T.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Kerr, D. J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lavarch, M. H.Charlesworth, R. I. Lee, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J.Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J.Cohen, B. McLeay, LeoCourtice, B. W. Martin, S. P.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dubois, S. C. Price, L. R. S.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Sawford, R. W.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Sciacca, C.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Snowdon, W. E.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Harvey, E. R. Theophanous, A. C.Hawke, R. J. L. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. Wright, K. W.Jakobsen, C. A. Adermann, A. E. Jull, D. F.Aldred, K. J. Katter, R. C.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B.Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S.Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J.Braithwaite, R. A. Macphee, I. M.Brown, N. A. Miles, C. G.Burr, M. A. Millar, P. C.Cadman, A. G. Moore, J. C.Cameron, Donald Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ewen Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ian Porter, J. R.Carlton, J. J. Pratt, M. P.Cobb, M. R. Prosser, G. D.Cowan, D. B. Reith, P. K.Dobie, J. D. M. Robinson, IanDowner, A. J. G. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shack, P. D.Fischer, Tim Sharp, J. R.Fisher, Peter Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Halverson, R. G. Sullivan, K. J.Hawker, D. P. M. Taylor, W. L.Hewson, J. R. Wilson, I. B. C.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Woods, R. L.Howard, J. W. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Hunt, R. J. D. Duncan, P. Hall, SteeleFatin, W. F. Spender, J. M.Hayden, W. G. Cameron, Ian Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Madam SPEAKER —The question now is that the remaining stages, including the third reading of the Bill, be agreed to. As this is a Bill to amend the Constitution, the provisions of section 128 of the Constitution must be observed. I therefore direct that the bells be rung for three minutes. The bells having been rung- Madam SPEAKER —The question now is that the remaining stages, including the third reading, of the Bill be agreed to. Those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no. I think the ayes have it. Although there is no dissentient voice and a division has not been called for, it is desirable that the names of those members present agreeing to the third reading should be recorded. The following names were then recorded- (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A. Beazley, K. C. Johns, G. T Beddall, D. P. Jones, Barry Bilney, G. N. Keating, P. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J. Blewett, N. Kent, L. Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C. Brown, John Kerr, D. J. C. Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E. Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. (Teller) Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V. Charles, D. E. Lavarch, M. H. Charlesworth, R. I. Lee, M. J. Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J. Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J. Cohen, B. McLeay, Leo Courtice, B. W. Martin, S. P. Crawford, M. C. Milton, P. Cross, M. D. Morris, Allan Cunningham, B. T. Morris, Peter Darling, E. E. Mountford, J. G. Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T. Dubois, S. C. Price, L. R. S. Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F. Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Sawford, R. W. Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D Gayler, J. Sciacca, C. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W. Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H. Griffiths, A. G. Snowdon, W. E. Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R. Harvey, E. R. Theophanous, A. C. Hawke, R. J. L. Tickner, R. E. Holding, A. C. Uren, T. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Willis, R. Humphreys, B. C. Wright, K. W. Jakobsen, C. A. Madam SPEAKER —Order! As 79 members have agreed to the motion for the third reading, I declare that the third reading has been agreed to by an absolute majority as required by the Constitution. Bill read a third time. Consideration resumed from 10 May, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 54 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 25 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A.Beazley, K. C. Johns, G. T.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C.A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Kerr, D. J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lavarch, M. H.Charlesworth, R. I. Lee, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J.Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J.Cohen, B. McLeay, LeoCourtice, B. W. Martin, S. P.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dubois, S. C. Price, L. R. S.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, R.W.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Sawford, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Sciacca, C.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Snowdon, W. E.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Harvey, E. R. Theophanous, A. C.Hawke, R. J. L. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. Wright, K. W.Jakobsen, C. A. Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D.Aldred, K. J. Jull, D. F.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Katter, R. C.Beale, J. H. Lloyd, B.Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S.Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J.Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Burr, M. A. Miles, C. G.Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C.Cameron, Donald Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ewen Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ian Peacock, A. S.Carlton, J. J. Porter, J. R.Cobb, M. R. Pratt, M. P.Cowan, D. B. Prosser, G. D.Dobie, J. D. M. Reith, P. K.Downer, A. J. G. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.Fife, W. C. Ruddock, P. M.Fischer, Tim Shack, P. D.Fisher, Peter Sharp, J. R.Goodluck, B. J. Shipton, R. F.Halverson, R. G. Sinclair, I. McC.Hawker, D. P. M. Taylor, W. L.Hewson, J. R. Wilson, I. B. C.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Woods, R. L.Howard, J. W. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Duncan, P. Macphee, I. M.Fatin, W. F. Hall, SteeleHayden, W. G. Spender, J. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Madam SPEAKER —The question is that the remaining stages, including the third reading, of the Bill, be agreed to. As this is a Bill to amend the Constitution, the provisions of section 128 of the Constitution must be observed. I therefore direct that the bells be rung for one minute. The bells having been rung- Madam SPEAKER —The question now is that the remaining stages, including the third reading, of the Bill, be agreed to. Those of that opinion say aye, against, no. I think the ayes have it. Although there is no dissentient voice and a division has not been called for, it is desirable that the names of those members present agreeing to the third reading should be recorded. The following names were then recorded- (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A. Beazley, K. C. Johns, G. T Beddall, D. P. Jones, Barry Bilney, G. N. Keating, P. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J. Blewett, N. Kent, L. Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C. Brown, John Kerr, D. J. C. Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E. Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. (Teller) Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V. Charles, D. E. Lavarch, M. H. Charlesworth, R. I. Lee, M. J. Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J. Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J. Cohen, B. McLeay, Leo Courtice, B. W. Martin, S. P. Crawford, M. C. Milton, P. Cross, M. D. Morris, Allan Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, Peter Darling, E. E. Mountford, J. G. Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T. Dubois, S. C. Price, L. R. S. Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F. Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Sawford, R. W. Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D Gayler, J. Sciacca, C. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W. Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H. Griffiths, A. G. Snowdon, W. E. Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R. Harvey, E. R. Theophanous, A. C. Hawke, R. J. L. Tickner, R. E. Holding, A. C. Uren, T. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Willis, R. Humphreys, B. C. Wright, K. W. Jakobsen, C. A. Madam SPEAKER —Order! As 79 members have agreed to the third reading, I declare that the third reading has been agreed to by an absolute majority as required by the Constitution. Bill read a third time. Consideration resumed from 10 May, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Madam SPEAKER —The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 51 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 28 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A.Beazley, K. C. Johns, G. T.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Kerr, D. J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lavarch, M. H.Charlesworth, R. I. Lee, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J.Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J.Cohen, B. McLeay, LeoCourtice, B. W. Martin, S. P.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dubois, S. C. Price, L. R. S.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Sawford, R. W.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Sciacca, C.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Snowdon, W. E.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Harvey, E. R. Theophanous, A. C.Hawke, R. J. L. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. Wright, K. W.Jakobsen, C. A. Adermann, A. E. Jull, D. F.Aldred, K. J. Katter, R. C.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B.Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S.Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J.Braithwaite, R. A. Mackellar, M. J. R.Brown, N. A. Miles, C. G.Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C.Cameron, Donald Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ewen Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ian Peacock, A. S.Carlton, J. J. Porter, J. R.Cobb, M. R. Pratt, M. P.Cowan, D. B. Prosser, G. D.Dobie, J. D. M. Reith, P. K.Downer, A. J. G. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.Fife, W. C. Ruddock, P. M.Fischer, Tim Shack, P. D.Fisher, Peter Sharp, J. R.Halverson, R. G. Shipton, R. F.Hawker, D. P. M. Sinclair, I. McC.Hewson, J. R. Taylor, W. L.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Woods, R. L.Howard, J. W. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Hunt, R. J. D. Duncan, P. Macphee, I. M.Fatin, W. F. Hall, SteeleHayden, W. G. Spender, J. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Madam SPEAKER —The question now is that the remaining stages of the Bill, including the third reading, be agreed to. Those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no. I think the ayes have it. As this is a Bill to amend the Constitution, the provisions of section 128 of the Constitution must be observed. I therefore direct that the bells be rung for one minute. The bells having been rung- Madam SPEAKER —The question now is that the remaining stages of the Bill, including the third reading, be agreed to. All those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no. I think the ayes have it. Although there is no dissentient voice and a division has not been called for, it is desirable that the names of those members present agreeing to the third reading should be recorded. The following names were then recorded- (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A. Beazley, K. C. Johns, G. T Beddall, D. P. Jones, Barry Bilney, G. N. Keating, P. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J. Blewett, N. Kent, L. Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C. Brown, John Kerr, D. J. C. Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E. Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. (Teller) Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V. Charles, D. E. Lavarch, M. H. Charlesworth, R. I. Lee, M. J. Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J. Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J. Cohen, B. McLeay, Leo Courtice, B. W. Martin, S. P. Crawford, M. C. Milton, P. Cross, M. D. Morris, Allan Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, Peter Darling, E. E. Mountford, J. G. Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T. Dubois, S. C. Price, L. R. S. Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F. Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Sawford, R. W. Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D Gayler, J. Sciacca, C. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W. Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H. Griffiths, A. G. Snowdon, W. E. Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R. Harvey, E. R. Theophanous, A. C. Hawke, R. J. L. Tickner, R. E. Holding, A. C. Uren, T. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Willis, R. Humphreys, B. C. Wright, K. W. Jakobsen, C. A. Madam SPEAKER —Order! As 79 members have agreed to the third reading, I declare that the third reading has been agreed to by an absolute majority as required by the Constitution. Bill read a third time. Consideration resumed from 10 May, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Madam SPEAKER —The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 54 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 25 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A.Beazley, K. C. Johns, G. T.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Kerr, D. J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lavarch, M. H.Charlesworth, R. I. Lee, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J.Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J.Cohen, B. McLeay, LeoCourtice, B. W. Martin, S. P.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dubois, S. C. Price, L. R. S.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Sawford, R. W.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Sciacca, C.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Snowdon, W. E.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Harvey, E. R. Theophanous, A. C.Hawke, R. J. L. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. Wright, K. W.Jakobsen, C. A. Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D.Aldred, K. J. Jull, D. F.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Katter, R. C.Beale, J. H. Lloyd, B.Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S.Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J.Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J.Burr, M. A. Miles, C. G.Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C.Cameron, Donald Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ewen Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ian Peacock, A. S.Carlton, J. J. Porter, J. R.Cobb, M. R. Pratt, M. P.Cowan, D. B. Prosser, G. D.Dobie, J. D. M. Reith, P. K.Downer, A. J. G. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.Fife, W. C. Ruddock, P. M.Fischer, Tim Shack, P. D.Fisher, Peter Sharp, J. R.Goodluck, B. J. Shipton, R. F.Halverson, R. G. Sinclair, I. McC.Hawker, D. P. M. Sullivan, K. J.Hewson, J. R. Taylor, W. L.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Woods, R. L.Howard, J. W. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Duncan, P. Macphee, I. M.Fatin, W. F. Hall, SteeleHayden, W. G. Spender, J. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Madam SPEAKER —The question now is that the remaining stages, including the third reading, of the Bill, be agreed to. Those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no. I think the ayes have it. As this is a Bill to amend the Constitution, the provisions of section 128 of the Constitution must be observed. I therefore direct that the bells be rung for one minute. The bells having been rung- Madam SPEAKER —The question now is that the remaining stages, including the third reading, of the Bill, be agreed to. All those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no. I think the ayes have it. Although there is no dissentient voice and a division has not been called for, it is desirable that the names of those members present agreeing to the third reading should be recorded. The following names were then recorded- (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A. Beazley, K. C. Johns, G. T Beddall, D. P. Jones, Barry Bilney, G. N. Keating, P. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J. Blewett, N. Kent, L. Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C. Brown, John Kerr, D. J. C. Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E. Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. (Teller) Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V. Charles, D. E. Lavarch, M. H. Charlesworth, R. I. Lee, M. J. Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J. Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J. Cohen, B. McLeay, Leo Courtice, B. W. Martin, S. P. Crawford, M. C. Milton, P. Cross, M. D. Morris, Allan Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, Peter Darling, E. E. Mountford, J. G. Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T. Dubois, S. C. Price, L. R. S. Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F. Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Sawford, R. W. Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D Gayler, J. Sciacca, C. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W. Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H. Griffiths, A. G. Snowdon, W. E. Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R. Harvey, E. R. Theophanous, A. C. Hawke, R. J. L. Tickner, R. E. Holding, A. C. Uren, T. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Willis, R. Humphreys, B. C. Wright, K. W. Jakobsen, C. A. Madam SPEAKER —Order! As 79 members have agreed to the third reading I declare that the third reading has been agreed to by an absolute majority as required by the Constitution. Bill read a third time. Sitting suspended from 6.35 to 8 p.m. (Quorum formed) Bill presented by Mr Punch, and read a first time. Mr PUNCH(Barton-Minister for the Arts and Territories)(8.03) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Australian Film Commission Act 1975 to enable the implementation of the Government's decision to establish Film Australia Pty Ltd as a wholly Commonwealth-owned company. It is the Government's intention that the new company should operate from 1 July this year. Honourable members will know that Film Australia and its antecedents have a unique place in Australian cinematic history. In one form or another it has existed as the Commonwealth's film making body for three-quarters of a century. In this time it has set and maintained the high standards for Australian film makers that have made the local industry among the leaders in innovation and technical excellence. Indeed, many of the internationally acclaimed Australian film makers of today spent part of their training at Film Australia. In 1975 Film Australia became part of the Australian Film Commission, where it was responsible, as the Production Division, for the `special activities' of the Commission. These activities are defined in the Act as (i) programs that serve the purposes of a Department of State or an Authority of the Commonwealth; (ii) programs that deal with matters of national interest to Australia; and (iii) programs that are designed to illustrate or interpret aspects of Australia or of the life and activities of the Australian people. In its new form Film Australia will continue to carry out these functions. In May last year, after a comprehensive review, the Government decided that Film Australia should be removed from the umbrella of the Australian Film Commission and established as a wholly Commonwealth-owned company to operate along commercial lines as far as practicable. The Government is looking to a reorganised and revitalised Film Australia to reduce the cost of its productions, to achieve more effective dissemination of programs through cooperative arrangements with local and overseas networks, and to pursue more vigorously off-budget revenue sources. In other words, the Government expects the new organisation to be more attuned to the realities of the marketplace. Production of national interest programs dealing with cultural, social and other issues relevant to Australians will be met by contractual arrangements between the Commonwealth and the company. The company will be offered secure minimum funding over a fixed term, and to this end the Government has agreed to a total forward funding commitment of $15m, at 1987 price, over the next three financial years to allow orderly production planning. I now turn to the provisions of the Bill. The Bill seeks to achieve three objectives. It removes from the Australian Film Commission the function of making films and television programs, which will become the responsibility of the new Film Australia Pty Ltd. Second, it provides for the transfer of assets, liabilities and contractual rights and obligations from the Commission to the new company. Third, it provides for the transfer of specified staff. There are also a number of consequential amendments to the Act. I would mention in this regard that the repeal of section 9 of the Act, which deals with the high standards of film making expected of the Commission under its now superseded power to make films, does not mean any diminution of the high standards expected of the Commission in general terms. Sub-paragraphs 5 (1A) (a) and (b), which are not affected by this Bill, adequately cover that point. There are no other implications for the residual functions of the Australian Film Commission. The Commission will retain the power to promote and distribute, but not to make programs. Film Australia Pty Ltd is now in the process of incorporation in the Australian Capital Territory in the normal way under the Companies Act 1981. A number of prominent Australians have been approached to become the directors of the new company, with backgrounds in the film industry, commerce, law, and entrepreneurial activity. The introduction of this Bill confirms the Government's commitment to a continuing role for the Film Australia as a producer of films about Australians and for Australians. Incorporation of Film Australia under the Companies Act provides the opportunity for a fresh start. It will place the organisation in a strong position to capitalise on the success it has achieved in the past. I commend the Bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Mr PUNCH(Barton-Minister for the Arts and Territories)(8.08) —I move: That in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposal contained in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House presented to the House on 15 March 1988, namely: The construction of bus shelters on the landbridge between the new Parliament House and the provisional Parliament House. Mr Hollis —Minister for bus shelters. Mr PUNCH —And people wonder why I am in favour of self-government for Canberra! Mr PORTER(Barker)(8.09) —Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr John Brown —You aren't opposing bus shelters, are you? Mr PORTER —Unlike those opposite, we are a party of the people. We do not just look after your rich mates; we actually support this proposal. Just keep quiet and let me get on with it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for Barker will address the motion relating to bus stops that is before the House or he will resume his seat. Mr PORTER —I seek to make just two points. Firstly, the reason why this motion is before the House does not, as the Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Punch) suggests, have anything to do with his portfolio and his responsibility for the Australian Capital Territory. This motion was necessary pursuant to legislation passed by this Parliament giving the Parliament the power over the area around the Parliament, and that includes the area referred to. We as a parliament have to approve building that is undertaken in the area around the Parliament, and that is why this motion is before the House. It has nothing to do with the Minister's responsibility for the Territory. It is important that we provide services such as this for the people visiting and leaving the Parliament as well as for the people who work for us in this place. Only tonight people said to me that they badly needed this shelter because during recesses they get here by bus. Under the mad guillotine that the Government has applied we are now actually taking up time for debate on Bills that are listed for debate this evening. I raise very briefly with the Minister a related issue; that is, the availability of other forms of transport within Canberra. Over the last couple of weeks I have had cause to have people visit me in Canberra. They have been going around looking at the sights in Canberra such as the Australian War Memorial and others places and have discovered that it is impossible to get a taxi, let alone a bus-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Is the honourable member for Barker just going to illustrate a point? I think to discuss the-- Mr PORTER —Mr Deputy Speaker, I assure you that I will be very brief. Apparently there is some limitation on people being able to get taxis from taxi ranks anywhere near major facilities such as the new Parliament House, the War Memorial and other places. It is something that I think the Minister ought to look at. I do not know why the taxi ranks have been placed so far away from the major tourist facilities in this capital city. Canberra is a major tourist city and many people come here. I would have thought we ought to be trying to provide the services the people need. As I said, the Opposition supports this proposal. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That- (1) standing order 48a (adjournment of House), as amended by sessional order, and standing order 103 (11 o'clock rule) be suspended for the remaining of the sittings this week; and (2) in relation to the proceedings on the following bills, so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the House making one declaration of urgency and moving one motion for the allotment of time in respect of all the bills: Industries Assistance Commission Amendment Bill 1988; Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988; Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 1988; States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill 1988; States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1988; Employment, Education and Training Bill 1988; Interstate Road Transport Amendment Bill 1988; Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 1988; Commonwealth Employees' Rehabilitation and Compensation Bill 1988; and Unites States Naval Communication Station (Civilian Employees) Bill 1988. Mr FIFE(Hume-Manager of Opposition Business)(8.12) —I do not intend to delay the House. This afternoon I made clear the Opposition's disgust at what the Government is doing in rushing through legislation. I do not propose to take up time now with another speech reiterating what I said this afternoon, but we will vote against the measures. Question put: That the motion (Mr Beazley's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 52 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A.Beddall, D. P. Johns, G. T.Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Brown, John Kent, L.Brown, Robert Kerr, D. J. C.Brumby, J. M. Klugman, R. E.Campbell, G. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Charles, D. E. Lavarch, M. H.Charlesworth, R. I. Lee, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J.Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J.Cohen, B. Martin, S. P.Courtice, B. W. Milton, P.Crawford, M. C. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dawkins, J. S. Price, L. R. S.Dubois, S. C. Punch, G. F.Duffy, M. J. Saunderson, J.Edwards, Ronald Sawford, R. W.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Sciacca, C.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Gorman, R. N. J. Snowdon, W. E.Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Harvey, E. R. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W.Humphreys, B. C. Adermann, A. E. Jull, D. F.Aldred, K. J. Katter, R. C.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J.Blunt, C. W. MacKellar, M. J. R.Braithwaite, R. A. Miles, C. G.Burr, M. A. Millar, P. C.Cadman, A. G. Moore, J. C.Cameron, Donald Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ewen Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ian Porter, J. R.Carlton, J. J. Pratt, M. P.Cobb, M. R. Prosser, G. D.Cowan, D. B. Reith, P. K.Dobie, J. D. M. Robinson, IanDowner, A. J. G. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shack, P. D.Fischer, Tim Sharp, J. R.Fisher, Peter Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Smith, W. L.Halverson, R. G. Sullivan, K. J.Hawker, D. P. M. Taylor, W. L.Hewson, J. R. Wilson, I. B. C.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Woods, R. L.Hunt, R. J. D. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Duncan, P. Macphee, I. M.Fatin, W. F. Hall, SteeleHayden, W. G. Spender, J. M.Hawke, R. J. L. Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr Beazley(Swan-Leader of the House) —I declare that the following Bills are urgent Bills: That the following Bills be declared urgent Bills: Industries Assistance Commission Amendment Bill 1988; Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988; Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 1988; States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill 1988; States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1988; Employment, Education and Training Bill 1988; Interstate Road Transport Amendment Bill 1988; Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 1988; Commonwealth Employees' Rehabilitation and Compensation Bill 1988; and United States Naval Communication Station (Civilian Employees) Bill 1988. Question put: That the Bills be considered urgent Bills. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 51 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 20 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A.Beddall, D. P. Johns, G. T.Bilney, G. N. Jones BarryBlanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Brown, John Kent, L.Brown, Robert Kerr, D. J. C.Brumby, J. M. Klugman, R. E.Campbell, G. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Charles, D. E. Lavarch, M. H.Charlesworth, R. I. Lee, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J.Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J.Cohen, B. Martin, S. P.Courtice, B. W. Milton, P.Crawford, M. C. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dawkins, J. S. Price, L. R. S.Dubois, S. C. Punch, G. F.Duffy, M. J. Saunderson, J.Edwards, Ronald Sawford, R. W.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Sciacca, C.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Gorman, R. N. J. Snowdon, W. E.Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Harvey, E. R. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W.Humphreys, B. C. Adermann, A. E. Jull, D. F.Aldred, K. J. Katter, R. C.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J.Blunt, C. W. MacKellar, M. J. R.Braithwaite, R. A. Miles, C. G.Burr, M. A. Millar, P. C.Cadman, A. G. Moore, J. C.Cameron, Donald Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ewen Porter, J. R.Cameron, Ian Pratt, M. P.Carlton, J. J. Prosser, G. D.Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C.Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Shack, P. D.Fife, W. C. Sharp, J. R.Fischer, Tim Shipton, R. F.Fisher, Peter Smith, W. L.Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Taylor, W. L.Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C.Hewson, J. R. Woods, R. L.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wooldridge, M. R. L.Hunt, R. J. D. Duncan, P. Macphee, I. M.Fatin, W. F. Hall, SteeleHayden, W. G. Spender, J. M.Hawke, R. J. L. Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Allotment of Time Motion (by Mr Beazley) put: That the time allotted in connection with the Bills is as follows: (1) Industries Assistance Commission Amendment Bill; For the remaining stages, until 9.20 p.m. this day. (2) Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2); For the second reading, until 11.20 p.m. this day. For the committee stage, until 11.30 p.m. this day. For the remaining stages, until 11.40 p.m. this day. (3) Transport Legislation Amendment Bill; For the remaining stages, until 12.30 a.m. on Thursday, 19 May. (4) States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill; For the remaining stages, until 8.10 p.m. on Thursday, 19 May. (5) States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill; For the second reading, until 8.20 p.m. on Thursday, 19 May. For the committee stage, until 8.30 p.m. on Thursday, 19 May. For the remaining stages, until 8.40 p.m. on Thursday, 19 May. (6) Employment, Education and Training Bill; For the second reading, until 8.50 p.m. on Thursday, 19 May. For the committee stage, until 9 p.m on Thursday, 19 May. For the remaining stages, until 9.10 p.m. on Thursday, 19 May. (7) Interstate Road Transport Amendment Bill; For the second reading, until 10.20 p.m. on Thursday, 19 May. For the committee stage, until 10.30 p.m. on Thursday, 19 May. For the remaining stages, until 10.40 p.m. on Thursday, 19 May. (8) Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill; For the remaining stages, until 10.50 p.m. on Thursday, 19 May. (9) Commonwealth Employees' Rehabilitation and Compensation Bill; For the second reading, until 12.10 a.m. on Friday, 20 May. For the committee stage, until 12.20 a.m. on Friday, 20 May. For the remaining stages, until 12.30 a.m. on Friday, 20 May. (10) United States Naval Communication Station (Civilian Employees) Bill; For the remaining stages, until 12.40 a.m. on Friday 20 May. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 52 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A.Beddall, D. P. Johns, G. T.Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Brown, John Kent, L.Brown, Robert Kerr, D. J. C.Brumby, J. M. Klugman, R. E.Campbell, G. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Charles, D. E. Lavarch, M. H.Charlesworth, R. I. Lee, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J.Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J.Cohen, B. Martin, S. P.Courtice, B. W. Milton, P.Crawford, M. C. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dawkins, J. S. Price, L. R. S.Dubois, S. C. Punch, G. F.Duffy, M. J. Saunderson, J.Edwards, Ronald Sawford, R. W.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Sciacca, C.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Gorman, R. N. J. Snowdon, W. E.Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Harvey, E. R. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W.Humphreys, B. C. Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D.Aldred, K. J. Jull, D. F.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Katter, R. C.Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S.Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J.Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Brown, N. A. Miles, C. G.Burr, M. A. Millar, P. C.Cadman, A. G. Moore, J. C.Cameron, Donald Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ewen Porter, J. R.Cameron, Ian Pratt, M. P.Carlton, J. J. Prosser, G. D.Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C.Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Shack, P. D.Fife, W. C. Sharp, J. R.Fischer, Tim Shipton, R. F.Fisher, Peter Smith, W. L.Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Taylor, W. L.Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C.Hewson, J. R. Woods, R. L.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wooldridge, M. R. L. Duncan, P. Macphee, I. M.Fatin, W. F. Hall, SteeleHayden, W. G. Spender, J. M.Hawke, R. J. L. Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 20 April, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(8.31) —In the course of the allotted time which is set down under this program, the debate on the Industries Assistance Commission Amendment Bill must end at 9.20 p.m., which draws my attention to what must be the reason for the Bill and the changes in it. This Bill seeks to amend section 23 of the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973. It is interesting to note that it comes about as a consequence of the transfer of the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) from the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce to the Treasury. In essence, the Bill would empower a Minister, with the written approval of the Treasurer, to make amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1987, without reference to an IAC report. This, in itself, highlights very largely the new style of Treasury control. Section 23 (3) of the IAC Act clearly states that no action may be taken by a Minister in respect of assistance to industry unless it is in relation to trade agreements or unless it is done within a year of receiving an IAC report. The Bill seeks to remove that safeguard. It sets out five circumstances under which the Government could make changes without seeking the advice of the IAC. I shall deal with those five circumstances in a moment. The genesis of the Bill we are debating tonight was a Senate debate back in 1984 in which the Opposition pressed the then Minister for Industry and Commerce about the questionable methods employed by the Government in introducing changes to tariff levels by either Customs tariff proposals or Commonwealth of Australia Gazette notices. Senator Button gave an undertaking to review the practice. He said: I am aware . . . that the practice involved in some cases has been questioned, as I said before quite legitimately in some quarters, and I can inform the Senate that it is my intention to ensure that the mechanisms involved are reviewed. That is recorded in Hansard of 16 October, 1985. A report entitled Review of Tariff Classification Amendment Procedures prepared by the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce was tabled in the Senate in May 1985. The central issue of the paper is the same one we are debating today, about three years later. Should the Government, through bureaucratic or ministerial decisions, be permitted to change the tariff levels without reference to the procedures outlined in the IAC Act, which require that any changes in tariffs must be prefaced by an IAC report? The main finding of that report was that the method by which this Government was chopping and changing tariff levels was contrary to section 23 (3) of the IAC Act. The Attorney-General's advice, dated 11 January 1985, which I have with me today, specifically states: The relevant Minister cannot, because of s. 23 (3) of the Act take any action in respect of a matter specified in s. 23 (4) of the Act being action that is related to the provision of assistance to a particular . . . industry . . . unless he has first received a report of the IAC. Clearly, the Government has not been acting in accordance with the Act-and it has taken it three years to change its ways. One must ask why. Does it relate to the transfer of the IAC from the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce to the Treasury? Let me return to the five specific circumstances which this Bill proposes and deal with them in turn. The Bill proposes that no IAC report will be needed to, firstly, correct anomalies or ambiguities in the Customs Tariff Act or, secondly, correct an error which resulted when the Government implemented an IAC recommendation. The Opposition supports these streamlining measures. They are sensible and should result in greater flexibility and more efficient administration of the Customs Tariff Act. They will please the Treasurer no doubt, as they ensure the speedy collection of duties-more money for the tax collector. From the Opposition's point of view, these amendments are important because they will ensure that the errors or ambiguities which have detrimental effects on business will be put in order without delay. The Opposition also supports the third measure which will ensure that tariff classifications are kept in line with the harmonised commodity description and coding system. The completely new tariff classification system commenced operation on 1 January 1988 and involves the cooperation of 17 trading countries. The new system is uniform and systematic and, if adhered to, should be beneficial to Australia's international trading position. It is easier to read and easier to classify goods. Market intelligence will increase and disputes over classifications should decline. It should speed Customs clearances and reduce transaction costs of international trade. All parties-importers, exporters, shippers and insurance companies-will be able to access the new system. The Opposition agrees, therefore, that the Government must be vested with the authority to reclassify at short notice to maintain continuity with tariff classifications around the world. As the classification categories have been carefully worked out by the Customs Cooperation Council, changes of this nature should not occur with great frequency. However, the fourth and more controversial point is one which was discussed at length in the report tabled in the Senate in 1985. That report devoted a large amount of space to the fourth circumstance which will empower the Government to: . . . make amendments subsequent to judgments by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or the courts in respect of challenges on tariff classifications which were assessed to have had the effect of altering the assistance accorded to industry. So, where a classification decision has been challenged and a court or tribunal has altered the classification, the Government will now be allowed to intervene and restore tariffs to their pre-existing levels. This amendment effectively dilutes the essential rights of appeal and review available to the parties affected by Customs classification decisions. Those affected would essentially be deprived of the fruits of a successful review and any incentive to get it right once and for all will be removed. This is a clear departure from the tendency by governments to open up decisions of the bureaucracy to independent review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) and the courts-a very sensible procedure. Obviously, the prudent importer will base his business decisions on whether or not to import upon an informed view of the existing tariff and its correct application to the goods he is contemplating importing. It is therefore important that the law in relation to tariffs should have some certainty. It is both equitable and imperative that all parties have the opportunity of presenting their views to an independent body to promote certainty and confidence in the commercial environment. The law will not have certainty if the avenues of appeal end with the self-seeking, revenue-hungry Government. The problems associated with these appeal cases were highlighted by the hot stamping machine case. There are inherent dangers in giving the Australian Customs Service or the Department ultimate powers in setting tariff classifications. As a former Minister in that area I might add that it is one of the most vexing of problems in the customs area. A classification case can be commercially very hurtful to the parties involved and a decision can be made on massive errors of judgment. There is no doubt that in many circumstances in which these cases occurred during my period of responsibility importers were put at substantial disadvantages in the areas in which this applied. At the same time, there were areas in which people claimed classifications to the Australian Customs Service which were clearly incorrect. The two areas of incorrect assertion and incorrect judgment would be best settled by the AAT rather than by the Customs Service, which, in essence, under this proposed legislation would be acting as both judge and jury on the classification issue. As I have said, that is very important in the whole area of imports to Australia. Moreover, it appears entirely inappropriate for the Government to act upon the advice of a department whose decision on a tariff has been found to be in error. The hot stamping machine saga was a stark example of just that. I will now move to the final circumstance, which I might add is one of the most worrying of the lot. It is worrying for two reasons. Firstly, the departmental report I referred to earlier canvassed various circumstances under which tariff levels could be changed. It did not, however, include circumstance number five which we are debating here tonight. The origin of point five remains a mystery, as it is not sourced in the review paper of 1985. It appears to be piggy-backing on the other legislative changes. Industry bodies are extremely concerned at its implications. The fifth circumstance, as described in the explanatory memorandum, will empower the Government to: vary details of industry assistance arrangements which were adopted by a Government decision following receipt of an IAC Report and where the variations are in accordance with the Government decision. These powers, in my view, are too wide and encompassing. The Minister, in his second reading speech, assured us that the power to change tariffs will be put to use only in `changed economic circumstances'. The Bill does not describe these circumstances. This is especially important as the IAC has moved from the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce to the Treasury. The explanatory memorandum refers to `minor changes' but the Bill does not mention the word `minor'. Therefore, the magnitude of the changes rests entirely on the interpretation by the Government of the various sections of the Bill. Where Government intention is ambiguously stated or expressed in broad terms, the opportunity may be seized by the Government to significantly alter assistance levels-based solely on departmental advice. Not only will it be able to decrease levels of assistance; it will also be able to increase protection measures for short term political gain. This will leave the way open for lobby groups to pressure the Government to increase tariff levels. It will also tempt the Government to put caveats in every report, which will allow it to change tariffs at any time. In my analysis, the Bill has broader implications than this Government would have us believe. This legislation is a source of great consternation to industry, particularly in the lead-up to the May economic statement, on which uncertainty has abounded. It seems that the IAC is being slowly stripped of all responsibility. The Treasurer will have the power to do as he pleases in regard to tariffs. It is interesting to note at this point that both the textiles, clothing and footwear plan legislation and the steel plan exempt the Government from complying with section 23 of the Act: there is no need to have an IAC report to alter tariffs under those plans. The car plan legislation does not contain the same exemption. How then does the Government plan to get its legislation through the Parliament? That remains a mystery as well. It is a real administrative bungle. I notice that the anti-dumping provisions are also to be taken away from the IAC-a very significant change in itself and one which industry will be informed of. But one wonders at the judgment of that, bearing in mind the independent stance that the IAC has taken in many industry reviews, in particular its review of the anti-dumping procedures and the customs classifications review which took place quite a few years ago. The certainty that the IAC has provided to industry is almost certain to vanish. The Government is vesting itself with the power to change tariffs at any time-either decreasing or increasing them at its whim. A clear object of section 23 of the IAC Act is to ensure that the Government receives the benefit of independent advice before taking action which could affect not only the competitive positions of commercial operators in a market but also the economy and flow of resources as a whole. This independent advice is critical to ensuring that the Government receives the best possible advice before making decisions which could adversely impact upon the whole economy. Relying solely on the departmental advice could be very dangerous, as exemplified by the hot stamping machine case in the past. Uncertainty as to the Government's intention and difficulties in articulating what should be the subject of protection levels are not sound reasons for committing protection levels to adjustment by bureaucratic amendment. Only the IAC can ensure that the Government makes properly informed decisions. For these reasons, the Opposition will move amendments for the deletion of the last two clauses, which have been circulated in my name. If they are rejected we will oppose the Bill. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(8.48) —In rising to support the Industries Assistance Commission Amendment Bill I must say that what the Government is doing is-as the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) said-attempting to make the legislation more streamlined and efficient. I would certainly support that as an endeavour. I do not share the honourable member's hesitations in this regard. I do not think there is anything sinister in the matter. It is simply as the Government set out in the explanatory memorandum. For my own part, I would like to think that this Bill heralded a reining in of the power of the Industries Assistance Commission because I believe the IAC as an organisation is becoming increasingly out of touch. It seems to be staffed by what one could describe only as free trade junkies, people who believe that abolishing protection is the only answer and that there is nothing else that can assist industry in any way. Of course, there is a place for lower levels of protection and I am a great advocate of that. But protection is a rapier and it should be used as such; it is not a cudgel with which to bash industry to pieces. There is a belief in some circles that if we put the canary of Australian industry out of the cage into the cold, real, wild world it will suddenly develop in the face of the fear of competition to become an eagle soaring on the winds of competition. That is true, it might. It might also die. It is my view that the IAC simply has not given enough consideration to this eventuality. Many people in my Party seem to be hooked on the idea of competition as a cure-all. We can go down that path and ignore the real opportunities that exist in other areas. In my own State of Western Australia, for instance, there is a company with a revolutionary product. It is the absolute peak of microfilm reproduction. It is without doubt the best system in the world and it is being sold overseas. But one carries a lot of lead in the saddle if, when one approaches overseas people and they ask how the product is performing in Australia, one has to say, `Australia really hasn't shown much interest'. This is an area where governments could have taken a lot more initiative. As I have said, the product is a world leader. It can stand on its own. A bit of assistance and encouragement would do far more to develop Australian industry and Australia's export earning capacity than the use of the cudgel of tariff reductions and abolition. I should like to cite other reasons why the IAC should be reined in. I recently read the IAC report on shipping and I thought it was dismal. It did not give anything like enough recognition to the tremendous work done by the then Minister for Transport in Western Australia, the Hon. Julian Grill, who revitalised State shipping and made it much more efficient. It has reached the stage where State shipping in Western Australia will be turning a profit. It has been a big turnaround. The IAC seems to confuse the shore-side turmoil which exists in Australian shipping with the big strides in efficiency that are being made in the maritime sector. This is a basic mistake and one which this august body should not have made. Similarly, the IAC's review of heavy engineering in Australia was, to say the least, superficial and somewhat naive. My greatest reservations are about the IAC's wheat industry report. Again the IAC is saying that competition is the cure-all. It is quite evident that it would like to see the abolition of the Australian Wheat Board, throwing Australian wheat marketing on the mercy of the private sector. Can one imagine what John Elliott of Elders IXL Ltd could do to Australia's interests in such a situation? The Australian Wheat Board has served Australia well, and the IAC recognises that the Wheat Board has been able to maximise advantages to Australian wheat producers and contain its costs. In its report it puts forward three options. The first option is complete deregulation, and it then goes through various stages. I agree that there may be a case for looking at the domestic market. There may well be a case for allowing farmer-to-pig-breeder sales of wheat. There may be a case for exempting econuts, the producers of insecticide-free wheat. My view is that it is a lot of nonsense, but if there is a market for it producers should be able to deliver straight to the market. The IAC ignores the lessons of history. What are the lessons of history? Whilst any economist today will tell us about the advantages of free trade, historical experience weighs against it. The great industrial nations of this world were not born of free trade, they were born of protection. One can go through history and study their rise. Germany, America and Japan all built their great industrial power on protection, albeit that in the case of Germany and America it was protection based on the free trade economy of the United Kingdom, protection afforded them by the naval might of the United Kingdom, which kept the sea lanes open. That was a very valuable service to which those countries made no contribution. I recognise that there is a case for a position for the IAC, but it ought to be kept in perspective. I certainly am not prepared to elevate it to the high status accorded it by the honourable member for Ryan. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(8.55) —I rise to speak briefly on the Industries Assistance Commission Amendment Bill. I will not have a great deal to say about it. Let me begin by reminding the House that the legislation will allow the Government to change tariffs under five different specified circumstances without reference to the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC). The Government argues that those circumstances are fairly narrowly defined and that, therefore, it is streamlining the procedures. It is important for us to remember what section 23 of the Industries Assistance Commission Act does. It prevents changes being made to tariff protection without the IAC giving those changes proper consideration. One could argue about whether or not this legislation improves that provision. The honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) has expressed the case forcefully and well on some of the negative effects of a couple of the provisions which have been changed. Nevertheless, section 23 (3) is an extraordinarily important part of the whole concept of both the Industries Assistance Commission and the way tariff protection and industry protection in this country have begun to evolve. The Industries Assistance Commission has been a pivotal body in turning around the debate in this country on industry assistance. When we go back to the debates in the first Parliament in 1901 we see that industry assistance was one of the fundamental issues. It was an important issue throughout Australian Federal history until relatively recent times. In the first Parliament we had the protectionists and the free traders in separate political parties. The Australian Labor Party, as divided then as it is today, was divided between the protectionists and the free traders. It was a vital part of the early political debate in Australia. Since 1901 this country has built on the high levels of industry assistance and protection which before Federation many of the colonies and provinces, such as South Australia, had. In doing that, we have given the arguments of the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) every opportunity in the world to work. Never has a country given the case for the protectionists, those who want to redistribute wealth in favour of what I would regard in many cases as inefficient industries, greater opportunity to see what the consequences of their policies would be. When we look at the structure of the Australian economy in 1988-all sides of politics would agree with this-it is a major problem that our manufacturing sector, our secondary industries, are so desperately inefficient and uncompetitive. Yet they have had every opportunity in the world, with high levels of tariff protection and a whole range of additional assistance measures. Since the establishment of the Industries Assistance Commission it has opened up many of these issues and, in many cases, successfully turned around the debate and showed that the policy of protecting Australian industry has led to a significant redistribution of wealth, which has militated against effective economic development. Two aspects of the Industries Assistance Commission and its Act are of particular importance. The first, which I have already discussed is that it has put the whole issue of industry protection under the closest scrutiny. It was not long ago that a manufacturer would go along to a Minister, complain about the growing level of competition that he or she had to cope with, and ask the Minister for a bit more protection, perhaps for just a little while-not for too long. The department would readily agree and put a proposal to the Minister. The Government would simply accept the plea of the manufacturer. It was not long ago that the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) would go along to Ministers and plead for greater levels of protection. Perhaps we should stop for a minute and consider who used to push those arguments. One of the greatest proponents of those arguments for greater industry protection during the 1970s was none other than the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the man who from time to time berates the Opposition for being too protectionist during its period in government. He led the charge for higher protection during the 1970s. Let me refer to a couple of points he made. On 26 November 1974, during the time of the Whitlam Government, Mr Hawke is on record, in relation to the 25 per cent tariff cut imposed by the Whitlam Government, as saying that the Australian Council of Trade Unions executive-of course, he was the President of the ACTU-was asking the Government to reverse its 25 per cent tariff cut to a substantial extent. I would not have thought that they were the words of a man who wanted lower protection and a leaner, competitive market. Let us look at what he was reported as saying on 20 December 1974 in relation to the motor vehicle industry. This is very illustrative of the stand of the present Prime Minister in those days: Mr Hawke said on Tuesday that the Federal Government's tariff policies had contributed to GMH's troubles. He meant that lowering protection had contributed to its troubles. The report continues: His comments are in opposition to a speech made by the Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, in Brussels yesterday, in which he committed himself to opposing higher tariffs on imported Japanese cars. So there we are: those are the words of the present Prime Minister, the great advocate of higher protection in this country, the man who has the audacity to berate the Opposition for not doing enough to reduce protection during its years in government. Goodness me! The record of the Prime Minister as President of the ACTU needs to be properly re-scrutinised and exposed. In the old days the big time industrialists and people such as the President of the ACTU called for higher and higher protection. There were occasions when both Liberal and Labor governments did not do enough to resist their pleas. The Industries Assistance Commission has allowed the debate to be properly evaluated. Section 23 of the Act ensures that a manufacturer cannot just go along to the ACTU or knock on the door of a Minister and expect to be looked after because he thinks he is a special case, without his arguments being properly and effectively scrutinised by what is genuinely an independent body. A second and very constructive aspect of the IAC's work is the process of public hearings. Views are not presented behind closed doors. People cannot go off squirming into the Cabinet room and make decisions without their being properly scrutinised. All views are presented to the IAC publicly and they are examined publicly. There is proper public scrutiny of the claims made by unionists and industrialists who want greater protection for their industries. So often their claims are self-serving and fatuous and take no account whatsoever of the broader community effects of providing more and more assistance to particular and special interest groups. The IAC has so often exposed those arguments for what they are. It has exposed the cost to ordinary Australians of providing more and more industry assistance for special interest groups, including the ACTU when led by the present Prime Minister. The Government has changed its view a little on these issues over the years. In this piece of legislation there are some changes which, I would have thought, would not be terribly consistent with the general direction of what the Government professes its policy to be. The Government is saying, `In certain additional circumstances changes will not be referred to the IAC'. Already the outcomes of bilateral and multilateral trade negotiations are not subject to IAC scrutiny. That may be reasonable. Already developing country preferences are not subject to the scrutiny of the IAC. That is something which we need to stop and think about a little more. I wonder whether we should not examine a bit more carefully some of these developing country preferences, particularly when we bear in mind that many of the so-called developing countries are not `developing' countries in what was originally intended to be the sense of the word. In many cases they are newly industrialised countries. I do not generally favour the system of preferences for one country and not for another. I would like to see all levels of protection in general come down and to have a more competitive and open market. I am sure that many developing countries would benefit from a much more competitive and open world trading climate than would even some developed countries. We already have those exemptions in the legislation, and we are now adding new exemptions. The honourable member for Ryan has explained the objections which we have to those exemptions. Unlike the member for Kalgoorlie, I think that the processes of the IAC should be strengthened, not weakened. Progress towards reducing special assistance to Australian industries is still moving far too slowly. I do not think we are making the progress and adjustments that we need to make if we are to ensure that this country becomes a much more competitive and effective country. We need to look at issues such as taxes, industrial relations and regulations, as well as some of the more specific issues that the IAC has traditionally looked at. Many of those issues were looked at in its very forthright shipping report. It was an important report. I am very disappointed that the honourable member for Kalgoorlie-we often find this with the Labor Party-simply wants to protect special interests and special privileges for his mates in the trade union movement who work in that particular industry. Long live the IAC and its work. May it expose those special privileges that are given to certain groups in the community. May it continue to make the important contributions it has made to the structural adjustment process that this country so desperately needs. It is said that the trend of our balance of payments is improving, but when we look at the improvement we see that most of it is coming from higher commodity prices. There is a lot of statistical evidence to suggest that the underlying balance of payments-that is, if we do not take into account the improved commodity prices-is still deteriorating in this country. Structural adjustment is becoming more and more urgent. We do not just want rhetoric, we want action. Dr HEWSON(Wentworth)(9.07) —I have much pleasure in rising to support the comments of my colleague the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) and in particular to support his proposed amendments to the Industries Assistance Commission Amendment Bill 1988. The Bill proposes amendments to the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973. These amendments will empower the relevant Minister, with the prior agreement of the Treasurer-the Minister who is now responsible for the Act-to make what are called `minor' changes in the provision of tariff assistance to industries in what are said to be `narrowly defined circumstances' without the requirement of a prior report from the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC). I must admit that on first blush when looking at this piece of legislation I was inclined to feel that it was fairly inconsequential and probably a fairly innocuous piece of legislation. But when one looks at a piece of legislation such as this and realises that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) is involved, and that he has recently seized control of the IAC under his ministerial wing, one realises that a closer look at the fine print is warranted. The Treasurer's involvement warrants a degree of suspicion. A closer examination of this Bill and a fairly close reading of the second reading speech and the explanatory memorandum pay quite a substantial reward for that sort of suspicion. For while on first blush it appears to be fairly inconsequential, there are a couple of features of this legislation, which are taken up by our proposed amendments, which should be drawn to the attention of the House. As one reads the various statements that have been made about this Bill in the second reading speech and elsewhere one sees reassuring words all the time about a `very limited degree of additional flexibility', talk of `safeguards', and so on. When one looks at the five purposes or `circumstances' for which this Bill is being introduced, in two of those five cases one should be particularly suspicious as to what forces are at work. It is true-as the honourable member for Ryan said-that we are not going to raise any objections to the first three of these `circumstances', those that relate to the correcting of anomalies, errors and ambiguities and those that relate to errors in the implementation of a government decision to assist an industry where the decision has arisen out of a report of the Commission. We are more concerned with the two that relate specifically to a special set of circumstances-firstly, `to vary details of industry assistance arrangements because of changes in circumstances where provision for such action was made in the Government decision establishing those arrangements and where, that decision arose out of a Report of the Commission'; and, secondly, `to maintain,' where necessary, `the level of assistance that previously applied', but was varied, by a decision of a tribunal or a court. In the few minutes I have tonight, I will concentrate on the first of those two circumstances, which is listed as the fifth in the explanatory memorandum. The disturbing thing to me is that it is difficult to come up with a substantial justification for that particular provision. The only hint in reading the three versions of it in the Bill, the explanatory memorandum and the second reading speech is the suggestion that these changes may need to be made `in response to changed economic conditions affecting the industry'. But we are not told what those economic conditions are and we are given no hint as to the precise circumstances in which some of these changes in assistance might be made. As I say, when the Treasurer is involved, we should naturally be suspicious as to what is afoot. If I listed my concerns about this provision of the Bill, there would be four or five main ones. First, I am concerned about imprecision, the fact that it appears to be quite open ended and the fact that it is quite unclear to me where it might lead. The only example that is given in the second reading speech relates to some variations within `an industry plan'. As the honourable member for Ryan has said, we know that a couple of the plans have already been given explicit exemptions from section 23 (3) of the Industries Assistance Commission Act and the only remaining plan of any consequence is the car plan, and a question remains as to how that will be implemented. My second concern relates to the enormous amount of uncertainty that can flow as a result of this sort of legislation to any of the industries concerned. As my colleagues have said, tariff protection is a very difficult area and there are a host of different classifications and separate rates of duty. The worst thing that a struggling manufacturer can have to deal with is usually an enhanced uncertainty in that regard, and this Bill clearly increases the extent of that uncertainty. It effectively rests in the Treasurer a power which would indeed compound anybody's uncertainty in relation to the likely level of assistance in his particular industry. This leads me, naturally, to the third concern that I have, which relates to a minimum of parliamentary scrutiny over the activities that may take place in the future as a result of this Bill. It is foreshadowed that ultimately there will be parliamentary scrutiny through debate when all of these changes are collected together in a Customs Tariff Amendment Bill at some time in the future. But they will probably be a large number of such changes, and I imagine it would be easy for a paricular change to be buried in that process and for their true significance to be lost in that review process. It would not be a direct parliamentary scrutiny of the activities of the Treasurer but, I suspect, quite the reverse. The fourth area of my concern relates to the point I made earlier about the role being played by the Treasurer in relation to this Bill. It is interesting to recall that the Treasurer himself has now taken control of the IAC under his ministerial wing. I suspect this has much to do with some old score settling on the part of his Department as much as it has to do with his new-found interest in micro-economic reform. The point is a significant one because he now has ministerial responsibility for the IAC and this Bill is giving him an additional power-the power to make what are called `minor' variations in relation to levels of industry assistance-so that the whole area of protection is now heavily concentrated under his hand. Not only has he taken control of the IAC, and somewhat unexpectedly to Senator Button who admitted, according to Press reports, that he had expected to continue that control, but Mr Bill Carmichael has resigned as Chairman and has been replaced, not surprisingly, by an old Treasury man, Mr Greg Taylor. So what we have is a consolidation of influence of both the Treasury and the Treasurer in a very important area of economic policy. As the honourable member for Ryan said, this particular feature of the Bill apparently is not closely based on the original review of tariff classification amendment procedures tabled back in May 1985. That particular review dealt with three major options, and the first of those options has been effectively embodied in this legislation, although only in part. Because whilst that review recommended pretty much the sort of proposed section that has been included, it added an additional suggestion that it would be desirable to complement such an amendment with an appeal mechanism. There is no explicit appeal mechanism built into this clause of the Bill. Indeed, as the honourable member for Ryan has pointed out, the other particular provision of the Bill that is of concern to us effectively dilutes, if not eliminates, the existing processes of appeal, in the sense that even if an appeal is won the level of industry assistance can still be changed back at the whim of the Treasurer. My final comment relates to the suggestion that there are `safeguards' built into this piece of legislation. This is to give us a sense of security, I guess, that the power will not be abused and that the magnitude of the changes to industry assistance will not be very significant. My concern is that whilst the word `minor', for example, is used in both the second reading speech and in the explanatory memorandum, as the honourable member for Ryan pointed out, it does not appear in the Bill itself. One is left with a very uneasy feeling that `minor' changes can in fact become `major' when there is no direct scrutiny. We are also told that there is a `transparent safeguard' against the erosion of the role of the IAC in that the Minister needs a prior approval of the Treasurer before any of these changes in industry assistance can be undertaken. I guess that would be fine if we had some division of ministerial responsibility between the Minister wanting to make those changes and the Treasurer. But when the power is effectively embodied in the Treasurer, it is a very significant consolidation of his power in this respect. To summarise, whilst at first blush I thought this was a fairly inconsequential piece of legislation, I am now particularly concerned that there is quite a lot more to it, in particular the clauses that I have identified. Without an adequate explanation as to why they have been included, and without any indication as to the specific circumstances under which they will be used, one can only have a pronounced sense of suspicion as to the true motives involved. The real question at this point is: What is the hidden agenda in relation to this Bill? I now seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the Opposition's amendments. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —It is understood that the Opposition wishes to incorporate in Hansard those of its amendments and new clauses which have been circulated but which were not moved at the expiration of time. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. The amendments read as follows- (1) Clause 2, page 1, line 11, omit ``Subject to subsections (3aa) and (3ab)'', substitute ``Subject to subsection (3aa)''. (2) Clause 2, page 2, lines 13-20, omit proposed paragraph 23 (3aa) (c). (3) Clause 2, page 2, lines 21-41, omit proposed subsection 23 (3ab). (4) Clause 2, page 2, line 42, omit ``or (3ab)''. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport and Communications Support and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(9.18) —in reply-I have been left insufficient time to respond to the arguments raised by honourable members opposite. I reject outright the gratuitous comment in respect of the movement of the Industries Assistance Commission from the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce to the Treasury. If the honourable member for Wentworth (Dr Hewson) reads my second reading speech closely he will see that an example was given of changes in economic circumstances when I said: . . . an industry plan might make provision for variations in the duty rates applying to out-of-quota imports in the event that imports of the goods concerned exceed specified limits. In respect of the Opposition's concern about appeals, let me say that appeals to tribunals such as the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or a court can be made against classification but not rate of duty. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question now is that the remaining stages be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler) —I present the amended report of the Selection Committee relating to the program of business prior to 12.30 p.m. on Thursday, 19 May 1988. Copies of the report have been circulated to honourable members in the chamber. The amended report read as follows- The Selection Committee has amended its determinations relating to time limits applying to statements made in connection with the presentation of committee reports on Thursday, 19 May 1988. The amended order of precedence and allotment of time determined by the Committee for each item of business is shown in the list. The Committee recommends that the amended report be adopted. Committee reports Statements upon presentation Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration: Report on 6 efficiency audits of the Australian Taxation Office. [The Selection Committee has determined that statements on the report may be made-all statements to be made within a total time of 20 minutes.] Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training: Report on efficiency and effectiveness of institutional practices in the higher education sector. [The Selection Committee has determined that statements on the report may be made-all statements to be made within a total time of 30 minutes.] Private Members' business Order of precedence Item Time allotted *1 MR WRIGHT: To move-That this House condemns the decision by the ANZ Bank to introduce a fee for withdrawals from savings accounts, believing that- 20 mins (1) such a fee is unwarranted, unjust and unfair, particularly to pensioners, low income families and others who depend on savings accounts for the protection and management of their finances; and (2) it is commercially immoral for a bank to charge a depositor for the right to withdraw his or her own money. (Notice given 15 September 1987). *2 MRS SULLIVAN: To move-That this House- (1) deplores the delays in the processing of applications for immigration and change of status; 35 mins (2) criticises the uncertainty of business, independent and refugee immigration programs; and (3) calls on the Government to upgrade and streamline the administration of immigration policy. (Notice given 21 April 1988). *3 DR CHARLESWORTH: To move-That this House- (1) congratulates the Government on its commitment to a health insurance system based on the principles of fairness, simplicity and efficiency; 35 mins (2) calls upon the Government to maintain a universal system of health insurance funded by a fairly applied levy arrangement; and (3) condemns attacks on the universal health insurance system. (Notice given 15 September 1987; amended 27 April 1988). *4 MR P. S. FISHER: To move-That this House- (1) recognises the impact of the EEC and the US farm subsidies upon the viability of the efficient Australian wheat industry; (2) acknowledges the contribution made to Australia's export earnings by primary industry; and (3) accepts an urgency to address the alarming increase in rural poverty. (Notice given 26 April 1988). any remaining private Members' business time * The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. Motion (by Mr Leo McLeay)-by leave-agreed to: That the report be adopted in lieu of the report presented on 28 April 1988. Debate resumed from 14 April, on motion by Mr Duncan: That the Bill be now read a second time. (Quorum formed) Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong)(9.24) —The legislation honourable members are debating tonight is the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2). The coalition parties will not be opposing the Bill. However, a number of aspects deserve serious discussion. As we have come to expect from this Government, the Bill represents yet another in a long list of legislation patching up past errors. It represents more pages to add to the hundreds that have already been laid down in the taxation statute book in the course of this Government's term. On the face of them, such Bills as these represent technical changes to improve the efficiency of the tax system. However, at the bottom line they often mean more complexity, more confusion and more uncertainty. That is why the Opposition is moving a second reading amendment to highlight both the absolute cost and the administrative burden the Government's tax system places on Australians. I therefore move: Whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House notes that: (1) this is the highest taxing Government in the post-war history of Australia; (2) it is its continual emphasis on revenue collection, rather than expenditure restraint that has eliminated the budget deficit in 1987-88; (3) it has mainly relied on bracket creep through the various personal income tax brackets, and also on the introduction of new incentive-sapping taxes such as the fringe benefits tax and capital gains tax; (4) such new taxes represent increased complexity and uncertainty in the administration of the taxation system and so decrease efficiency and equity; and (5) without an effective tax system Australia will find it increasingly difficult to trade itself out of its $87 billion net foreign debt. Approximately 60 amendments are to be made to the existing taxation laws through the proposed legislation. Given the Government's past record of shabby drafting and its continual prattling of `unintended consequences', I trust that we will be able to pick up any new anomalies before the legislation is finally passed. Anomalies not only distort the tax system and lead to inefficient allocation of resources, they also have equity effects. An anomaly in the tax treatment of the carers pensions is dealt with in Taxation Laws Amendment (No. 2). Since February 1988, the carers pension has been available not only to a relative but also to a non-relative caring for a severely handicapped aged or invalid pensioner. Mr Cleeland —A caring government. Mr PEACOCK —If it were a caring government, it would not have allowed this anomaly to have occurred because people have felt that a manifest injustice has been done to those who were related to the pensioner, as I shall now explain. The carers pension is exempt from tax where both the carer and the pensioner are below age pension entitlement. When either the carer or the handicapped pensioner becomes entitled to the age pension, the carers pension is taxable if the carer is a relative of the pensioner. Remarkably, however, through the so-called caring Government, no tax applies if the carer is not a relative. Did I hear the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) say `rip off'? I am sorry, the doctor must have been talking in another conversation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Perhaps the Minister could go outside with his subcommittee. Mr PEACOCK —I should not wish the Minister to be chastised because all honourable members rejoiced in the award of a Doctorate of Philosophy to the Minister. Mr Barry Jones —Of Science. Mr PEACOCK —I am sorry, a Doctorate of Science. For all that we may seek to disagree with the Minister politically, we admire him personally and we admire what he has sought to call forth in the Australian community-perhaps on occasions from a different perspective to the Opposition. But I say very warmly that I was cheered when I read of the award that had been granted. Mr Barry Jones —Thank you. Mr Hand —Haven't you got much to say tonight? Mr PEACOCK —The factions are coming out again, are they? As I was saying, remarkably, no tax applies if the carer is not a relative. To ensure consistent treatment between related and non-related carers, the Bill proposes to remove the tax exemption for non-relatives. The Opposition does not oppose this, however, it notes that beyond the immediate issue here, an anomaly apparently exists where the same payment is taxable in the hands of a person of age pension entitlement but not taxable in the hands of a person under age pension entitlement. This appears to be a leftover from the bad old days of-dare I say it-the Whitlam Government. As a general rule, the Opposition supports the carers pension as its recipients take substantial pressure off the public purse and enable the people they are caring for to remain in their homes. I raise the issue here as one that needs to be addressed in future reviews. Certainly the Opposition will be taking the matter further and discussing the matter again. Another area to which I draw attention involves the amendments to the treatment of cash bidding systems. The Bill will extend the application of the income tax deductions allowable for cash bids paid for the grant offshore petroleum exploration permits under the Commonwealth cash bidding system introduced in 1985. Without going into details, the proposed amendments allow deductions under other Commonwealth, State and Northern Territory cash bidding systems. As they are relieving a tax burden, these proposed amendments are non-controversial. The Government explains that this will ensure that Australian companies will not be disadvantaged in the bidding process when competing with foreign companies that can obtain deductions for their cash bids under their domestic laws. However, what the Government does not explain is the adverse impact cash bidding has had on oil exploration. In the past the Opposition has argued against this new form of taxation; and a new form of taxation it is. For God's sake, for reasons that I will explain in a moment, we are going to face the most adverse consequences on our balance of payments in the 1990s, but the delinquents on the other side of the House, unable to look down the line and see the consequences of being dependent on overseas oil supplies, do not reach the conclusion that there ought to be an incentive for oil exploration rather than dumping new forms of taxation on those who would seek to make us more self-sufficient. In the past we have argued constantly against such a new form of taxation. Do not be fooled into believing that the prime motivation for its introduction in 1985 was anything other than straight revenue raising by a government which had as its base requirement more revenue and no requirement to examine carefully-despite the backgrounding to the Press-the need to cut expenditure. It is dependent for its budgeting on overwhelming revenue raising. For reasons I will explain in a moment, the average pay as you earn taxpayer has footed the bill for eliminating the deficit in this financial year. As an auction system for exploration leases, the Government's system is apparently no better at providing an efficient allocation of resources than the previous work program bidding system. What is apparent, however, is that Australia's known petroleum resources are declining and petroleum exploration is severely cut back. I mentioned just a moment ago the problem we will face in the latter part of the 1900s. Certainly by the year 2000 our country could be dependent on foreign sources for up to 60 per cent of its oil supplies. Currently we have 80 per cent self-sufficiency. I well recall the debates in this Parliament during the period of the oil price hike in 1973-74 when the Whitlam Government was so laid back in regard to that oil price hike and shock which sent tremors through Japan, so much so that it changed its foreign policy almost overnight-but not a labor government. From a different perspective but a similar philosophy the same is occurring under a socialist government today. The philosophy is: Take as much revenue as you can from those who are seeking to explore for oil and pay no regard for the consequences down the line. I repeat: by the year 2000 Australia could be dependent on foreign sources for up to 60 per cent of its oil supply. We have 80 per cent self-sufficiency now and the Government is making it tougher for those who would seek to explore and find a vital resource for Australia. In this environment it is particularly important to ensure that the tax system does not continue to make petroleum exploration and development projects unattractive-quite the reverse-relative to other investment opportunities in Australia, or relative to petroleum exploration and development in other countries. Another area touching on our competitiveness with other countries is the foreign tax credit system. It was a touch of exquisite genius to come upon this. It was wheeled up to us in the past when we were in government and we rejected it out of hand. So, too, the Government should-- Mr Hand —You threw it out. Mr PEACOCK —Of course we threw it out. I know that from the perspective of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs this is another revenue raising little dub. Let us not worry about the incentive to reinvest; let us not worry about attracting people to remit profits. Mr Hand —Let us get on to the free lunch bit. Mr PEACOCK —We are on to the free lunches, are we? I wish members on this side of the House were here in greater numbers to hear the honourable member for Melbourne, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, equate free lunches with the foreign tax credit system. I think that probably says more about the honourable member than it does about the Government, though we would be competing unsuccessfully to allot priorities to it. Under that system foreign source income, with some exceptions, derived by Australian residents is subject to Australian income tax, and a credit up to the amount of Australian income tax payable on the foreign income is allowed for the foreign tax paid in respect of that income. That tax was brought in following the Government's so-called taxation reforms in 1985. The real reform which was needed and the real reform which is now exacerbated to the extent where people are screaming for it was to reduce not just the personal tax level but, in this instance, the corporate tax level. Instead, this Labor Government raised the rates from 46c in the dollar to 49c in the dollar-a great tax reform! I heard the Government talk about the tax relief it was promising. It talks about tax relief and lifts the corporate rate from 46c in the dollar to 49c. Some relief, some reform! This Bill proposes to clarify the practical operation of the tax. Quite frankly, this is tinkering at the edges. The foreign tax credit system appears increasingly as a disincentive to much needed foreign dollars. As such, it is against the overwhelming need to encourage exports and an outward looking approach by Australian firms. It is complex and beyond the comprehension of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, who is at the table. It is also confusing. But business cannot operate effectively in that uncertain environment. Real reform in this area will come only when nominal corporate tax rates are reduced significantly. Once that occurs, such legislation basically becomes redundant. Again it is obvious that the Government is more interested in tightening up these laws to suck in more revenue-a constant in my remarks tonight-than in providing a system that will attack our foreign debt difficulties. Mr Hand —You were better at foreign affairs than you are at this caper. Mr PEACOCK —I think I do well at both. The honourable member could learn a great deal. If he would seek to listen and learn, rather than simply debate the pedantics, and do it from a generous spirit of learning, he would rise in the Ministry. Mr Hand —You know that I always listen to you. Mr PEACOCK —Indeed, I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to address the Chair. Mr PEACOCK —The Minister is very kind and benevolent in throwing that in. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —He is always benevolent. Mr PEACOCK —I thought this was a state of objectivity from the Chair. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —It is a state of objectivity. Mr PEACOCK —Yet another example can be found in the Bill regarding the amendments on thin capitalisation, something about which the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs knows a great deal. He has got a very thin capital base, has he not? The Bill proposes minor amendments to thin capitalisation rules contained in tax legislation. In 1987 that legislation replaced similar rules previously applied administratively under the foreign investment policy. The statutory rules ensure that foreign investors having an interest of at least 15 per cent in an Australian business generally maintain a 3 : 1 debt to equity ratio. The proposed amendments tighten definitions to close off a potential avoidance loophole and modify the effect on an equity maintenance requirement that has a potentially broader application than intended. The coalition parties did not oppose this legislation when it was first introduced, nor does it oppose these amendments. However, it is increasingly concerned by the continuing stream of amendments. It seems that every new tax Bill introduced in recent months has contained changes to this area. This is simply another case of the Government making amendments on the run and indicates shabby drafting in the past. It creates uncertainty and must at some stage deter much needed foreign investment in Australia. Honourable members will again note my interlinking of the tax system and the question of Australia's foreign debt problems. Those foreign debt problems, as honourable members have heard from me in the past, are enormous. People would be confused by the Treasurer saying only a few weeks ago how rosy our economy's future was but now describing it as serious. The Treasurer makes so many turnarounds on the economy that he must be spinning like a top. If one traces the statements made by the Treasurer in this calendar year alone, at the beginning of the financial year, particularly in regard to the January balance of payments figures, the Treasurer made statements that would lead one to believe that the banana republic statement of just over two years ago was made many decades ago. How rosy was the picture. But only a month ago we heard how the economy was overheating. Consistency is not a mark of the current Treasurer. In fact, the variants in the analysis are as substantial as the disagreement of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs with many of the policies pursued by the Treasurer. I note that the Minister remains silent. As I said a moment ago, I am interlinking the tax system and Australia's foreign debt problems, and those problems are enormous. The Treasurer, however, changes his assessment of what will transpire in the future. He may feel he can fool the Australian people, but both by the results of polls that have been conducted and by the real determinants-State and Federal by-elections held this year-it is quite clear that the Australian people are not being fooled; nor has the Treasurer fooled overseas analysts. In reviewing Australia's credit rating drop in April, Moody's Investor Services stated: The pace of adjustment since 1983 has been steady but slow relative to several other OECD countries that have faced similar deficit problems. A pertinent question is whether this gradualist approach to reform will succeed rapidly enough to prevent external borrowing requirements from reaching unacceptably high levels. People are not fooled, and there is a good reason why. The latest figures of the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that at the end of last year net foreign debt stood at $86.8 billion, an increase of $4.1 billion on the level at the end of September 1987. Foreign debt under this Government has quadrupled. Australia is lying wide open for further body blows from the world economy. Already there are 166,000 people on public housing waiting lists. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs would feel and know and comprehend this problem more than most in this Parliament. Some 40,000 people are spending miserable nights in refuges, in emergency accommodation or in the open. If the world economy were to turn down, how many more people would be added to these numbers? Australia is poorly placed to respond because of its crippling debt burden. The bottom line is that the pace of economic adjustment in this country is just too slow. What is the prescription? It is partly that a decrease in the tax burden unquestionably increases the incentive both to invest and to work. Mr Price —What would a cut in spending do in this area? Mr PEACOCK —Does the honourable member disagree with that notion? Does he feel that higher taxes soak the rich and that, therefore, we can do so much more? I remind the honourable member of the fairly basic element that if taxes are cut by reducing expenditure, thereby cutting public demand and shifting resources from the public non-tradable sector to the tradable goods sector, economic activity will unquestionably improve by an increase in incentive both to invest and to work. A couple of weeks ago the Minister for Employment and Education Services (Mr Duncan), like the honourable member who interjected, called for increased taxation. How wrong he is. I do not need to develop at great length the Federal and State by-election results in this country to indicate that there is a political desire for a greater incentive to work by way of lower taxation. In economic terms, for reasons that I just gave, there is an absolute need for it. Again, the bottom line on this element is that Australians have had enough of high taxes in the past five years. This is the highest taxing, biggest spending government in Australia's peacetime history. For the Minister for Employment and Education Services to be adding calls for higher taxation is an act of delinquency. There is a trade off for what is being done. There is a need to run Budget surpluses as well, and that means, as I have implied, cutting Government expenditure. It is of paramount importance to run surpluses on the Commonwealth Budget for at least two reasons. The first relates to what the economists, as the Minister would understand, refer to as intergenerational transfers-in other words, not dumping the debt on our children. There is a need to reduce the public sector debt rather than bequeath a huge debt to our children. Mr Hand —Now we all know. Mr PEACOCK —Indeed, the Minister has learnt a lot tonight. Secondly, the Commonwealth should run a surplus to offset the deficits run by the States within the Federation for macroeconomic, and hence balance of payments, reasons. That said, I want to highlight to the Minister the magnitude of the debt. We all know that foreign debt is around $112 billion in gross terms or $87 billion in net terms. Mr Hand —Tell me where you are going to cut it. Mr PEACOCK —The Minister should curb his flow. He should not get over excited because all will be revealed in due course. As at 30 June 1987 public sector debt-that is, debt owed by governments, both Commonwealth and State-was somewhere between $121 billion and $130 billion. The reason I cannot be precise about that figure is that the Australian Bureau of Statistics does not publish it. One must aggregate the figures from a couple of different Commonwealth Budget Papers or use Reserve Bank figures. There seems to be a strong case for the Government to publish coherent data, preferably with State by State breakdowns. I am glad to see that at last the Australian Bureau of Statistics is planning to publish statistics. Nonetheless, it is a huge total and must be reduced. Australians are suffering, and pious platitudes about social justice and removing all children from poverty by 1990-as was invoked by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in the last election campaign-frankly amount to nothing. In next week's mini-Budget, to set the course the Government must strengthen our economy against an uncertain future. With those remarks, I have sought succinctly to summarise the Opposition's approach to this Bill, which I repeat it is not opposing. However, I reiterate the amendment I moved and which the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) will second. In closing, I refer to the fact that although the Opposition will not call a division on this amendment, in the committee stage the honourable member for Curtin will move an amendment relating to clause 42 of the Bill. I shall allow the honourable member to extrapolate on that during his speech on the second reading. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Rocher —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(9.50) —I should like to congratulate the honourable member for Kooyong, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), on presenting tonight an amendment dressed up but reflecting the same sentiments as he presented the last time that taxation Bills were before this House and I debated with him at length. However, I think he has probably gone to the limit of being able to change the words around to reflect the same sentiments as he has expressed on a number of previous occasions. I should like to just pick up on some of the points the honourable gentleman raised in his amendment. First, he talked about the Government's continual emphasis on revenue collection rather than expenditure restraint that has eliminated the Budget deficit in 1987-88. I believe that restraint says something about this Government's ability to tackle the problems of the domestic deficit. I accept that the honourable member largely had no responsibility for what was inherited by this Government, as he was not serving in a financial advisory capacity in the previous Government, but his Leader certainly was. I just point out to him that this Government has progressively, over five years, reduced that deficit, in fact, into a surplus and prospect; and we look forward to the outcome of that next week. The second point was in regard to point No. 4 of his amendment, which suggests that new taxes represent increased complexity and uncertainty. If one has followed what has been happening in the Australian Taxation Office in recent months-and I certainly have been in a position to do through a committee of this Parliament which I chair, the Finance and Public Administration Committee-it is quite obvious that the Taxation Office has made major steps in revising management practices and strategies, such that we certainly can now see that this so-called complexity and uncertainty surrounding the administration of taxation law in this country has been all but eliminated. I would certainly use this opportunity to commend the Commissioner of Taxation for that initiative. Some of the results of that will be seen tomorrow, when I table a report in this House on a number of efficiency audits carried out by the Australian Audit Office into the Taxation Office. I shall leave my remarks on that issue until then. The fifth point of the amendment talks about an effective tax system in Australia and the $87 billion net foreign debt. Again, what the honourable member for Kooyong failed to say was that 60 per cent of that debt is private debt. It is debt that has been attributed to companies in Australia that have gone offshore to raise capital to inject into businesses in this country. Not only are Australian companies going offshore, but also overseas companies are investing in this country. I find some difficulty, therefore, in accepting one of the points that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition made about the foreign tax credit system. He said there was certainly a disincentive to foreign dollars coming into this country because of the changes to the foreign tax credit system. How does one reconcile that sort of argument with his argument that the amount of foreign debt that is attributable to this country is of such large proportion? I believe an inquiry by our Committee into international profit shifting might shed some light on that. As honourable members have seen during that inquiry, the foreign tax credit system has been trotted out by a number of people in the financial sector, particularly those in the banking industry, as being a reason why international profit shifting and transfer pricing are not taking place any longer. It is suggested that simply because companies from Australia go overseas and establish branch offices in tax havens where taxes are a lot lower they get benefits from that. However, through the foreign tax credit system, they then have to pay full credit or full taxation in Australia at the proper company rate. Frankly, I have some difficulty with some of the suggestions that have been put forward during our inquiry, and I indicate that towards the end of this year a report will be tabled on that issue, which I hope we can address. The honourable member for Kooyong raised another issue in respect of cash bidding and petroleum. Mr Hand —Don't forget point No. 3. Mr MARTIN —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs reminds me of point No. 3, which I shall return to. In regard to cash bidding and petroleum, I ask the honourable gentleman: If he is so concerned about disincentives being imposed upon explorers in the petroleum area, why did the Opposition parties oppose the resource rent tax legislation? Why did they oppose that legislation, which was proposing a tax regime on companies only when they became profitable, not on exploration? There was no disincentive for exploration. Why did they oppose measures of that nature, but now suggest that some of the amendments contained in this Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2), which picks up on this cash bidding area, are a bad thing? The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) reminded me of point No. 3-the concern being expressed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition about fringe benefits tax and capital gains tax. It is interesting that that the rorts and ripoffs that had been occurring in the community prior to the introduction of that legislation have now been checked. The Treasurer (Mr Keating), in an answer to a question during the last sitting week of parliament, clearly demonstrated the amount of revenue that has accrued, quite properly, to the people of Australia through the imposition of these taxation measures. To suggest that a fringe benefits tax and a capital gains tax are incentive sapping is absolute nonsense. Honourable members should examine the incentives that have existed in the stock exchange even after the stock market crash in October last year. This Government's taxation measures have certainly done nothing to the myriad investors who had been prepared to put their dollars in the stock exchange, invest their money, make gains and then pay the appropriate rates of tax on them. The Bill honourable members are debating tonight, which in some respects was skated over by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in his introductory remarks-ignored, some might say-deals with specific aspects. In the short time I have left I should like to touch on a couple of those. Registration of tax agents is an important issue as, of course, are restrictions on eligibility for the special depreciation allowance available for Australian trading ships. Another issue of great moment in this legislation relates to the changes being proposed to the taxing arrangement for certain educational allowances and for the carer's pension. I dispute wholeheartedly the honourable gentleman's suggestion that amendments to taxation laws are made on the run. They are not made on the run. Rather, they are a reflection of the concern that this Government has for ensuring two things: firstly, that the taxation system is fair and equitable and that people who have to contribute their share of taxation revenue so that services in Australia can be provided, in fact, do contribute; and, secondly, that efficiency within the taxation system is improved, which this Government has achieved. The Government is not afraid-and I have said this previously-to make amendments to legislation. With respect to the registration of taxation agents, the rules governing registration remain relatively unchanged since 1943, and this Bill generally endeavours to modernise and improve the Act. Recommendations have been made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Administrative Review Council, and-as usual, as is the hallmark of this Government-consultation has occurred with interested parties, who have indicated general support. It is therefore very important to continue to ensure, and especially so for the protection of taxpayers, that tax agents have the appropriate knowledge of Australian income tax law and of accounting principles and that they are otherwise fit and proper people to be conducting income tax businesses. I do not think anyone in this House would or should dispute the fact that taxation practitioners should be well and truly informed on taxation laws and should be in a position to advise taxpayers of their legal rights under the tax system. This Bill therefore provides a more objective test as to who is a suitable person to be registered as a tax agent or as a nominee. I think that is most significant. Those tests include that the applicant must have academic qualifications and practical experience; the applicant must not have been convicted of a serious taxation offence within the preceding five years; and the person is otherwise a suitable person to be a registered tax agent. As I said, those measures are correct and proper to ensure that the taxpayers of Australia are protected. The Bill gives tax agents boards a general power to suspend the registration of a tax agent in addition to the power of cancellation. The power of suspension is to be subject to a right of review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I conclude by reiterating what I have said on a number of occasions in this place when debating taxation measures. Despite what has been constantly said in amendments trotted out by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, this Government has endeavoured to ensure that the taxation system is fair, equitable and efficient. I believe that the Government, along with the Australian Taxation Office, has to the best of its ability maintained and improved upon that standard. I commend what the Government is attempting to do through the implementation of these amendments. I believe they need to be supported. I am pleased to see that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has indicated that the Opposition will not oppose them. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(10.02) —At the outset, in support of the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), I note that, as with most of the amendments to various tax laws we have had to consider over the past five years, the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) is very much another patchwork quilt. It ranges over lengthy alterations to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, the Income Tax Rates Act 1986, the Fringe Benefit Tax Assessment Act 1986, the Taxation Laws Amendment (Foreign Tax Credits) Act 1986, the Taxation Laws Amendment (Fringe Benefits and Substantiation) Act 1987 and the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act 1935 to the International Organizations (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1963. The Bill seeks to amend seven of the multitude of tax acts to some greater or lesser extent. However, my remarks will be confined, unless I indicate otherwise, to the proposed amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. Before doing so I simply note that another 44 or 45 pages of piecemeal tax law will be added to the statutes. That is further testimony of the deceit practised by the Government in general and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in particular. We remember that the latter solemnly promised to simplify our tax laws. It is not just that a simplification of our tax laws has not been delivered as promised; the entire tax system has been complicated beyond comprehension. One of the main features of the Bill is that it seeks to amend part VIIa of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. The amendments proposed will give effect to recommendations made by the Administrative Review Council and the Administrative Review Tribunal. The principal Act as it now stands provides in part VIIa, inter alia, for the registration and the annual renewal of registration of tax agents as well as for cancellation or suspension of that registration. It is now proposed to allow partnerships and individual tax agents to register suitably qualified employees as nominees. One expected outcome will be that registered tax agents or their nominees will no longer just have to be deemed fit and proper people; they will also have to have suitable professional qualifications and be free from recent serious tax related offences. It is proposed that in future tax agents boards in each State will have the power either to cancel or to suspend registration for specified offences and that such action will be subject to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. While that might overcome an alleged present abuse whereby registered company tax agents may not be actively involved in the day to day affairs of companies and are merely signatories of convenience, it could have some unintended consequences. Mr Braithwaite —Not that phrase again. Mr ROCHER —The honourable member remembers that term. One will be that the signatory of convenience becomes a nominee rather than a registered agent without remedying claimed abuse in any material way. Indeed, abuse, if that is a correct word to use in this context, does not appear to have led to serious breaches to date and one is left to wonder whether worthwhile outcomes will be obtained by this new requirement. Accounting practices and practitioners in future will not be precluded from the necessity of having staff other than partners and beneficial owners do all the work required in preparing tax returns for clients. Whereas rules now governing the preparation of tax returns will in future no longer apply and nominees or agents not active in an agency practice will not be accredited, there can be no guarantee that the objections offered as an excuse for the changes will be in any way satisfied. The justification for different-not necessarily better, just different-registration rules is that present rules have `led to exploitation by some unqualified persons'. Unexplained and unquantified exploitation by some should hardly be reason enough for changes to registration requirements. Surely exploitation by some-perhaps a mere few-could have been corrected without the bureaucratic response at the heart of the amendments proposed. No-one has argued that present law and rules are inadequate. Blind faith is required to accept the implied but not implicit reasoning that abuse by some has been of dimensions warranting measures which will at best see a different person signing returns on behalf of clients although the new signatory will be more than likely just as ignorant of the contents as was the previous signatory of convenience. Let me assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that blind faith in this Government and what it says is a very rare commodity indeed. Leaving all that aside for the purpose of further discussion, let us concentrate on what I see as the underlying arrogance of those instigating proposed new law to govern registration of tax agents. In doing so, let the accusation of self-righteous arrogance fall where it may. If elements of the accounting or legal professions are party to these measures, they are included. So are the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and his Government. More importantly, so are the advisers from within the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). Let me give by way of an aside just a little example of the arrogance of the Commissioner of Taxation. On his letterhead, at the foot of the page, he now includes the slogan `TAXES-Building a better Australia'. That is a political argument if ever there was one. It is not one that the Taxation Commissioner should be seen to be adding his name to on his official stationery. That is an example-there are others; I know that my friend the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) has other examples-of the sort of line that the Commissioner for Taxation is peddling. It is of a political nature and not one for a respected civil servant in this country. In future, licensed tax agents will be subjected to stringent qualifying criteria and penalties. There is a lack of balance in the proposed amendments in the sense that it seems to be assumed that all the allegations of abuse centre on tax agents and private professional practitioners. Nothing is further from the truth. Yet this legislation is aimed only at professionals in the private sector. It does not acknowledge that there can be and is abuse of a far more serious kind within the Australian Taxation Office. The arrogance to which I refer is therefore found in the greater stringency to be imposed on future tax agents which is in no way matched by similar constraints on officers of the Australian Taxation Office. A great deal more than anecdotal evidence exists to suggest that the excesses of some ATO desk auditors and their immediate superiors are a more prevalent abuse than has been attributed without substantiation to tax agents. If that needs reinforcing, I simply quote some headings from a submission by the Business Council of Australia: `The audits lack direction'; `External Auditors' work files are often used for ``fishing expeditions'' '; `There is a lack of reasonableness'; `Rules are changed retrospectively'; `The auditors are oppressive and over-bearing'; `Auditors refuse to negotiate'; `Auditors seek concessions from companies that are not justified by the law'. Some of those allegations are serious indeed. As I say, the arrogance to which I refer is to be matched against the provisions which are applied to tax agents and which do not, I regret to say, apply to officers of the ATO. A great deal more than anecdotal evidence leads one to reach that conclusion. An even-handed approach to the standards to be demanded of taxpayers and ATO employees alike would have had credibility. No such provisions are contemplated, certainly not in this legislation. Sadly, it is not the case. Even the double standard that I have discussed, important as it is, is peripheral to the amendment I will move in the committee stage on behalf of the Opposition. The amendment has been circulated and is available to honourable members. Clause 42 on page 23 of the Bill is the amending clause in this Bill. The Government's proposal, described on page 64 of the explanatory memorandum, provides for reconstitution of tax agents' boards in each State. The composition of the new boards is to be changed in a significant and material way, whereas today, and until this Bill becomes an Act, no employee of the ATO may be a member of a tax agents' board. That is to change. It is proposed that not only must a member of the Australian Taxation Office be a member of the new boards to be constituted-that in itself would be enough to warrant my amendment-but also that an employee of the ATO, if he or she were merely a member of the proposed new three-person boards, would have a say and be required to pass judgment from time to time on matters affecting the livelihoods of existing and aspiring tax agents. A cautious government, one not imbued with a belief in the infallibility of the ATO, could not fail to recognise the perceptions that could bring about, to the detriment of the reputations of the boards themselves. To use a colloquialism well known to those opposite, blind Freddy could see what problems are likely to arise. As one of three, with a deliberative vote on the new board, an employee of the Australian Taxation Office considering a complaint against an agent or aspiring agent lodged with the board by the Commissioner would immediately be placed in a classic conflict of interest dilemma. That same individual would-or should-be in the position of disqualifying himself or herself, but there is not such obligation. That and more would form the basis of our objection to this amendment. There is even more to it than that. As I have said, currently no person from the Australian Taxation Office may be a member of a tax agents board. However, clause 42 of the Bill provides that not only shall a tax officer be a member of each reconstituted board but also that tax officers will be the chairpersons of each of the boards. In my view, this is a wholly undesirable situation as it could, and almost certainly will, create the impression that any agent who upsets the Tax Office could be subjected to harsh treatment by the boards. A chairperson of a board has even greater control in the conduct of the meetings of a board than does another member. Previously, the Chairman of the Taxation Board of Review was a former officer of the Australian Taxation Office. That would be entirely acceptable in these measures. That situation no longer exists because the boards have been abolished and their functions have been transferred to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, where a former tax officer would not assume the role of chairman of a three-person tribunal. Those changes to the Board of Review system followed consideration by the Government of a report to the Attorney-General by the Administration Review Council-the very same Council which made recommendations on this matter-entitled `Review of Taxation Decision by Boards of Review-Report No. 17-Canberra 1983'. Pages 17 to 19, items 88 to 101, each inclusive, mount argument in this context relevant to clause 42, which we will seek to amend in the committee stage. Amongst other things, section 88 of that submission says: The possibility that a specialist tribunal may lack independence from the department whose decision it reviews arises in several ways. It goes on to give examples and to expand on that opening statement. The Commissioner sought to defend himself by saying, `The Boards are pretty good. The Commissioner succeeded in 13 of those cases referred under the system that then existed, which was the basis of the complaint. In 13 others the taxpayers were successful. In the remaining case both the Commissioner and the taxpayer were partly successful'. The Commissioner went on to conclude: I cannot imagine a better example of complete impartiality. As if impartiality goes with the numbers. It is a bit like saying at quarter time at the footy when one's team is getting drubbed, `They got five more free kicks than us' or `They got the same number of kicks so the scores should be closer'. That is a nonsense. It is the facts of the argument that matter. For a learned man such as the Commissioner of Taxation to trot out an argument like that is deplorable. The same submission by the Administrative Review Council, under item 90 talking about evidence as to specific matters, went on to say: . . . it has no reason to doubt the seriousness or breadth of discontent which was expressed in other submissions. It is apparent that the primary, if not the sole, reason for lack of confidence is the position of former officers of the ATO as Chairman of the Boards. That will happen again, as sure as night follows day, to coin a famous phrase. Item 95 of the submission goes on to say: . . . the administrative experience of former ATO officers was of benefit in performing the functions of Chairman. I have no argument with the presence of former chairmen. It could be an advantage, provided suitable ex-employees of the ATO were available and were prepared to serve. It would be perfectly reasonable. The Council went on to say under item 95: To the extent that an ATO perspective or a knowledge of ATO procedures are matters relevant to the deliberations of a Board, they may be the subject of evidence at the hearing or otherwise be raised in submissions made on behalf of the Commissioner. I have outlined the ingredients for the conflict of interest situation which I foresee. I will make one final reference to the submission from which I have been quoting. The submission reads: Putting aside the concern expressed over the participation of former ATO officers as Chairmen of the Boards, it would appear that the format of Board membership-one legal member, one accounting member, and one ex-departmental officer with experience in the taxation field-is considered generally appropriate. It is also, by any reasonable account, appropriate for these purposes. It is for those reasons that I propose to move the amendment to which I have referred. As I have indicated, the amendment is available for circulation to honourable members. By amending clause 42 (a), provision is made for three members of each board to be appointed by the Minister. There is no problem about that; we accept that that is past practice. Our amendment reads: (1a) In appointing persons to be members of the Board, the Minister shall not appoint an officer of the Australian Taxation Office. (1b) The Minister shall appoint a member of the Board to be Chairperson of the Board. Nothing could be more reasonable than that. It is in the interests of both the workability of this legislation and of justice being seen to be done that we remove any possibility of criticism of the boards, once they are constituted, and of their work. I thoroughly commend the proposed amendment to the House. I believe it is entirely reasonable. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(10.22) —I understand that the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) will move an amendment in the committee stage. There may be further debate on that at that stage. There may have been some confusion regarding the change in the order of speakers on our side this evening. I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for rectifying that confusion. The honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) took us down a path of debate on taxation which we ought to pursue. Before doing so I refer to a matter that the honourable member for Curtin spoke about-the registration of tax agents and the Board. I will talk about that shortly. I understand that he will make further comment on that in the committee stage. Mr Rocher —No, the guillotine is on. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —I will deal with that matter in the latter part of my speech, if time permits. The substantive elements in this legislation deal with the registration of tax agents, which the honourable member for Curtin spoke about, the depreciation allowance that is available for Australian trading ships, cash bidding arrangements for off-shore petroleum exploration permits and the foreign tax credit system. The honourable member for Kooyong took us down a path which I think is worth dealing with. I refer to his amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988 which he has moved but on which he will not call for a division. The first paragraph of his amendment refers to this Government being the highest taxing government in the post-war history of Australia. One of the issues that we must make clear in this debate and on which we must focus from the point of view of the taxation debate is that much has been done in terms of the revenue side of this Government to improve the operation of the tax system, not only in terms of its equity but also in terms of its efficiency. The other fact is that the economy has grown and there has been a substantial improvement in corporate tax gatherings. That begins to explain why we are getting a greater and more effective collection of revenue. We do not need to apologise for that. In a moment I will point out the substantive reasons for that. The third paragraph of the amendment moved by the honourable member for Kooyong focuses on what he terms `bracket creep'-in other words, the effect of fiscal drag in terms of the amount of collections one gets. When we came to office the 60c rate was the highest rate in the tax system. We reduced that to 49c. That ought to be made clear. The 60c rate in the income tax system existed during the period of Liberal Government. The reduction from 60c to 49c has occurred under this Government. There is no doubt about that; we do not need to avoid that point in terms of getting the history right. When the honourable member for Kooyong talks about bracket creep, we must also remind him and his colleagues that it was this Government that did something about reducing the marginal rates of tax. That has been acknowledged. It was a two stage reduction. It was part of the general process of taxation reform under this Government. It is also something that is recognised by the community. At the same time we recognised the disincentive effects of high rates of taxation. When we came to office we also recognised that the tax system had fallen into both disrepair and disrepute. The honourable member for Curtin spoke about tax agents. We on this side were aware, as were many in the community, that in the wider community a substantial number of practices were pursued by some tax agents and some accountants that clearly supported tax evasion. The historical record establishes this point, but we ought also make sure that we insert into this debate that the practice of tax evasion was quite rife prior to the Australian Labor party taking government. There have been inquiries into that matter. The evidence is there. When we talk about conduct, fairness and equity in the tax system, we need to be sure that we remind ourselves that tax evasion was a growth industry. I well recall giving a lecture to the Institute of Public Accountants in Western Australia. I talked about ethics in the taxation system and made the point that the accounting profession should either self-regulate and improve its game or there would be a change in terms of government regulation. To be fair, I place on record that there were moves towards that in the latter days of the Fraser-Howard operation, but other events overtook it. The other point that needs to be made is that that momentum towards improving the fairness and equity in the taxation system and ensuring that tax evasion was not such a large practice was based in the community, which was becoming increasingly concerned about it. When we came to government we continued that pressure. We achieved a great reversal in what had been rampant tax evasion and tax avoidance. I am aware of the distinction between those two things. Clearly, there had been rampant tax evasion. The tax system had fallen into disrepair because there were areas, not of evasion, but of avoidance. There were many ways in which non-cash incomes were generated, whereby people were able to enhance their standard of living in a way that was not possible for the general pay as you earn taxpayer but which was certainly possible for those in the corporate sector. I am not pointing the finger. I am simply saying that the reality is that those areas were identified by and known to the Australian Taxation Office. I commend those people in the Tax Office who so efficiently worked with this Government to identify those areas. We introduced the fringe benefits tax and the taxing of free lunches. In addition, we introduced the capital gains tax which was a way of taxing income earned from capital appreciation. It seemed to us when we came to government that, if we were to go down the path of equity in the tax system, we had to begin to apply taxes where they had not previously been applied if, as a result of there not being taxation, people's standards of living were enhanced dramatically, due either to their peculiar circumstances in the marketplace or to the fortunes of history. In both of those circumstances this Government acted. So when we talk about the larger areas of tax gathering, it is true that this Government has base broadened. It has gone ahead with the task of broadening the base of the tax system. I say to Opposition members: What would they do? Some Opposition members have said, `We will do away with the fringe benefits tax'. Some have said, `We will do away with the capital gains tax'. Some of them have said, `We are aware of the consequences of that. In fact, we will end up with a large revenue shortfall and that will have a big impact in terms of the deficit'. That is the simple calculation. One must ask: What kind of tax measures would the Opposition pursue to make up the revenue shortfall? The notion of a consumption tax has arisen among some elements of the Opposition. Some elements of the Opposition-I refer particularly to Senator Stone-have said that there should be no consumption tax. The President of the Liberal Party of Australia, Mr Elliott, is in favour of a consumption tax, while Senator Stone of the National Party of Australia is not in favour of such a tax. I point out the classic dilemma: if one goes down the path of saying, `We will pull back on capital gains and fringe benefits tax', and one incurs a revenue shortfall, what will one do to make up for that? I think the question is still unanswered. I know there are discussions going on within the Opposition, but we have to come back to those difficult substantive choices. I put this on the record: not only have we done something about reducing marginal tax rates prior to this, but clearly there are also matters under active consideration by this Government, right at this moment, which will continue to be considered during the next months and years of this Government. We have also addressed the whole question of getting lower rates of taxation, which will remove some of those disincentive effects. If we end up with a very high tax regime it stands to reason that we will tend to encourage avoidance and perhaps evasion-one ought not to describe motive. But if we do something sensible about reducing tax rates we increase the compliance rate. If we look at the records of this Government, at the tax documents, we will see that the compliance rate in terms of taxation operation has increased dramatically, and that is to the credit of the Taxation Office, the Government generally and the Australian community. I do not deny that there are some difficulties, but one of the major causes of difficulty that we have encountered has been the adversarial nature of our tax system. Many in the community tend to develop what I would call the Ned Kelly mentality, which basically is that we get away with what we can get away with. It is very difficult to administer a tax system and to manage a national economy if that is the prevailing wisdom of the day, and it has been. The only way we can reduce that mentality is by doing something about bringing down the rates of tax, improving the efficiency and equity in the tax system and giving some degree of certainty. When we apply all those tests to the current tax system, it passes those tests of equity, efficiency and certainty. At the other end of that process we end up with higher degrees of compliance, less incentive for evasion and avoidance activity, and a tax system that works generally. I put those comments on the record because I think they have to be made. It is very easy to come in here and say that we have bracket creep and that there is a higher rate of tax collection, but we also have to say that the tax system in general is working better. I have heard the comments of the honourable member for Curtin and I understand his sincerity in these matters. When we have a very large tax system we will have difficulties in terms of administration and individual cases, but if we head down the right track in getting compliance and cooperation we will end up with a better administered tax system. I think the record is clear. We have got this country back to work. We have many more people and businesses in work. As a result, increasing taxation has been generated and there has been base broadening. The net effect of that is that we have higher levels of compliance and reduced levels of tax evasion. In fact, we now have a much greater spirit of cooperation in the community at large. We cannot claim that all of that is due to the Government. We can also talk about the role of others in the community, which has to be acknowledged. But we have to get those processes going. One of the things we have to focus on in the short term is how we can get further momentum behind those processes to improve efficiency and equity in the tax system. Accordingly, I am pleased to support the legislation. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(10.34) —Probably no aspect of our parliamentary life gives rise to such emotions as does a taxation Bill. I think we have to come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as the perfect taxation system, unless it is not to impose any tax whatsoever. We have to create a climate whereby the right amount of tax is collected in sympathy with the economic activity that is required for a country to maintain a sufficient standard of living. Whoever has a crystal ball and can predict what will happen is a Houdini and ought to be well paid for his services. The addresses that have been made tonight to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) have been pretty much on the ball. They have been critical in many ways, although I think the address of the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) was made with the full understanding of what I have just referred to-the perfect taxation system. Of course, the claims that he makes about what his Government has done and the manner in which the public has responded are one way of looking at the issue, whereas others might have different opinions. I would like to deal with some of the aspects of the tax system that the honourable member mentioned. One of the most important is certainty. In Australia we have had a tax system which, over decades, has not given certainty. I have just given an instance of that. A mini-Budget will be presented this time next week and there is a lot of uncertainty out there in the business world. There is also a lot of uncertainty in employment. People wonder whether they should leave now and get their superannuation or whatever. Also for businesses there will be uncertainty about planning investment until the decisions are taken-probably next week-about business taxes and the types of depreciation claims that will be provided. This uncertainty makes some business decisions very difficult and delayed to the extent that capital can be wasted in the manner of its use compared with where it might otherwise be applied. The honourable member talked about the efficiency of the system. Certainly we would all like to see a well-oiled machine, a taxation collecting agency that oils well with business so that business is prepared to make its contributions accordingly. I must say that tonight was the first time in the many debates in this House on this matter that I have heard someone properly define the difference between evasion and avoidance. I thank the honourable member for Stirling for that because I have long held the belief that there is a vast gap in knowledge out there as to the difference between the two. Clearly, evasion is illegal and avoidance is not. The statutes are quite clear as to where one fails and the other gathers its strength. I must say that efforts by the Australian Taxation Office in trying to insist that avoidance is evasion sometimes go beyond the pale to the extent that it becomes an inefficient machine. The honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) exposed some of the problems that exist between tax agents, taxpayers and the Taxation Office at a very low level of business activity and also at a very high level. I believe that the system could be improved in that regard. I will not repeat the comments that were made by the honourable member for Curtin except to say that, like the member for Macarthur (Mr Martin), I have been busy on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration, which is looking at an audit report into international profit shifting where the Auditor-General has actually named some industries as being more or less tax evaders, without putting the question properly. In order to compete and bring the Australian economy up to a better pitch, some of these industries have to deal on the international market with other countries which some call tax havens. I think that some of these places which are called tax havens are probably better acquainted with the realities of business life than we are. New Zealand is fast becoming one of those nations which is finding that reality faster than Australia. For instance, I understand that some of the industries that have been named in the report-and I believe that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Commissioner of Taxation have already indicated that the big companies of Australia can expect permanent desk audits-have had almost permanently on their staff for the past 18 months a tax audit team inquiring into aspects and activities of those industries which had, up to that time, received the approval of the Taxation Office. This is not only a cost to the Taxation Office-and obviously it wants to make sure that its time is rewarded by the recovery of its costs plus, plus, plus-but there is also a terrible cost of compliance for taxpayers. I recall that the honourable member for Stirling was talking about compliance to a large extent, but we must remember that there is a cost of compliance. In order to keep abreast of tax requirements and to prepare a tax return or meet other requirements of the Australian Tax Office, the taxpayer must employ someone like a tax agent. This is putting a terrible strain on the costs of the taxpayer's business activity. Sometimes I believe this is absolutely unnecessary. As I was a practising accountant for many years, I take the side of the accountants that were the subject of attention many years ago. It is not easy in the marketplace trying to satisfy the requirements of an overeager Taxation Office and also trying to do the work with the clients many of whom are quite ignorant of the requirements of the law. I am going back 12 years. Since then there has been a tremendous increase in the volume of taxation legislation, which is probably now twice the size. Today it is almost impossible for me to prepare my own tax return. I must go not to a public accountant but to a specialist in a certain area of public accountancy to ensure that my return is lodged correctly. The cost of compliance adds to the inefficiency of the Taxation Office and not necessarily to its efficiency. I note the concern of the honourable member for Stirling, who has placed on notice an amendment to be moved in the committee stage, about who might be appointed chairman or a member of a tax agents' board and the need to implement a fair and just system for the registration of tax agents. In many cases the Tax Office has itself to blame. A tax inspector would have to be blind Freddy not to recognise a good, efficient tax agent as opposed to a shonky one. In trying to run a practice that I thought was the fairest and most reasonable I could offer the public, I was distressed when I knew that down the road was a shonky operator with a tax certificate and a tax licence who was often advertising against me, yet there was not one word of complaint from the Tax Office. This goes back to the inefficiency of the Tax Office over many years when many tax agents were called upon every 12 months to supply information on, for example dividends and interest paid. I have yet to find out what the Tax Office did with that information and whether it was ever used. There are faults on both sides. Legislation like this, which tax agents accept will probably clean up the image the public has of tax agents, is to be commended. I shall not speak specifically to any aspect of the Bill but to certain remarks of the honourable member for Macarthur. I wish to put to rest once and for all the old catchcry of the Labor Government that, when it came into government, the deficit it inherited was $8 billion to $10 billion and that it has been reducing ever since. It is time the public of Australia realised that at the time of the change from the Fraser Government to the Hawke Government the bequeathed deficit was $4 billion. The next Budget, that prepared by the current Treasurer (Mr Keating), resulted in a deficit of $8 billion, which was incurred by the expenditure of that Government and not the expenditure of the previous Liberal Government. I am sick and tired of hearing in this place the load of rubbish that is often heaped upon honourable members that that deficit was caused by the former Liberal Government. Any reasonable member of the public and certainly the Government should realise that fact. When the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) spoke about deficits, he was not talking so much about the Budget deficit but rather the trade and current account deficits, which are causing horrific problems in this country. If Australia is to be competitive and meet the increasing demands of the expanding world, it must operate on a basis comparable to the rest of the world. In no other area is it as important as it is in this area of how we provide an economy and assess people's incomes. I have said that there is concern about the cost of compliance by people who have to deal competitively on the international market and the manner in which the Taxation Office is looking at this in terms of desk audits and so on. It is important that we put all that we are talking about into context; that is, our expectations next week with the mini-Budget, the current tax rates, the manner in which the Tax Office goes about its job of policing-some people believe that it behaves more like a gestapo than a tax or revenue collecting agency-and consider, basically, what this means for Australia's economy. There is no doubt in anybody's mind that at the moment Australia suffers from an increasing foreign debt and a trade balance which is continually in deficit and has been so for many years. Until we can turn that around we will not get anywhere. I believe that a comment in the 11 May 1988 edition of the Australian Financial Review is compulsory reading for the Treasurer, as he prepares next week's mini-Budget, and also the Tax Office as it goes about preparing legislation such as that which is before us tonight. We have to realise that the Labor Government and the Treasurer have many mentors and minders. For instance, the Australian Council of Trade Unions suggested recently that the mini-Budget ought to include an increase in business tax to absorb the potential increase in the cost of education. I have never heard such rubbish that business in Australia can afford to accept yet another tax. Yet it is the mentality of the minders and mentors that they are not prepared to look at the effects of the taxes they propose. The Minister for Employment and Education Services (Mr Duncan) suggested to a young Australian Labor Party movement, I think, that we could not afford any more uranium mining and that if further expenditure were required it should be obtained through a business tax. Perhaps we should look at that suggestion more realistically. The comment in the Australian Financial Review of 11 May was very informative. It said that even for those of us who are taxpayers-I believe that we are an endangered species-it is important to recognise where Australia stands competitively in the international market. It stated: . . . Australia's ability to compete internationally is seen to be so central to our economic survival as a country . . . I do not believe that anybody would dispute that. Until we recognise what New Zealand is doing in cutting its proposed resident corporate rate to 28 per cent; what is being done in Great Britain, where the rate is 35 per cent; in Singapore where it is 33 per cent; and in the United States where it is 34 per cent, and match those rates, we will continually miss out on the international market that is available to us. We should recognise that multinational corporations will come to Australia only if they are encouraged to do so. That encouragement is given through a competitive tax rate. They are looking for what is available to them on an after-tax basis. If they feel that it is better for them to go to New Zealand, the United Kingdom or Singapore, they will certainly do so. Multinationals owe Australia nothing. What they are looking for are after-tax profits. The article to which I have referred sums up everything when it says, in conclusion: Australia now needs to strike a balance between a policy which is designed to extract the maximum tax dollars out of businesses without regard to long-term consequences and some innovative planning which fosters investment in Australia by Australians and foreigners alike. The question is asked: Will Mr Keating say something constructive on this subject in the mini-Budget. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen)(10.50) —There has been an interesting debate in the House today on a whole variety of areas. None is more interesting than when members of the Opposition with their myriad speakers get up and talk about tax and tax related matters. I listened with fascination to the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) using comparative tax rates and suggesting that Australia is a highly taxed country. It defies reason and logic for any member of this House, whatever his political persuasion may be, to make such a ridiculous and factually incorrect statement. Australia is a low tax country. That is demonstrably true, unarguable and factually correct. Of the 23 member Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries we stand fourth lowest among total taxes raised. It irks me that any member of this House should be so deceitful in his approach in debate as to suggest that we are a high tax nation. It irks me when people use comparative tax rates, as the honourable member for Dawson did, and suggest that this country should emulate them. Let us look at the American situation. We often hear the New Right in this country, the neo-conservatives of the Opposition who were once Liberals but now seem to have lost the base of Adam Smith and seem to have forgotten John Stuart Mill as they run increasingly headlong into the neo-conservative net trying to emulate Thatcher in their further conservative approaches. They look at Reagan and tell us that we should emulate the Americans. Mr Elliott, their God leader from outside this Parliament, tells us what we should do in this Parliament on tax matters. I looked at what the American tax reforms did and what they achieved. The honourable member for Dawson said that we should reduce our corporate tax rate. No doubt he would say that the Americans have got it exactly right. The American tax changes were revenue neutral. That is the first fact and unarguably so. The second fact is that in the American tax changes introduced by Reagan very simply revenue gains from business corporations increased by 23 per cent. So whilst the tax rate decreased quite substantially, the revenue gains from business increased substantially. Those opposite do not like to say that in this House. They like to suggest, as a conservative opposition that somehow this country should drop the tax rate as other countries have done; for example, New Zealand. What did the Government do in New Zealand? It now imposes a tax on church income and income from charities. Do those opposite support that? If they do not support it, they should not stand in this House and tell the Australian people what they believe in unless they tell them the bottom line figure on where they are going to make their gains when they cut their tax rates. The fact is that no country in the world has cut its tax rates without compensatory measures to gain income. New Zealand introduced a consumption tax and so it can well afford to drop its income tax rates-both corporation and pay as you earn tax-because it has another source of income to compensate for the loss of revenue. But the neo-conservatives of this country, those who still like to think that Adam Smith is their natural leader, forget that fact. They stand here day after day, week after week and pretend that there is some magical means of slashing tax rates and not having corresponding income revenue gains. We know that those opposite cannot cut the expenditure base as they suggested they would. No one believed them in 1987; we did not. I have no doubt that those opposite did not believe that they could do it. Look at the political pain this Government gets on reducing real wages and the real pain we got when we tried to reduce the pharmaceutical bills. Those opposite posed it as they oppose any decent taxation revenue reduction method or as they oppose any decent form of cut in expenditure and every wage increase year in and year out. It seems to me that as neo-conservatives they want their cake and they want to eat it too but they lack the dignity, the courage and the guts to stand in this Parliament and tell the Australian people how they will manage tax cuts. I listened with interest to the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher), who is now in the chair. He seemed to be saying that the massive tax rorts that took place when the Opposition was last in government were not the fault of the private tax profession. He said that this fine, honest body of people are now being attacked by this Government. He is of the view that we should not impose greater controls on them, that we should let them go their merry old way as they did in the 1960s and 1970s when they devised the most horrific and fraudulent tax schemes that this country has ever seen. I might say to the honourable gentleman that I happened to hold a taxation licence for a number of years during which I worked in the tax section of a rather large international chartered accounting firm. As a lawyer I happened to have practised taxation law. I can take the honourable member into my garage today and show him a four-drawer filing cabinet which is filled entirely with tax schemes. I kept every one that came across my desk. I have four drawers or a filing cabinet full of commercialised, printed and circulated schemes. Guess who circulated them? They were circulated by professional tax agents. So I have no brief for professional tax agents. What did the Government in those years do for the Australian Taxation Office? Did the then Government give the Tax Office the power, the moral support and the Government support to tackle the frauds and the rorts that occurred in those years? We know the answer to that. It took an inquiry into the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union to try to find criminals to do that. Mr Costigan, while delving into it, suddenly found the money trail. To the great horror of the Fraser Government, Mr Costigan found tax avoidance, Slutzkin companies and bottom of the harbour schemes. Despite having found all of this, what did the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), the former Treasurer, do about it? He put letters from the Commissioner of Taxation into his drawer and forgot about them for a little while. It took a Hawke Labor government to come into office and introduce a capital gains tax and a fringe benefits tax to get rid of the rorts. Yet I hear members on the other side, those wonderful neo-conservatives of Australian conservative politics today, saying that they will get rid of the capital gains tax. Have a look at what the Americans did with a capital gains tax. The capital gains tax that the Americans have is not indexed like the one this country has. Have a look at what Mrs Thatcher has done. The United Kingdom has a capital gains tax. All of the OECD countries have capital gains taxes. Honourable members opposite are the people who keep telling us in this Parliament that they are going to get rid of the capital gains tax and the fringe benefits tax. The Americans recently amended their tax laws to get rid of free lunches and entertainment expenses. They cleaned the system up. These are the same people whom those opposite point to and say that they cut their tax rates. When will members of the Opposition be honest? When will they ever stand in this House and be honest in their approach to taxation? The Opposition's record in the last 30 years in which it controlled taxation in this country is abysmal. As the Treasurer (Mr Keating) rightly puts it, the former Treasurer, now the Leader of the Opposition, would have been thrown out of politics for ever in any other country. Yet the Opposition has embraced him as its leader. Quite frankly, the mind boggles when one looks at the history of this matter. The mind boggles even more when we hear speakers from the Opposition side of the House stand up and tell us how the Opposition is going to cut taxes. They are not honest enough to say how the Opposition is going to compensate for the cuts. They are not honest enough to say that the countries to which they refer which have cut their taxes have done so on a revenue neutral basis. They never say that. They never detail the proof or the evidence. One of the economic whiz-kids of the back bench is to follow me in this debate. I do not know why the honourable member for Wentworth (Dr Hewson) is on the back bench. People on my side of the House seem to think he should be on the Opposition's front bench which at the moment lacks so much economic expertise. While we may disagree with the honourable member's right wing views, we know that at least he has some economic expertise. At least when he stands up we tend to listen to him because he uses the right language and he tends to have his facts relatively right. Yet where the Liberal party has the expertise it puts it on the back bench. Quite frankly, when we look at its miserable front bench, we really wonder about it as a political party. We like listening to the honourable member for Wentworth. We disagree with him quite often, as is the nature of politics, but at least he has something to say which has some economic base. Although it is from a New Right perspective, a conservative perspective, at least he puts it into an economic perspective. We appreciate speakers in this place who at least can do that. We do not appreciate people who come in here and just try to wave magic wands and to lecture us on the way we should be doing things. I will not support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Curtin. I see no reason at all why the Australian Taxation Office should be criticised by any person in this House. It was left distraught when those opposite were last in government. As a former tax agent, I can tell the honourable member that almost every member of the Taxation Office personnel with any professional skill or integrity left the Taxation Office when he was in government. They went out and made their fortunes in the private profession. Honourable members opposite left the Tax Office with no skill, no talent, no integrity and no morality, and now they have the audacity to stand in this House and tell us that employees of the Tax Office are not very good. It will take years for the Tax Office to train its staff and to get back the skill that those opposite lost for this country. It will take years for the Taxation Office to build up its morality and to get back to the system that we had before those opposite took office. The honourable member said that a member of the Australian Taxation Office should not sit on a board of taxation. Quite frankly, I did not understand his argument. I listened intently and tried to understand the reasons why he was saying that but, quite frankly and in all honesty, I just did not understand the purpose of his argument. I for one believe that the people of this country, through their office, the Australian Taxation Office, quite properly should have a representative on a taxation board of review. Why not? Is it suggested that the private profession should run a taxation board of review? I know that boards of review are appointed by government-that is a fact-but why should the representative of people, the fully paid professional, the public servant, be denied the chance to represent, as a voice on a board of review? With all respect, I did not understand the honourable member's argument. He lost me. I will have to talk to him about it later on. He might be able to convince me then, but in his speech he did not. I could go on for a long time but members on this side of the House have respected the wishes of our Whip that we speak for only 10 minutes. I know that we cannot control for how long honourable members opposite speak but, with respect for my Whip's instructions, I will take a little less time than I would have liked and conclude on those remarks. Dr HEWSON(Wentworth)(11.03) —It is with much pleasure that I enter this debate on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2). Having had my credentials established by the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland), who preceded me, I am very pleased to rise to his challenge and offer some comments on the Hawke Government's record in tax reform. It is appropriate to step back in the context of this debate and review the record of the Hawke Government against its own principles, in particular the principles established by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in the lead-up to the Government's tax reform process, as it is called, in 1985. I refer particularly to some comments he made at the end of 1984 in the context of the election when he set down three major elements and identified nine key principles of tax reform. It is on that basis that I will tonight review the Government's record. The first element of tax reform identified by the Prime Minister was `genuine tax cuts'. He referred disparagingly to the fraudulent cuts of the previous Liberal-National Party Government in 1977. He said: . . . I can guarantee you'll keep our tax cuts! And unlike any previous tax cuts for more than a decade, their real value to the taxpayers of Australia will not be filched by the theft of double-digit inflation. We may not have had too much double digit inflation, but the Prime Minister certainly has filched the benefits of the tax cuts that he gave in the context of the so-called 1985 tax reform package. Indeed, over the life of this Government income tax has gone up by a whopping 79 per cent which is a cumulative real increase of about 40 per cent. If we take a more recent perspective and go back only as far as that particular tax reform package that the Prime Minister was alluding to, we see that the Government has collected something like $24.5 billion in additional taxation dollars, but has only given back $6.5 billion in tax cuts. That is not a bad proportion, is it? Out of every $4 the Government has collected it has kept $3 and given back only $1 to the people of Australia. The Prime Minister went on to say on that occasion that he intended to target his tax cuts to provide: Tax relief for the taxpayers, but particularly the middle and low income earners in Australia-the ordinary hard-working Australians who pay as they earn. That particular hardworking group of Australians has probably been the most disadvantaged under this Government. Indeed, if we were to take an individual on, say, average earnings back in March 1983 and compare his situation then with the current situation, we would see that at that time he would have been facing a marginal tax rate of about 30c in the dollar but today he has a marginal tax rate of 40c in the dollar. Indeed, the average income earner is now squarely in the middle of the 40 per cent tax bracket. It is not surprising that as far as such a person's income tax is concerned, that person who would have been paying $85 a week in March 1983 would today be paying $137. His average tax rate has gone up from about 22 per cent or 23 per cent to nearly 27 per cent over that period. The Prime Minister has indeed been very successful in targeting his tax cuts and his tax benefits to the middle and low income earners of this country. The second element which the Prime Minister identified at the time of his proposed tax reform package was `to continue his attacks on the tax avoidance industry'. We see in this regard too that the record of the Hawke Government stands pretty much as a monument of neglect. The single largest element of tax avoidance in this country today is the cash economy. Primarily because of this Government's links with the Australian Council of Trade Unions it has done everything it can to avoid facing up to that particular issue. Without doubt it is, I think, one of the most significant challenges left in the tax avoidance industry. It is to the Government's shame that it has in fact continued to neglect that particular challenge. The third element the Prime Minister identified at that time as a key element of his tax reform package was a `thorough-going review and reform of our entire tax system'. He said that that would be one of the central tasks of his second term in government. And in that respect he identified nine principles of taxation reform. Let me remind the House what those nine principles were and, to some extent at least, attempt to measure the Prime Minister's subsequent performance against those principles. It was stated, as the first principle: There must be no increase in the overall tax burden. It would take some convincing of the average taxpayer in Australia that there has been no increase in his overall tax burden. However, the Prime Minister is very careful. He did not make just a general statement; he gave us a specific statistic against which to measure his performance on this principle. That was the share of Commonwealth Government revenue in gross domestic product (GDP)-I guess the least likely, in his terms, to be breached in the ensuing years. On that particular basis, the Commonwealth Government revenue as a share of GDP has gone up from a little over 25.2 per cent to somewhere around 26 1/2 per cent or 27 per cent this year, depending on where his bloated revenue base in this particular year comes out. Honourable members must admit that this is a very fine record of tax reform by this Government. By the Prime Minister's own measure, he stands condemned. The Prime Minister's second principle stated: Any reform must continue the process already begun by this Government, and provide further major cuts in personal income tax. I have already alluded, in my earlier remarks, to the extent to which the Prime Minister has provided so-called genuine tax cuts. I remind the House that, out of every $4 collected since the Prime Minister's tax reform package, he has managed to return only $1 to the Australian taxpayer. If one considers the revenue base projections for next year, one realises that the Prime Minister intends to maintain his taxation by stealth, or taxation by inflation, and rip off an additional whopping several billion dollars tax revenue during 1988-89. His third principle at that time was that taxation changes `must contribute to the smashing of tax avoidance'. Again, one notices how repetitive the Prime Minister is. He has an element and a principle on tax avoidance, but the same comment applies. The cash economy is yet to be dealt with. The fourth principle is that `any reform must lead to a simpler system which all Australians can understand more easily and which, therefore, makes tax avoidance and evasion more difficult'. I do not know where the Prime Minister has been for the past four or five years, but almost every change he has made, either privately or publicly, to the tax system has increased its complexity. In 1983, the Income Tax Assessment Act had approximately 1,180 pages; last year it had approximately 1,750 pages. If one compiled a list of all the new taxes the Government has introduced, and which it is still debating in the context of education, one would realise that a staggering number of new taxes have been introduced over the past several years: for example, capital gains taxes, fringe benefit taxes and so on. If one looks at the explanatory memoranda produced in relation to taxation and at some of the detail that has come from the Australian Taxation Office on how to administer the fringe benefits tax, for example, I suggest to the House that, if I stacked it up, someone of my height would still have trouble seeing over the top of it. It is clearly not in any sense a simpler tax system. It is a real problem for average Australians just to cope, on an annual basis, with their own tax return, let alone with the phenomenal complexity of corporate taxation. The fifth principle is that `any reform package must result in a tax system that is fairer'-a word the Prime Minister uses all the time but I suggest has never really understood-`so that all Australians are required to pay tax only according to their capacity to pay and the overall system must be progressive'. It is certainly still progressive; we cannot debate that. His real problem is that it is exceptionally progressive now at low levels of income. The average working class Australian, to use the Prime Minister's term, is being shunted progressively into the 40 per cent tax bracket and is finding the benefits of his hard earned income being ripped off by the Government. That is a fair system, there is no doubt about that, in terms of the Prime Minister's own criteria! The sixth principle is that `any tax reform must not disadvantage recipients of welfare benefits and should reduce or remove poverty traps'. In dealing with this one, I simply refer the Prime Minister to the current situation of many pensioners in Australia, who are finding themselves being levied with provisional tax. Recent Caucus committee resolutions, which have apparently been leaked to the Press, suggest that at least some Government members on the back bench have a reasonably good understanding of the plight of pensioners in the present circumstances. It is certainly an issue that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer will need to deal with in the forthcoming mini-Budget. The seventh principle is that `if any reform package that includes changes in indirect taxes is contemplated'-this is a classic-`it must be acceptable to the various groups in the Australian community whose response will determine whether moderation in wage movement can be maintained'. The Government's record on indirect taxation is absolutely abysmal. It stands as probably the worst feature of the Government's performance in taxation. In most cases the Government has increased indirect taxation by stealth. Honourable members might remember that in 1983 the Government indexed excise tax rates so that it would not have to come to this House on an annual basis and declare the effective ad valorem rate of many of those taxes, which are now in excess of 100 per cent. However, it is much worse than that. The Government's performance in the indirect tax area has created a most inequitable and unfair system. Over the life of the Government sales tax revenue alone, for example, has increased by 110 per cent, from about $3.5 billion to about $7.5 billion. That is three times as great an increase as the 39 per cent increase in the rate of inflation, it is more than double the 50 per cent rise in wages, salaries and supplements over that period, and it is almost double the 60 per cent rise in private consumption expenditure over that period. I am fascinated when spokesmen on the other side of this House bucket us for looking at the possibility of reforming the indirect tax structure. The indirect tax structure is indeed in need of significant reform, and I believe that reform is inevitable. Yet all this Government can do is poke fun, bucket and try to divide our side of the Parliament over what is a very pressing problem. How is it that this Government can so readily live with the sorts of inequities that allow the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to avoid paying any sales tax on his antique clocks, when any of us who buy a clock or a watch will have to pay a 30 per cent sales tax? We have used a host of other examples, such as pornographic magazines and thousand dollar ball gowns which are not taxed, while orange juice, flavoured milk, children's toys and so on are. Those sorts of inequities and inefficiencies in the system really do have to be dealt with, and dealt with soon. It is interesting that, in the Prime Minister's principles of tax reform, he is almost oblivious to the magnitude of the problem before him. The Prime Minister's eighth principle stated: . . . any reform must provide the best possible climate for investment, growth and employment in Australia. A point that the Government spokesmen quite often have a lot of trouble with is that the corporate tax rate in Australia is a nominal rate of 49 per cent, and while the effective rate is admittedly lower it is still quite high by international standards. At least the Treasurer has recognised the nature of this problem and he has committed himself to a process of corporate tax reform. He says it will be `revenue neutral'; it will be interesting to see in the clear light of day, after the event, whether in fact it is revenue neutral. But again it is an area that will have to be dealt with. It will be interesting to see what he comes up with next week in his mini-Budget in the nature of corporate tax reform. When our major trading partners are getting their nominal corporate tax rates down to percentage rates in the middle 30s and in some cases high 20s, there is a very great challenge for this Government to get our corporate rate down as far as possible. There is no point picking out individual companies and taking pot shots at low effective tax rates paid in particular years. Ask anybody in the small business community, or even in the large business community in this country what the level of taxation is like and whether in many cases it is not a key element in their temptation to shift their activities offshore rather than operate onshore, here in Australia. He would get a very clear answer. It is hardly a climate, as the Prime Minister suggested, for investment growth and employment in Australia. It is quite the reverse. The final principle that the Prime Minister identified back in 1984 was that `any reform package must have widespread community support'. This guy is so keen on referenda-why does not he put a question about his taxation performance to the Australian people? He will not find too many people coming out strongly in support of that performance. Against those three elements and those nine principles identified by the Prime Minister, this Government stands as an abysmal failure when it comes to taxation reform. In conclusion, this legislation is yet another example of the complexity of our tax system and the increasing need to come back again and again with clean-up operations to cover up inadequacies of previous pieces of so-called legislative reform. As I have said, we in the Opposition will stand firmly on our record of tax reform. In a statement by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) we recently identified the key principles relating to what we consider should be the appropriate shape of taxation reform in this country. Certain key elements in that statement should not go unnoticed. There is, firstly, a very clear-cut recognition of the fact that the only way we can reduce overall taxation in this country is to cut the level of government expenditure, and we are committed to doing so. We do not shy away from that sort of challenge. We believe it is the only way we can reduce the overall burden, and indeed we intend to do just that. Secondly, we have embraced, in a very unified way, a much flatter tax system. In fact, there is very strong support for a two-step tax system, and I would strongly recommend that the Government move more significantly in that direction in the months and years ahead. Thirdly, we have recognised the inevitability of reform of the present system of indirect taxation. We should not underestimate how significant a problem exists, as I have tried to demonstrate to the House tonight, and we are dedicated to reforming that particular element of our taxation system. I can assure the House that the taxation proposals of the Opposition will genuinely achieve some of the principles that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) identified as relevant. In particular, we will make sure when we provide tax benefits that they are significant and that they offer genuine relief to those he says are middle and lower class income earners of Australia, the ordinary hardworking Australians who pay tax as they earn, who would undoubtedly condemn this Government for its taxation record. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! The time allotted for the second reading of the Bill has expired. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(11.21) —I move: Clause 42, page 23, lines 33-40, omit paragraphs (a) and (b), substitute the following paragraphs: ``(a) by omitting paragraphs (1) (a), (b) and (c) and substituting `appointed by the Minister.'; (b) by inserting after subsection (1) the following subsections: `(1a) In appointing persons to be members of the Board, the Minister shall not appoint an officer of the Australian Taxation Office. `(1b) The Minister shall appoint a member of the Board to be Chairperson of the Board.';''. I move the amendment for the reasons that I advanced during the second reading debate. I had no intention of speaking to the amendment until the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland) became a little provocative in his remarks when addressing the amendment as I described it and those reasons for it. It seems that the honourable member for McEwen wanted to confuse tax agents, as they are affected under this measure by the Government's clause 42, with tax schemers. That was a good introduction, I suppose, into a line of argument which he could use to resurrect the ghosts of the past and all the tired rhetoric that goes with them. The honourable member for McEwen chose not to acknowledge that I saw no problems with the legislation as it is currently written and as it is proposed by the Government in terms of the penalties it proposes and the fact that a tax agents board may decide upon the suspension of a tax agent for specific reasons and, in the process, may deprive that tax agent of his livelihood. They are very serious consequences indeed. Of course, their seriousness is recognised by the fact that provision is made in the Government's proposals for appeal against a decision of a board to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. That did not seem to fuss the honourable member for McEwen. As a lawyer, he did not see any problem that a nominee of the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) on a board would be seen to be passing judgment on a complaint raised by the Commissioner of Taxation. Mr Cadman —From Caesar to Caesar. Mr ROCHER —Quite so-Caesar unto Caesar. The honourable member for McEwen waxed eloquent on the fact that he was a lawyer and a tax practitioner. He even took the trouble to mention that he had four filing cabinet drawers full of tax schemes. He did not embellish on that. I do not know whether he used them or whether he just kept them for his information. If he used them to advise his clients, he did not make it clear. However, I do not suggest that he did that. Nevertheless it would advance his credibility in these matters if he categorically denied that he, as a practising tax lawyer, ever recommended to one of his clients that he or she should eschew tax avoidance schemes as distinct from the illegal tax evasion schemes that were going around. Not only did he not understand or choose not to understand what I had to say, but also he could not see that the position that I worry about and that I foreshadow would be even worse under the Government's proposals because the representative from the Australian Taxation Office could become chairman, with the attendant advantage that that would give him on a board-a board, I remind the Committee, of three individuals. Despite the assertions, there would be-and it is one of the objectives of my amendment-a capability for a board, as it could be constituted under my amendment, to call for submissions from the Australian Taxation Office. It will be possible for an officer of the Office to come along and be interviewed and state a case. I have no doubt that those involved will avail themselves of that opportunity to have the Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner make a submission in individual cases. However, the honourable member for McEwen digs back into the rhetoric of the past and resorts to the various jargon. That enables him to use his timeworn phrases and words like `neo-conservative' and `right wing', and I have no doubt that that panders to a section of his electorate. Mindless prattle that it is, I guess we can live with it. But when dealing with a serious amendment, I wonder if it makes a useful contribution to the debate. My friend the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) has pointed out that the problem will be that Caesar will be rendering judgment unto Caesar. The honourable member for McEwen, proud as he is of being a lawyer, shows that he is without a knowledge of the workings of elementary justice. Mr Cadman —Only just a lawyer. Mr ROCHER —But he exacerbated the problem. Then he went on to say, of all things, `Well why should not the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) have a member on a board of review?' I point out to the honourable member for McEwen that it is because his Government has scrubbed the boards of review. We were not even talking about boards of review; it is no wonder that he could not understand the argument. As to the argument that the honourable member advanced, his lack of knowledge was illustrated by the fact that he did not even know that there was no such thing as a board of review and that what we are now discussing is tax agents boards as they are presently constituted and proposed to be constituted following the proclamation of this legislation. I do not usually get excited about these things but I thought it was a charming argument that he advanced and one for which I would not give much credit. The honourable member for McEwen then went on, as though to fill in his time, to talk about how the previous coalition Government had allowed the Taxation Office to run down. The lie about the deficit is not enough; a whole new fib is now created, going to the point of saying that the ATO was allowed to run down during the Fraser years and that it is the Opposition's fault that the Australian Taxation Office is not able to cope. Well, if honourable members opposite cannot cope after five years they should get out of the job. If they cannot cope they should not try to pull the old trick of blaming their predecessors some five years later. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(11.28) —I want to speak in support of the amendments. Mr Peter Morris —You do not want me to speak on behalf of ex-servicemen. Mr CADMAN —I want to support my colleague. The Government has curtailed this debate, and the Opposition finds that completely objectionable. I will be brief, but there is so much validity in the comments made by the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) that they cannot go unattended by the Committee. The fact of that matter is that the Australian Taxation Office is currently rejecting claims for reassessment. People try to negotiate, but the matters are sent up to a board on which the Australian Taxation Office has absolute control, and the citizens of Australia are not prepared to go through the problems and hassle of challenging a board decision. They are paying needless tax, and I think it is an unjust system with which we are living today. One has only to refer to the public gallery which is packed tonight. I can see by the intelligence of the people in the public gallery that they are fully in support of the amendment proposed by the honourable member for Curtin-they are nodding in agreement. I can see their excitement. The fact of the matter is, Caesar to Caesar, the Australian public, innocent citizens, are really concerned by the operation of the Tax Office. There needs to be a level playing field. It is time the Government recognised it by taking up the amendments suggested by the honourable member-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! The time allotted for the committee stage of the Bill has expired. Amendment negatived. The CHAIRMAN —The question now is that the Bill and the new clause 55a circulated by the Government be agreed to and that the Bill be reported with an amendment. Circulated amendment: After clause 55, page 41, insert the following new clause: Increase in section 160aaa rebate for 1987-88 income year-service pensioners etc. ``55a. Where the assessable income of a taxpayer of the year of income commencing on 1 July 1987 includes an amount paid by way of pension, allowance or benefit under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986) other than Part VII), section 160aaa of the Principal Act applies to the taxpayer in relation to that year of income as if: (a) references in subsection (1) of that section to $6,142 were references to $6,384; and (b) references in subsection (1) of that section to $250 were references to $308.''. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport and Communications Support)(11.31) —I move: That the Bill be now read a third time. The honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) should have a look at clause 44 of the Bill. The comments that were made by the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland) were accurate and to the point. If there is one thing that former members of the Fraser Government who now sit opposite will go down in history for it is for being the people who presided over the growth of the tax avoidance industry in this country. They are the people who pleaded that they did not know what was going on. The only industry in this country that grew under their supervision was tax avoidance. This Government is restoring equity and fairness to the taxation system. Mr Beale —The oil industry benefited from it. Mr PETER MORRIS —You benefited from it, yes, I know. We all know you benefited from it. Mr Beale —I said the oil industry. Mr PETER MORRIS —I acknowledge that. That was your interjection. I accept that; I do not disagree with that. Mr Beale —My interjection was as far as the oil industry goes. You should withdraw that. That is very naughty. Mr PETER MORRIS —I accept your suggestion, thank you very much. Would you please let me proceed? The point I was making, Madam Deputy Speaker, was that under the Fraser Government-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! The Minister and the honourable member for Deakin will address their comments through the Chair. The Minister has the call. The honourable member for Deakin has asked the Minister to withdraw. Mr Beale —I ask the Minister to withdraw the aspersion that he made. It is quite untrue. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —If the Minister has made offensive comments against the honourable member for Deakin, would he care to withdraw them? Mr PETER MORRIS —I have not done that, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the honourable member gleans in some way from my responses to his interjections that he was offended, I withdraw the word that may have offended him. But let me again reiterate the point that the record of the Fraser Government and those opposite who were part of that Government is unsurpassed in the growth of tax avoidance, unsurpassed in the inequity of the system of taxation they presided over, unsurpassed in the way in which they denied resources to the Australian Taxation Office to carry out its responsibilities generally. Mr Rocher —Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Before I indicate my point of order could you tell me whether we are now on the third reading? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —That is correct. Mr Rocher —Then, Madam Speaker, I draw your attention to the Standing Orders. The Minister is quite beyond the scope of Standing Orders on a third reading speech and I ask that you rule accordingly. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —At this stage I have given leeway to the Minister owing to the unusual circumstances of timing but I would ask-- Mr Cadman —Because you bring in the guillotine we do not have to put up with it. Mr Beale —Why don't you call a quorum on him? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr Cadman —I might just do that. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Members of the Opposition will cease this rowdiness. The Chair offers the courtesy of certain leeway to honourable members on both sides of the House. Mr Cadman —Not on the third reading. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —When the Chair decides. I call on the Minister to confine his comments to the Bill precisely and ask that he soon draw his comments to a close. Mr PETER MORRIS —Madam Deputy Speaker, I certainly will accept your advice. I was responding to the rather wide-ranging debate that came from those opposite who denied the Government the opportunity to move formally the amendment that provides tax relief to ex-servicemen. We took particular offence at that action. It clearly indicates a lack of concern for ex-servicemen. Mr Rocher —It is your guillotine. Mr PETER MORRIS —The point is that members opposite did not want that matter raised. The honourable member for Curtin did not raise it himself; he did not want to debate it. It indicates very clearly the Opposition's lack of concern for taxation rates as they affect ex-servicemen. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Would the honourable member for Curtin and the Minister not direct comments across the House. I point out to the Minister that the time for debate on the second reading of the Bill has passed. Mr PETER MORRIS —Again I accept your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was simply responding to the interjections and the wide-ranging comment that came from members opposite. Overall, the Bill provides a significant number of improvements in taxation legislation. Earlier, I referred the honourable member for Curtin to clause 44. I am sure that meets his objection. I do not want to take time in denying him the right to speak. Mr Rocher —Do not say another word or I will take a point of order. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Curtin is on his feet. Does he wish to take a point of order? Mr Rocher —Madam Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention again to the Standing Orders which determine what is allowed to be debated in a third reading debate. You have correctly ruled and I thank you for your earlier ruling. The Minister is not in order, and I suggest that you call on the business of the day. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I uphold that point of order, and I ask the Minister to draw his comments to a close. Mr PETER MORRIS —I accept your advice and ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker. I had difficulty understanding what it was that the honourable member for Curtin objected to. The adoption of the second reading by the House encompasses the amendment moved by the Government. The Bill encompasses a range of improvements to taxation law that the Government believes will help provide a fairer, more equitable system. In those circumstances we commend the Bill, as amended, to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr CLEELAND —Yes. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr CLEELAND —I have always enjoyed the contributions to the House of the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher). I regard him as a man of integrity and high calibre. However, I am concerned about some of the comments made by him. As a tax lawyer and tax agent over some years, I have collected a four-drawer filing cabinet of various tax schemes and arrangements. I can assure the House and the honourable member that it was never my practice to enter into any illegality. I knew one day that I would be in this House and I kept the history of the Fraser Government's shame. I kept a four-drawer filing cabinet of its shame, but I never indulged in any illegality. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Where does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? I understand that what he has said is his response, without defining it. Debate resumed from 20 April, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(11.39) —I join the chorus of Opposition speakers who object to the gag that has been applied today. I note that the Minister for Transport and Communications Support and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Peter Morris), who is at the table, while dealing with the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2), was whingeing about how he did not have enough time to reply. I will give the Minister a few moments. The Minister has been whingeing about the fact that his Government has applied the gag-not to this one Bill but to 10 Bills. The Government ought to be ashamed of itself. Its legislative program is so crook that it cannot even get its act together in such a way as would prevent the gagging of 10 Bills. It is outrageous. The Transport Legislation Amendment Bill contains amendments which formerly would have been submitted to the Parliament in a statute law miscellaneous provisions Bill. These types of omnibus Bills are traditionally non-controversial and generally of a minor nature, correcting drafting errors. The Opposition has no difficulties with those provisions of the Bill that relate to the amendments of the Navigation Act 1912, the Shipping Registration Act 1981, the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 or the repeal of sections of the Navigation Acts of 1979, 1980 and 1981. I wish the Minister would come back. He was whingeing before about having no time and now he is chatting away in the side boxes. We have some serious questions for the Minister to answer about the amendments to the Federal Airports Corporation Act 1986. Firstly, the Minister is going to have to tell the House what is the basis in legislation that enabled the Federal Airports Corporation to levy charges on the industry from its vesting day of 1 January 1988 to the present if the Government now proposes to introduce amendments to clarify who will be charged and for what services. Mr Peter Morris —Come on. Give it a bit of oomph! Mr BEALE —The Minister will get his chance. He does not have to sit there interjecting. He will have to explain to the House why the Government needs these amendments that clarify who will be charged for what services provided by the Federal Airports Corporation. Secondly, we ask the Minister: Has this resulted in anyone refusing to pay charges levied by the Federal Airports Corporation? If so, have any charges been able to be avoided quite legitimately by users of the Federal Airports Corporation facilities? Thirdly, we ask the Minister: Is he aware that there have been cases of this matter being raised by users of the Federal Airports Corporation facilities, and have the people who have raised these matters with the Corporation had their charges remitted to them? We ask whether what is contained in the amendments to the Federal Airports Corporation legislation before us tonight is an admission by the Government that the entire Federal Airports Corporation Bill has been riddled with drafting errors and, as usual with these omnibus Bills, unintended consequences-something, incidentally, that we warned the Government about when we opposed that Bill in the first place. It appears that we have a sloppy government, which is unable to put its legislation together properly, and which is out of touch not only with its own drafters but also the people of Australia. Fourthly, we ask whether the Minister maintains that there is no question of the Federal Airports Corporation being able to levy and enforce charges on the industry. If so, why is the Government introducing this amendment? If not, what, then, is the intent of the amendment? Finally, if the Minister cares to admit that once again the Government has been proven wrong and has rushed ahead without really knowing the implications of its actions, of its legislation, is it not the case that all charges levied by the Federal Airports Corporation since its inception on 1 January 1988 will be returned to the industry upon the industry applying for remission of those charges? Perhaps the Minister would care to tell the House whether the amendments are being put forward now because the legislation is so flawed that all users of Federal Airports Corporation facilities will have remitted to them, on application to the Corporation, all charges that it has levied on them. I put this to the Minister because I have been given examples of where users of the facilities have pointed out this apparent anomaly to the Department of Transport and Communications and the Federal Airports Corporation and have been granted full remission of the charges made on them by the Corporation. This could be interpreted only as an attempt by the Corporation and by this out of touch Government to buy the silence of those people until the amendments that we are discussing tonight are pushed through the Parliament. The amendment that is being considered by the Government in relation to submissions that have been put to it by the Australian Democrats gives a guarantee that it will involve no retrospectivity. I believe that that lends some credence to the argument that the amendments to the Federal Airports Corporation legislation being put forward today are in fact retrospective in nature. I invite the Minister to tell the House whether this is the last time that he proposes to amend the Federal Airports Corporation legislation in relation to this matter or whether he will introduce other amendments in the near future to deal with the question of retrospectivity, a matter raised by the Democrats. This is an important matter, particularly as the Government has applied a gag on all Bills tonight in order to ram through legislation. The Civil Aviation Authority will have the principal carriage of the administration of aviation and aviation safety around Australia. It is that legislation-the Civil Aviation Authority legislation-that has also been the subject of a whole series of questions from the Democrats in the Senate. If this example in respect of the Federal Airports Corporation has anything to do with it, the Opposition clearly acted demonstrably responsibly in refusing to support the Civil Aviation Authority legislation because that alone puts the accountability with this out of touch Government one step further away. The cynical manner in which the Government has dealt with the Civil Aviation Authority legislation and the cynical way that it proposes to deal with these amendments to the Federal Airports Corporation suggests to us that it is simply an attempt to patch up its own careless drafting mistakes in respect of this legislation. That is typical of the Government's approach to the entire transport and aviation sectors. 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 condemns the Government for its failure in the transport and aviation areas, and in particular for its failure to: (1) provide an appropriate capital base for the two government-owned airlines; and (2) address immediately the rorts and inefficiencies on Australian ships and the waterfront'. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr N.A. Brown —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak, although that is probably the only thing that I will be able to say in this debate. Mr BEALE —I have news for my friend and colleague the honourable member for Menzies: if he will give me another two or three minutes, I will leave him sufficient time to speak in this debate. In speaking to the amendment, it is quite clear that the Government is in a terrible, awful and stinking mess in respect of its privatisation policy. The Government has done nothing but produce report after report and committee after committee in an attempt to extricate itself from the extraordinary mud of cynicism in which it now finds itself as a result of trying to sort out the factional fights to get capital for Australian Airlines and Qantas Airways Ltd. If those two airlines do not get adequate capital so that they can re-equip their fleets and compete in their respective markets, this out of touch Government will allow them to be less and less competitive. That will be to the detriment of Australia's travelling public and Australian consumers. Senator Robert Ray and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) have referred to the Industries Assistance Commission report on coastal shipping. That report pointed out that Australian families were paying between $300m and $700m because of the inefficiencies, the rorts, the rackets, the indifferent management and the restrictive work practices on Australian coastal shipping. It is quite clear from the way in which Minister Ray and the Treasurer have reacted that this Government intends to do nothing. Mr Peter Morris —You are a little wide of the mark. Mr BEALE —The Minister did not listen to the terms of the amendment. He was chatting to his mates in the box because he has such a problem with the Federal Airports Corporation. It is obvious from what Minister Ray and the Treasurer said that this Government has no intention of dealing with all the difficulties that exist on Australian ships and on the waterfront. We call on the Minister to answer the questions that have been put to him about why he is introducing these amendments to the Federal Airports Corporation legislation, and whether there are still difficulties with that legislation. Will he introduce additional amendments to deal with the possibility of retrospectivity? We condemn the Government for its failure to provide an appropriate capital base for the two government-owned airlines. We condemn the Government for its failure to address the rorts and inefficiencies on Australian ships and on the waterfront. Mr O'NEIL(Grey)(11.53) —This omnibus Bill-the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 1988-which amends a number of pieces of transport legislation, provides us with an opportunity to debate Australian transport policies in a constructive way, I hope, and I am pleased to do this. May I say at the outset that I wish to restrict my remarks on this occasion to a few issues, excluding our railways, which I addressed not long ago in this place, and excluding aviation, which would have to be the most overindulged mode of transport in terms of media and public attention. I say that quite deliberately because not only is aviation a high cost operation, but also it actually provides only a very small part of our transport needs. That is not to say that it is not important-it clearly is-but too often it is the focus of so much attention that rail, sea and road, which undertake the greatest part of our national transport task, go unnoticed. A lot of nonsense is currently being peddled about some of the shortcomings of our transport system, particularly from the Opposition, which like some others, is very quick to quote its favourite collections of anecdotes that somehow get cobbled together in a fairly piecemeal way to create an impression that everything is a mess. As we know, that cheap, amateurish and childlike approach is of no help to this country. The hard part is doing something about it. We agree that there are inefficiencies in our railways, in our workshops and on our waterfront. We know that the costs of our transport are high. We also know, however, that there are very good reasons and causes for that which will not be remedied overnight. Australia, to start with, is an enormous country. Much of our mineral and agricultural wealth is a long way from industry and its eventual markets. That is a fact of life. We have also suffered from what can only be described as appalling investment policies by our forefathers and equally appalling management. What we have today is the result of not just a few years of neglect but generations of neglect. I spoke last time in this place of what has been done in regard to Australian National Railways, where good management, wise investment and good industrial relations have produced startling results by contrast with other systems. We do not hear much of the positive things-only the negative, and of course, nothing constructive. I can only ask the obvious question: Who was running this country for all those years when this malaise that the Opposition loves to dwell on became established? Who was it that used public transport enterprises for their own self-interest? Who was it that used these enterprises to provide sinecures for their loyal mates or as a convenient dumping ground for loyal and long serving public servants? Who was it that always made sure in government that they had control of the transport portfolio? Madam Deputy Speaker, the answer, of course, is the National Party of Australia. I wonder what the National Farmers Federation would like to say about that. Now, of course, they come to talk about rorts, niche rosters, dargs, et cetera, but how were they allowed to develop? What sort of management did we have in place? Those opposite can look to their own ranks. Perhaps a good example of all this is our maritime industry. Last year I spoke briefly on this matter and made reference in passing to the history of our national flag shipping, beginning at the close of World War I, when Billy Hughes of all people bought for Australia a fleet of ships which were to challenge the British-dominated Australian trade and, what is more, make a handsome profit-that is until the conservatives took over. They, at their bootlicking best, sold the fleet for a song and returned our trade to the British. That sad irony is-and it just shows how cruelly our primary producers have been treated by the tories of this country-that the single beneficiary of Billy Hughes' fleet was the man on the land. To this day our flag fleet has never recovered. There are too many vested interests including the foreign shipowners who still want to control our trade. It is a national disgrace that less than 5 per cent of our trade is carried in our ships. We must ask why. Why do we allow foreigners to carry our goods to market? Why do we import our purchases in foreign ships? Why do the conservatives in this country do everything they can to deride our national flag shipping? Why do they, and their free marketeer disciples in the bureaucracy, persist with their demands to allow foreign ships to ply our coastline? As I said before, we know there are inefficiences but is this the answer? Why can we not join with the Australian shipowners and the seagoing unions and see what can be done? Since 1983 this Labor Government has in fact done just that. Just as with the railways, we needed three vital ingredients-good management, prudent investment, and good labour relations. The Maritime Industry Development Committee and its report Morning Ahead showed how it could be done. This Government has put up the financial incentives for industry to invest in new modern technology ships and the unions have cut their manning to new low levels. In terms of costs Australian crews are now cheaper than the Japanese. Industrial disruption now is at record low levels. Australian National Line-ANL-almost bankrupt in 1983, has survived, and though not out of trouble totally, is trading with improved performance. The Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd-BHP-Howard Smith and others have expressed their confidence by investing in new tonnage. The prospects are good; they should be excellent. From the seagoing unions' part, five unions are now almost reduced to two. They have totally restructured on-board work practices and introduced of their own accord a brand new, modern rationale for crewing modern ships. No other industry in this country has done as much towards its own future. I hope never to see the day when Australia allows foreign labour into its industries. I am positive that it is not good enough for our shearing sheds or other industries, so why is the maritime industry being singled out for so much attention? Vested interests want to repeal part VI of the Navigation Act 1912, which would mean the deregulation of Australian coastal shipping. I firmly believe that to be scandalous, and I totally oppose it, and I am pleased to say that from the responses on this side of the House, so does the Government. At another level we are all only too familiar with the great cause of deregulation or, as otherwise expressed, market forces or, as I would term it, survival of the fittest. This is all the rage amongst the new breed of economists, the theorists, the ivory tower merchants in the Canberra Public Service and those opposite. Whatever happened to all the talk about the great trade in services we were missing out on? Remember all the foreign currency we were missing out on because our trade was insured by foreign insurers? Let me remind those in favour of improving our trade in services that shipping is a service. It could be a great national service. In fact, the costs incurred in exporting our products in foreign ships is currently about $5,700m. Every cent is money lost to Australia. We Australians are absolute suckers. We lose both ways. We export our trade in foreign ships f.o.b.-that is, we leave shipping arrangements to the foreign buyers of our exports-and for our imports we leave it to the sellers. We sell f.o.b. and buy c.i.f. Where is the sense it that? We are in fact a laughing stock. Remember all the talk coming out of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade some time ago about the need to make more of trade in services? It was nothing but cheap talk and rhetoric because the biggest costs such as shipping obviously are not part of it. The recent Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) report on coastal shipping is a case in point and I raise it here not because of what it said-it is not worth the paper it is written on-but because it represents the treachery of the ivory tower theorists in the Canberra bureau- cracy. And let me warn Australians that this privileged, isolated and ignorant army is everywhere. I am informed that such people have infested the bureaucracy with their economic theories and run together with their colleagues in all the major departments. Let me say that the views of the IAC are very much the views of all these other organisations. They have no knowledge of the facts, because the facts would spoil a good story. They have no knowledge of the industry and obviously they do not speak to anyone in it. Nor do they have any knowledge of the costs or the day to day working arrangements. This Government, to its credit, has already demolished the IAC report for the garbage that it is. But let me say that perhaps it is time that some of these Canberra boffins went to sea for six months to get a taste of the industry. Would they do it for anything less? Would they still begrudge the normal Australian working and living standards that Australian ship crews enjoy? No way. They would not do it. In the first place Canberra is much too comfortable. One can make much more for scribbling rubbish and never leaving home. Australian seamen have done the right thing. They know their industry will not survive if they do not restructure, as they have done. They work the same hours as any other Australian and I, for one, am not prepared to sit back and watch their jobs be handed over to foreigners. It is about time we stood up for our industries and stopped selling them down the drain. The Japanese do not do it, nor do the Germans or the Americans. Nor is it done within the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries, whose utterances are so apparently important for their toadies in Canberra. Let me make it quite clear that what I have said in no way apologises for the inefficiences which we genuinely suffer right through Australian industries, including transport. Let me say also that although the problem has not just arisen overnight-we have faced it now for 30 years-until 1983 nothing had been done. For a generation of conservative government the clock stopped. Now all we have is carping and criticism. We know what is wrong-that is easy. We need constructive, positive solutions. This Government is showing the way and so are the seagoing unions. They have bitten the bullet, not that the bureaucracy has noticed. They have sat down cooperatively with shipowners, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and this Government and have worked out a very sane and forward looking package. There is probably no parallel in our industrial history. So let us give credit where credit is due and let us get on with the task of developing the shipping industry that we need in the interests of our economy and the nation. Thursday, 19 May 1988 18-19 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 18-19 May 1988 18-19 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(12.04 a.m.) —As we all know, this debate on the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill has been truncated tonight and because of the shortage of time I am prevented from arguing at length in support of an amendment that I proposed to move. The amendment has at least been drawn and circulated in my name. The Minister for Transport and Communications Support (Mr Peter Morris) has kindly agreed to allow me to have it incorporated in Hansard. Therefore, I seek the leave of the House to have the amendment circulated in my name incorporated. Leave granted. The amendment read as follows- Page 4, after clause 14, insert the following new clause: ``14a. The Principal Act is amended by adding after section 71 the following sections: Leases, licences etc. `71a. Subject to section 71d, the Minister may, on behalf of the Corporation: (a) grant leases and licences in respect of land within an airport on such terms and conditions, and subject to payment of such rent or other consideration, as the Minister thinks fit; and (b) exercise any power or remedy of the Corporation in respect of any such lease or licence. `Authority to trade, etc. `17b. (1) The Minister may, on behalf of the Corporation, by writing under his or her hand, grant to a person an authority to do, either personally, or by the Minister's servants or agents, or both, any act or thing referred to in section 71a. 18-19 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 18-19 May 1988 18-19 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES `(2) An authority under this section- (a) may be included in, or granted in relation to, a lease or licence in respect of particular land within an airport; and (b) shall, subject to section 71c, be granted for such period, on such terms and conditions and for such consideration as the Minister thinks fit. Prohibition on trading, etc., without authority `71c. (1) Except in accordance with an authority granted under this Act and the terms and conditions of that authority, a person shall not, within an airport, either personally or by his or her servant or agent, or as the servant or agent of another person: (a) sell, for delivery within the airport, or supply, any goods or services; (b) carry on, or solicit for, any business; or (c) erect, display or distribute, or communicate by sound, any advertisement or public notice. `(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to or in relation to: (a) the making or performance, by an operator of air transport services, of contracts for the carriage of passengers or goods by air or for the carriage by that operator between the airport and any premises of that operator of passengers or goods that have been, or are to be, carried by that operator by air; (b) the advertising, by an operator of air transport services, of those services or other transport services or of tourist facilities; or (c) the sale or supply to the owner or operator of aircraft of goods or services required for the maintenance or operation of the aircraft or for use or consumption: (i) aboard the aircraft; or (ii) at the airport by persons employed by him or her. (3) This section does not affect the enforcement of any civil remedy against a person. Licences etc. only to be granted after public tender or auction `71d. (1) A lease, licence or authority under this Act shall only be granted after tenders have been publicly invited and announced in accordance with subsection (2) or after public auction. `(2) All invitations to tender for a lease, licence or authority under this Act shall include details as to public registration, and the time and place of public opening and public announcement of tenders received.'.''. 18-19 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 18-19 May 1988 18-19 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Mr N.A. Brown —I thank the House. I shall now turn my attention to the mealy-mouthed hypocritical Government, which has spent the past several days speaking about democracy, human rights, freedom of speech and fair elections. When it comes to the crunch it has the impertinence to guillotine 14 Bills through the Parliament in only a few hours, thereby preventing serious debate on a series of important pieces of legislation. The House is debating one of them at present. This Bill deals with the transport industry and its title makes it plain that the measure has a fairly wide ambit. One of the things the Bill proposes to do is to amend the Federal Airports Corporation Act. My colleague the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) has already remarked on the part of the Bill that amends the Federal Airports Corporation Act. The amendment I have incorporated in Hansard also seeks to amend that Act in an important way because, if it were passed, it would force the Federal Airports Corporation and the Government to put out to public tender leases, licences or authorities to conduct businesses at Federal airports. That very important principle is embodied in the amendment, which is completely omitted from the Federal Airports Corporation Act as it currently stands. It is probably not widely understood that under the Act the Federal Airports Corporation and the Government are not obliged to put those concessions out for public tender when concessions of a business nature, which are extremely valuable, are being handed out. The amendment will require the Corporation and the Government to put those franchises out for public tender. One may well ask why it is important that that should be done. There are four reasons why these valuable concessions should be put out for public tender and because of the lateness of the hour I shall refer to them briefly. The first reason is that if the franchises are granted, as they are now as a matter of practice, without being subjected to the scrutiny of public tender, it is extremely unfair on other potential tenderers, companies that would have tendered had the matters been put to public tender, to be excluded from the opportunity of obtaining those valuable business concessions. That is the first and very simple elementary point. It is unfair if those who wish to compete in the industry are being prevented from doing so because the concessions are not being made available subject to public tender. The second reason is that other potential tenderers, of which there are always some in this field, may well offer the Commonwealth or Federal Airports Corporation better terms and more money than the successful lucky company that is picked out of the blue by the Government or the Corporation and which is given the lucrative opportunity of plying its trade on airport premises. In other words, the Commonwealth could do much better financially if the matter were put out for public tender. The third reason is simple and that is that the general thrust of the Commonwealth practice is now, as it always has been, embodied in the regulations and practices of the Department of Finance. The general principle underlining those regulations is that major Commonwealth contracts should be put out for public tender. It is in the public interest that that should be the case. The Act as it stands does not require that to be done. My amendment would require that to be done and should be supported for that reason. 18-19 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 18-19 May 1988 18-19 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Madam Deputy Speaker, you will recall that I said there were four reasons why this amendment should be implemented. So far I have given you three reasons. The fourth reason relates to a particular case which has arisen. It is not an exaggeration to describe the case as an absolute scandal. I refer to this scandal for the reason that it would have been prevented had the amendment which I have proposed been incorporated in the Federal Airports Corporation Act and applied in practice by the Commonwealth Government. It relates to the duty-free shops at the Sydney international Airport. Very briefly, what happened in that case was that some years ago a five-year franchise was granted to a company named Allders International Pty Ltd, a company which was given, after it won a tender-I emphasise that it won it after tender-a very lucrative franchise to conduct the duty-free shops at Sydney international Airport. 18-19 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 18-19 May 1988 18-19 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Late last year a very curious thing happened. That company was given another lease or an extension to its lease, for a further three years from October 1988. That was not put out to public tender. How curious that, apparently in secrecy until the veil was lifted, the Government, acting through the Department which at that stage had direct responsibility for this, should suddenly, out of the blue, give a three-year extension to that franchise to the lucky company that was there without putting the matter out for public tender. I think you would agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that, on the surface, that calls for some explanation. Sooner or later the full facts of the matter will come to light. The full facts have not as yet come to light, although many people both in the industry and in the Department are very concerned about the procedures that were followed which led to that very lucrative licence being granted for three years without it being put out for public tender. A few moments ago I described it as a scandal. That is the only word which can be used accurately to describe what happened. Sooner or later those facts will come out and the matter will be revealed for what it is; namely, a scandal. I conclude on this point: the amendment I propose is a worthwhile and sensible amendment. If we reached the committee stage tonight I would certainly move the amendment, but it has been foreshadowed and I have spoken to it. It has now been incorporated in Hansard. So at least honourable members can see what my position is with respect to this issue. It is in the public interest, the interests of travellers and those in the industry and, one would have thought, the Government's interests, that valuable concessions of this sort are not simply given out as rewards, because the Government, a department or a corporation likes an individual company or because it has some internal motivation that leads it to give it this gift, for that is what it is. One would have thought that it was in the interests of all parties, particularly the public, that when a valuable concession of this sort is made available, it should be put up for public tender. Not only does the amendment require and oblige such franchises to be made available through a public tendering system but also it provides for the registration of those tenders and the public opening and disclosure of those tenders and the prices which are put in. It is important that all that is above board. It is important that it is public and open. My amendment would achieve those things. If the Government has any sense at all, which I am beginning to doubt, it would support this amendment and the principle that is behind it. 18-19 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 18-19 May 1988 18-19 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(12.15 a.m.) —The Opposition's amendment that the House condemns the Government for its failure in the transport and aviation areas is straining the credibility when one looks at the Opposition's record when in government. It was a time when nothing was done about the waterfront or interstate road freight and when road funding was cut back until it was almost too late. When we came into office children could not get to school. In part of the electorate of Gilmore as it is now, which was previously my electorate, children could not get to Crookwell primary school. The Opposition is unbelievable when it talks about the Government failing in the transport and aviation areas. Under the previous Government the Australian National Line was rendered almost bankrupt; the two-airline policy was imposed to restrict growth and competition; public enterprises were starved of capital, they were milked dry and they were used for political ends; railways were ignored and run down right throughout Australia; and pork-barrelling of new airport construction became a new art form. The previous Government had all the theories in the world. The honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) has come into this House with all the theories in the world, which are very easy to have in opposition. I very much doubt whether those opposite would have the guts to apply them in government. The Liberal Party transport policy, which I have here, shows just how the honourable member for Deakin has compromised his own principle. He talked of a sloppy government. How does he describe an opposition whose spokesperson does not believe that the Federal Government should give funds for roads to local government at all? Then, in this policy statement, he says that he will continue the existing Federal road grants. He has capitulated again. How does he explain the support from the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) and himself earlier in the evening for the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) in its extraordinary proposal to open up shipping to foreigners? 18-19 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 18-19 May 1988 18-19 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES If we look at costs we see that Australia's shipping industry can compete with shipping industries in other countries which would be entrants to our ports. We can compete with them on a fair basis. It is when overseas firms are involved with tax havens, as many of them are, that we have trouble competing. The trouble with the IAC draft is that it relied too much on conjecture in its recommendations and too little on the facts, even the facts in the report itself. If the Opposition relies on the IAC as its guide on the shipping industry it will not only fall foul of the Seamens Union of Australia, a responsible, thoughtful and enterprising union, as the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil) said earlier this evening, and the maritime industry, an industry which, with union cooperation, has competed and will compete, on a fair basis, with the industry in any country, but it will also incur the scepticism of a wide range of other industries which were unfairly dealt with by the Industries Assistance Commission, such as the pharmaceutical industry, the dairy industry and the fishing industry. In all cases the Industries Assistance Commission failed to grasp the realities within those industries. The Minister for Transport and Communications Support (Mr Peter Morris), who is at the table, has made a positive contribution in introducing this legislation. He has had a long history of association with shipping and other forms of transport, such as road and aviation. This Government, this Parliament and this nation would be the poorer without the pioneering work that he has done throughout those industries. In contrast, the Opposition has made a simplistic identification of the nation's transport problems and has come up with remedies that are trite and superficial. Members of the Opposition have demonstrated little understanding of the enormity and complexity of the task that lies ahead of us; in short, they have been long on rhetoric and short on fact and positive policy. I feel it absolutely necessary to criticise the speeches made by the honourable member for Deakin and the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown) because their contributions were not at all positive; in fact, looking at their record, they were entirely negative. 18-19 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 18-19 May 1988 18-19 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(12.20 a.m.) —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the call. I am sorry if I have caused some difficulty, but it was not indicated to me that there was any agreement. In fact, I am officially listed as an Opposition speaker in the debate on the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 1988. I noted with some interest that the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) somewhat broadened the debate, referring at some length to the record of the Government in a range of transport modes, and roads. Let me say in the context of this legislation that there is one figure, and one figure alone, that stands out above all other figures with regard to this Labor Government's record on transport in Australia. I refer to the simple fact that over the last five years under the Hawke Labor Government there has been a 25 per cent reduction in real terms in Federal road funding. That is the true record of this Government. This is what has caused so much difficulty and crisis in local government funding right across Australia. The priorities of local government bodies are not to do with referendums and the like. Their first and foremost priority is their road infrastructure, which has suffered a 25 per cent cut in real funding terms under the Hawke Labor Government. May I say in passing that, while we have only five sitting days left in this historic chamber before we transport ourselves up to the new House on the hill, part of two of those sitting days will be taken up by the mini-Budget. We learnt today that there could be a further 10 per cent cut in Federal road funding under the mini-Budget. Worse still, there may well be some structural alteration to the method of road funding by the Federal Government in such a way as to reduce the specific program allocations, bring road funding under general purpose grants to the States and so pave the way for even further reductions in road funding further down the track. 18-19 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 18-19 May 1988 18-19 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES I must say that there is enormous concern in the electorate at large with regard to this 25 per cent reduction in real terms in Federal road funding over the last five years. It is of no use the Minister for Transport and Communications Support (Mr Peter Morris) dwelling in his reply on nominal figures which indicate that notional funding has not been reduced. One has to look at what has happened in real terms. One has to take into account the inflation figure in order to reach the true position. The true position is causing a great deal of agony not only for the councils but also, of course, at a State government level in terms of direct Federal expenditure on roads such as national highways. The honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) and I have specific concerns on this matter because in fact the Goulburn bypass and the Albury bypass will be bypassed under the funding trends of this Government. Whilst I realise that the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill is an interesting piece of legislation which does not relate directly to road funding, nevertheless it relates to modes of transport and to their interrelationship. Indeed, the honourable member for Eden-Monaro injected the dimension of road funding and road programs into the debate. I want to indicate my support of the amendment moved so ably by the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale). I want to highlight particularly the first part of that amendment, which emphasises the need to provide an appropriate capital base for the two government owned airlines, namely, Qantas Airways Ltd and Australian Airlines. I think there are elements of the Government who believe that Qantas and Australian Airlines can somehow survive in the future in their very competitive world without any large-scale injection of funding. I think elements of the Government are locked into a traditional ownership attitude based on the fact that these airlines have so far been public sector owned and are blinkered from looking at the real trends in international and domestic airline operations and the need to upgrade aircraft, which constitute huge items of expenditure requiring a massive flexibility in funding and capital structure. 18-19 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 18-19 May 1988 18-19 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES The reality is that, unless Qantas and Australian Airlines can continue with their upgrading, they simply cannot compete and accord with what the Government and the nation would want. In an oblique way, the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill facilitates competition through the amendments referred to on page 4 of the second reading speech. The type of aircraft to reflect particularly the international routes now preferred have to be extra long-range. For example, in October the Qantas operation on the main Sydney-London route is to be switched to a daily flight service from Sydney to Bangkok and from Bangkok non-stop to London. The old QF1 route of Sydney-Singapore-Bahrain-London will be continued on a reduced basis of four to five times a week. People want one-stop Sydney to London flights. I know that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, as a man of great interest in these matters-I realise that I should not dwell on this tonight-would be interested to know that this daily one-stop format is to be adopted by Qantas. Quite seriously, it can do that and it can provide the infrastructure to facilitate that only-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I am not the least bit interested in any one-stop flight to London. I am interested to see how this relates to the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 1988. Mr TIM FISCHER —I only mention it in passing but I submit that it certainly relates to paragraph (1) of the amendment capably moved by the honourable member for Deakin. I also submit that it is picked up on page 4 of the Minister's second reading speech. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Federal Airports Corporation Act 1986 makes a similar provision. We could travel all around the world in the rest of the second reading debate. Even the honourable member for Deakin would not have thought of that one. Mr TIM FISCHER —Mr Deputy Speaker, I was just mentioning that in passing-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —My experience with the honourable member for Deakin is that he has always thought of everything. Mr TIM FISCHER —In conclusion, I say seriously that the question of capital injection into Qantas and Australian Airlines is not a joking matter. There is a finite timetable and it contains a series of deadlines. If Qantas and Australian Airlines do not receive a breakthrough in the resolution of their ownership situation and do not receive the flexible funding structure which will enable them to proceed with the equipment upgrading which is essential for them to develop the types of routes structure and services that they must operate to survive in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the Government will be sabotaging the jobs generated by Qantas and Australian Airlines in a way which I would have thought would horrify the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee) and other honourable members who are concerned about employment. It will jeopardise the very viability of those two public sector airlines. I support the amendment moved so ably by the honourable member for Deakin to the motion for the second reading of the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill. 18-19 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 18-19 May 1988 18-19 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport and Communications Support)(12.30 a.m.) —The Government rejects the amendment moved by the Opposition to the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill. From the Opposition we have the most abysmal record ever in the management of transport and aviation in this country. It was the Opposition which when it was in government crippled our public sector enterprises and transport. Mr Sharp —I am listed to speak. Mr PETER MORRIS —You can hear me while you are sitting down. The honourable member does not have to stand up. Mr Sharp —I am listed to speak. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -As it is now 12.30 a.m., the time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. The question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. Question resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question now is that the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. House adjourned at 12.31 a.m. (Thursday) The following notice was given: Mr MacKellar to move- That this House determines that the present Speaker's Chair should be relocated in the House of Representatives Chamber in the new Parliament House before that House is occupied by Members of Parliament in the 1988 Budget sittings. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 18 May 1988. Australian Bureau of Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Proposals to collect information-1988- No. 2-Quarterly survey of balance sheet information. No. 3-Survey of international trade in services.