Friday, 5 October 1984 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hamer) took the chair at 9 a.m., and read prayers . Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —I inform the Senate that the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) left Australia yesterday to visit China and to lead a high level construction industry trade mission to Asia. The Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) is Acting Minister for Housing and Construction until Mr Hurford returns. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully show that: We deplore and oppose the decision of the Federal Government in legislating to allow the importation and distribution of hard-core pornographic video films and material into Australia and the social consequences of this action particularly for our children. We request the Federal Government to re-enact immediately the previous laws which banned the entry into Australia and sale of this hard-core pornographic material, until the Inquiry into the Effects of the current legislation in relation to adults and children has reported to the Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator MacGibbon (from 568 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of South Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they so wish to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Collard (from 649 citizens) and Messner (from 118 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that we believe that there are unresolved economic, social, biological, genetic, environmental, technical and ethical problems associated with the mining of Uranium and the Development of Nuclear Power, in particular: (a) to the proven contribution of the nuclear power industry to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the increased risk of nuclear war; and (b) the absence of procedures for the storage and disposal of radioactive wastes to ensure that any danger posed by such wastes to human life and the environment is eliminated; Your petitioners most humbly pray that: (1) No new Uranium mines be commenced; (2) No new contracts for the sale of Uranium be approved; (3) Uranium mines presently in production cease with the fulfilment of current contracts; (4) No new Uranium is supplied to countries making or testing nuclear weapons. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Giles (from 62 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That government have a responsibility to maintain standards acceptable to society's wishes. 2. It cannot be guaranteed that X rated video material will not be viewed by children. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should not adopt the X classification for Films and Video Tapes, nor Category 2 for Printed Material. Further, that tighter restrictions be applied to R rated Films and Video Tapes and Category 1 Printed Material. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Kilgariff (from 141 citizens) and Reid (from 28 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we the undersigned, having great concern because of the spread of moral pollution in our nation call upon the Government to introduce immediate legislation: 1. To provide strict controls over importation, production, sale, hire or mailing of video-cassettes with the open sale of only G, PG and M rated video- cassettes; and the total prohibition of the sale of R rated video-cassettes so that R rated film can only be viewed in an adult theatre by persons over 18 years. We totally reject the concept of 'X' rated video-cassettes which would allow the legal sale of hard-core pornographic films for screening in the homes of our nation, which endanger our children. 2. To dramatically improve the Federal Attorney-General's Guidelines for Classification of Video tapes/ discs which restrict the importation, production, sale or hire, screening in private homes and mailing by Australia Post so as to include the total prohibition of any pornographic, obscene or blasphemous video cassette, or film containing child pornography, bestiality, sodomy, group sex, violent sex acts with women, such as rape and pack rape, sadism and torture, etc . Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will protect our society, especially woman and children from moral pollution and its harmful effects. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 77 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth to reject the recommendations of the Commonwealth Schools Commission contained in 'Funding Policies for Australian Schools', concerning proposed increases in State aid to private schools and the proposed community standard for education funding. 2. They call on the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth to declare a three year moratorium (1985-1987) on increases in State aid to private schools and on grants for new private schools and for increased private school enrolments. 3. They call on the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth to re-affirm their primary obligation to government schools and to implement all 1983 ALP election promises for increased funding to government schools. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 14 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Tasmania shows: (a) we are shocked and disappointed at the Federal Government's decision not to upgrade the Wynyard Airport. (b) this decision will inevitably lead to downgrading and closure of the Wynyard Airport. (c) closure of Wynyard Airport will cause grave hardship and inconvenience to the people of the North West and West Coast regions of Tasmania. (d) we urge the Federal Government to immediately reverse this disastrous decision. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Archer (from 42 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament House assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we support Senator Chipp's 'Nuclear Weapons Prohibition Bill'. A BILL FOR An Act to prohibit the manufacture of nuclear weapons in, and the introduction of nuclear weapons into, Australia effectively declaring Australia a: 'NUCLEAR WEAPONS FREE ZONE' Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that all Senators regardless of political affiliations, support this Bill. Not just for our sake but for your children. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chipp (from 75 citizens). To the Honourable the President of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth: That we, citizens of the Commonwealth, earnestly request our government to: 1. Cease the discrimination of residents of Rest Homes who need similar care and assistance as those in other Institutions, therefore requiring equal funding . 2. Immediately fund these people so that Rest Homes can survive and continue caring for the aged and disabled for the good of the nation as a whole. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 308 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: They call upon the Government of the Commonwealth to: 1. Immediately increase the maximum tertiary student allowance to the level of the single unemployment benefit as a first step towards raising T.E.A.S. to the level of the poverty line. 2. Introduce indexation of tertiary student allowances. 3. Abolish the overseas student visa charge. 4. Restore the per capita subsidy to student residential colleges. 5. Reverse its decision to fund extra student places in 1985 at a rate 31 per cent less than the rate of funding per fulltime student in 1984. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 902 citizens). Petitions received. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(9.03) —I move: That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence: Northern coastal surveillance, with particular reference to the adequacy of the current levels of coastal surveillance and the adequacy of the current levels and deployment of surveillance staff. I have moved this motion because in the Senate Estimates Committee E hearing on Tuesday, when the estimates for the Department of the Special Minister of State were being examined, the question of what was happening in northern coastal surveillance was given quite an airing. It appeared to the Estimates Committee that very few satisfactory answers were given by departmental officers regarding this very serious matter. It was quite evident, at least in the evidence given by the departmental people, that the arrangement was very much a piecemeal affair. For example, the units in the north are supposed to direct surveillance, yet in order to do that they must liaise with a regional co-ordination centre which in turn relies on meetings of people who have an interest in the coastal surveillance role-such as representatives of the Department of Health and the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, et cetera; the State, Territory and Federal police; and Customs and Fisheries departments. It is difficult to see how efficient and effective coastal surveillance will result from units which are so obviously understaffed. It is said that there will be three or four units and that only four Federal police will man these regional offices. I submit that, when one considers the vast length of the coastline with all its inherent islands and what have you, the staff of the Federal police are lacking the numbers necessary to carry out these responsibilities. Within the last two months we have heard of various matters between the Government of Indonesia and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, relating to the identified aircraft that have been flying over Timor and presumably along the northern coast. I think there have been 22 or 23 unidentified flights of which we have no knowledge whatsoever regarding their destination, what they were carrying and such. The Government of Indonesia naturally brought the matter to Mr Hayden, showing quite a degree of concern. I understand that Mr Hayden suggested that the flights may be drug flights. It is common knowledge in the north, at least by rumour, that there are very many unidentified flights by fixed wing aircraft or by helicopter. The thing that concerns me and very many others is the fact that most of these unidentified flights take place at night. Yet all the plans now are for surveillance in the daytime. It is the joke of the north that if one wants to know the time one just waits until the surveillance aircraft comes over, because these aircraft fly to a pre-determined pattern and at a pre-determined time. Now the Government has said that it intends at some time in the future to see whether it is possible to bring in surveillance in the hours of darkness. Not only is there no sign that the finance will be available to enable this to be done but also there seem to be no administrative arrangements, as was shown in the Estimate Committee the other night, to indicate that surveillance of the north coast will take place 24 hours a day. One can only conclude, when one considers the situation and the very odd occasions when aircraft have been found, that the flights have operated at night . Many reports have been received of boats coming into Australian waters in the hours of darkness and being back in the international seas by the time daylight arrives. One could go on at length. I was greatly concerned to hear once again in the Estimates Committee last Tuesday that there is apparent fragmentation and that there appears to be no improvement in the scope of surveillance in the north. I have been critical of surveillance in the north because I believe that the arrangements not only by this present Government but also by previous governments have been insufficient. I believe Australia is in extreme danger in many ways. First of all, foot and mouth disease is prevalent in countries only a few hundred miles off the coast of Australia. The introduction of this disease would place animal-related primary industries in Australia in jeopardy. Foot and mouth disease can be introduced so easily. That is only one aspect of the danger. We are told that this year an immense crop of opium is being grown in Thailand and Burma in the Golden Triangle. It appears that heroin marketing is at a peak. From the briefings that I received in Thailand I understand that heroin can be and is being brought into Australia in many different ways. We hear constant reports of this. The importation of this drug is also a danger to Australia. We also hear many reports of illegal immigration. May I suggest that inadequate surveillance is one reason why illegal immigration is taking place. One could go on at length. I am putting to the Senate today that apparently the present coastal surveillance arrangements are not satisfactory. I believe that the Senate has a responsibility to the north and to the people of Australia to determine whether surveillance of the north is being properly carried out. I can see no better way of doing this than referring this matter to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. I know that this matter has been looked at before in a piecemeal fashion. Reviews have been undertaken of what is happening in the north. What I am asking for now is that the Senate takes it upon itself to direct one of its committees to take up the reference on northern surveillance, see whether things are as bad as apparently they are and report back to the Senate. I commend the motion to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Robertson) adjourned. Debate resumed from 4 October, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Senator Durack had moved by way of amendment: At end of motion, add ', but the Senate calls upon the Government to establish a Royal Commission with terms of reference to investigate and report upon: (a) the origins of the tapes and documents, the subject of the Bill; (b) the authenticity of the information contained in and upon the said tapes and documents; (c) whether such information reveals any offences against laws of the Commonwealth; (d) whether, arising from such information, any criminal charges should be laid ; (e) whether any action has already been taken by any law enforcement agency arising out of the said information; and (f) whether any immunities should be granted to any person to enable the Royal Commission fully to investigate the above matters'. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(9.13) —At the close of play last night I was concluding my second reading reply in this debate, making the point that there is no justification for a royal commission now to be instituted to deal with the Age tapes material. The very point of the legislation now before the Senate is to ensure that that material will be dealt with in a royal commission context, namely by Mr Justice Stewart using his terms of reference in the Mr Asia, now Nugan Hand, affair which are ample to enable him to examine both the providence of the tapes if they indeed exist, and accordingly, the question of authenticity. Equally, Mr Justice Stewart's fairly wide-ranging brief in relation to that royal commission-the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking-is such as to enable him, quite usefully one would imagine, to use any hard information which did emerge as authentic from his preliminary inquiry. Equally, that would be true of the New South Wales Commissioner for Public Complaints who is also vested with authority by this legislation to look at the material. Certainly, in the event that the material did prove to be authentic and it appeared to justify a reference to some other law enforcement agency or body, the Government would, of course, under those circumstances, be prepared to look again at the possibilities of that material being communicated to those other bodies and agencies. But for the moment, the character of the material has been such and, as I indicated yesterday, has been so thoroughly worked over already by so many different bodies and agencies, that it would appear to be quite unnecessary to take the step that is proposed by the Opposition in this second reading amendment. I suspect in fact that were it not for the desire of the Opposition to breathe some new life into the so-called organised crime debate, this legislation would be seen as a perfectly satisfactory small remedial piece of legislation to enable matters to proceed in a way that is wholly rational and wholly defensible. Let us not hear any more talk of new royal commissions into this already overworked area. Let us allow the existing machinery to get on with the job, armed with the authority that is vested in those pieces of machinery by the legislation now before the Parliament . Question put: That the words proposed to be added (Senator Durack's amendment) be added. The Senate divided. (The Deputy President-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Archer, B. R. Lajovic, M. E. Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. MacGibbon, D. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Martin, K. J. Carrick, Sir John Messner, A. J. Chaney, F. M. Missen, A. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Rae, PeterDurack, P. D. Reid, M. E. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Scott, D. B. Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C. Jessop, D. S. Walters, M. S. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N. Button, J. N. McIntosh, G. D. Coleman, R. N. Macklin, M. J. Colston, M. A. Maguire, G. R. Cook, P. F. S. Mason, C. V. J. Crowley, R. A. Primmer, C. G. Evans, Gareth Ray, RobertEvans, Jack Reynolds, M. Foreman, D. J. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Georges, G. Ryan, S. M. Gietzelt, A. T. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C. Grimes, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Haines, J. Zakharov, A. O. Hearn, J. M. Hill, R. Coates, J. Watson, J. O. W. Elstob, R. C. Townley, M. McClelland, DouglasWithers, G. Richardson, G. F. Collard, S. J. Chipp, D. L. Question so resolved in the negative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 and 2-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 3. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(9.22) —Mr Temporary Chairman, I have circulated a number of amendments in relation to clause 3, the first six of which deal simply with the proposition that the National Crime Authority should be included along with Mr Justice Stewart and the Commissioner of Public Complaints, as those to whom this material can be given by Mr Temby. I seek leave therefore to move amendments Nos 1 to 6 together. Leave granted. Senator DURACK —I move: 1. Page 2, proposed new sub-section 7B (1), line 4, leave out 'either or both', insert 'any or all'. 2. Page 2, after proposed new paragraph 7B (1) (b), add the following new paragraph: ' (c) the National Crime Authority'. 3. Page 2, proposed new sub-section 7B (2), line 11, leave out ', the Commissioner', insert 'or the National Crime Authority, the Commissioner or Authority'. 4. Page 2, after proposed new paragraph 7B (2) (b), insert the following word and paragraph: '; or (c) in the case of the National Crime Authority-whether the document is or may be relevant to matters with which the Authority is concerned,'. 5. Page 2, proposed new sub-section 7B (2), line 23, after 'Commissioner', insert 'or the Authority, as the case may be,'. 6. Page 3, after proposed new sub-section 7B (4), add the following new sub- section: ' ''(5) If a document referred to in sub-section (1) is given to the National Crime Authority and the Authority is satisfied as to the matters mentioned in sub-section (2), the Authority may make use of the document for the purposes of the performance of the Authority's functions, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Authority may- (a) show the document to a person giving evidence to the Authority; (b) subject to any relevant restrictions provided by the National Crime Authority Act 1984, include matter contained in the document in any report made, or information furnished, by the Authority in the performance of its functions; and (c) make such other use of the document as the Authority considers appropriate for the purpose of identifying the person who made the document and the circumstances in which the document was made.''.' The arguments have been covered extensively by me during the second reading debate. The material which is in the possession of Mr Temby for the purposes of the performance of his functions as Special Prosecutor under his appointment on 21 February this year is known, by way of shorthand, as the Age tapes. In fact, they are mostly transcripts of tapes, but I think that is what everyone has in mind by that expression. This material, as clause 3 provides, is to be made available to Mr Justice Stewart in respect of the letters patent that were given to him as a royal commissioner to investigate what is known colloquially as the Mr Asia syndicate. Despite a very major report by Mr Justice Stewart in relation to that matter, investigation is still proceeding in respect of some matters. Some material on these Age tapes allegedly contains reference to one of his avenues of inquiry. The other person to whom this material may be given under the Bill as it stands is the Commissioner of Public Complaints appointed in New South Wales under the Commissioner of Public Complaints Act. As I said in the second reading debate, the Age tapes material is said, if genuine, to be possibly relevant to a number of offences under Commonwealth law and under State law. One can only imagine that that is accepted by the Government in its proposal that the material be forwarded to the Commissioner of Public Complaints, because that is a State commission with powers to investigate breaches of State laws that may arise in regard to official misconduct of one kind or another, and therefore, this material must be thought to be possibly relevant to any inquiries that that body may make. So it is a very general reference of this material to the Commissioner of Public Complaints, unlike the reference to Mr Justice Stewart, which is specifically in relation to one of his still outstanding inquiries in regard to the Mr Asia syndicate; but it is not suggested that the material which is contained in the Age tapes is by any means confined to that area that Mr Justice Stewart is investigating. As I have said, the fact that it has been sent to the Commissioner of Public Complaints confirms that a wide range of criminal activity is suggested by this Age tapes material. In that event, the Opposition has already suggested, but the Senate has not accepted the proposal, that there should be a royal commission into the whole matter. Nevertheless, as I have said, there is-it is apparently accepted by the Government-a sufficient degree of concern about these Age tapes and their possible relevance and usefulness in criminal investigations for the Government to believe that they should be made available to Mr Justice Stewart in his inquiry and to the Commissioner of Public Complaints in respect of any possible complaint that may be made about official misconduct or corruption by that officer appointed under the New South Wales Act in respect of the breaches or possible breaches of New South Wales laws. So here we have another recognition by the Government of the possibly substantive character of the Age tapes. It has , as we know, accepted them as requiring and justifying a reference to a special prosecutor, Mr Temby himself, and we have Mr Temby's report before us, tabled earlier in these sittings. It is recognised that there may well be some substance in the Age tapes. I think that it is now recognised by most people that they are not just simply a hoax and that there may well be material provided in these tapes or documents that will point to criminal activities, breaches of either Federal or State laws . It seems to be unsatisfactory that such material should be available only for the limited type of inquiries which are not already specified in the Bill-namely , that of Mr Justice Stewart or any such inquiries that may be made by the Commissioner of Public Complaints in New South Wales. The Government and the Australian Democrats do not see the justification for a royal commission into this matter. I find the view that they have taken very surprising, particularly that of the Australian Democrats whose leader, Senator Chipp, has played a leading role in regard to concerns about organised crime and what ought to be done about it. Nevertheless, the Democrats have decided this morning by their recent vote that they will not support a royal commission into the matters. At the very least I would have thought that the newly established National Crime Authority, which is a joint Federal-State body now in existence as a result of legislation that we have passed, would be a most appropriate body to receive the Age tapes material from Mr Temby. As I have said previously, Mr Temby has indicated that he cannot take his inquiries any further at this stage because he has not received the co-operation that in some respects he might well have expected to receive. That has not been forthcoming. I quote from paragraph 31 of his report in which he states: The matter could be taken further by the materials generally being referred to some body or person having coercive powers. He does not talk about the material being referred just to Mr Justice Stewart although he suggests that Mr Justice Stewart as a royal commissioner has those powers, and he also mentioned the Senate Select Committee. He says: The matter could be taken further by the materials generally being referred to some body . . . Therefore the Opposition believes that the National Crime Authority is the body which certainly satisfies that view expressed by Mr Temby as Special Prosecutor in his report to us dated 20 July. The object of these amendments is to add to the list of bodies-the destinations contained in this Bill for this material, namely, Mr Justice Stewart and the Commissioner for Public Complaints-a third body, the National Crime Authority. Amendments (1) to (6) are consequential amendments to give effect to that proposal from the Opposition. As I have said, this material refers to various possible breaches of Federal and State law. I understand the matter was referred to the Solicitor-General of New South Wales because of possible breaches of State law and that inquiries are going ahead in New South Wales in relation to those matters. I do not know what progress has been made with the New South Wales investigations of this material; maybe there has been some report on it of which I am not aware. If there is, I would be pleased if the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) could indicate what the state of play is with the New South Wales investigations. But be that as it may we have clear knowledge of the situation in which Mr Temby found himself of not being able to take the matter further because of the non-co-operation of people. He specifies a number of people from whom he sought co-operation, including some New South Wales lawyers who, I say disappointingly, have not provided information to him which he should be expected to have received. But there are other people obviously who have not co-operated either. The only way to ascertain this is by having a body with the necessary powers. The National Crime Authority has the powers which may be able to take the matter further. It has the expertise and, if it gets a reference, it has the ability to exercise those powers. It is already sifting through all sorts of other material on which it will be approaching the Government to exercise those powers if it thinks necessary. This material should be added to that exercise which the National Crime Authority is making. If it believes that there are matters which could be taken further by the exercise of the powers, it has the ability to approach the governments and hopefully the governments would give the necessary reference to it to enable the coercive powers to be exercised. But at least at this stage, so far as we in this Parliament can take it, we make that material available to the National Crime Authority. The only thing that prevents that being done, so far as I can see at the moment, would be the provisions of the Telecommunications ( Interception) Act. To make it perfectly clear that the Authority can have this material, this amendment should be made. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(9.37) —In drafting this legislation the Government gave careful consideration to the kind of extension that is now being proposed by the Opposition. On balance-but only on balance- we decided not to pursue that particular course. Let me explain to the Senate why that was so and why, accordingly, on balance we would not support the amendment now moved by the Opposition. The starting point is an appreciation of the limited authority that successive governments have wanted to give in relation to telecommunications intercepts. The Telecommunications (Interception) Act only allows lawful intercepts to be obtained for one of two purposes-narcotics investigations or matters of national security. There are many other contexts, of course, in which it might be helpful or useful for law enforcement agencies to be able to apply telecommunications intercepts, but the traditional policy that has been adopted is that only in these very extreme areas of criminal activity or where there is a concern about national security, ought this extreme , privacy-invading investigative tool to be employed. That is the first point. The second element in the existing legislation is that to the extent that material is lawfully obtained by an intercept put in place for one or other of those reasons, narcotics or national security, the material can be communicated to other law enforcement agencies, but again only in relation to a very limited class of offences. Basically, it is narcotics offences again or serious criminal offences-those containing provision for at least three years imprisonment. Section 7 of the existing legislation makes that clear. The third thing to appreciate about the existing telecommunications interception legislation is that as the legislation now stands-this is being modified by the amendment today -unlawfully obtained intercept material cannot be communicated to anyone even if there is some reason to suppose its legitimacy or authenticity. The present legislation places an absolute barrier on the communication of illegally obtained intercept information to anyone else. The reason for that is the clear policy underlying this legislation of not doing anything to encourage unlawful intercepts to take place. Once one opens a chink of daylight, so the traditional argument has gone, and makes it possible for intercepted information to be communicated elsewhere, albeit that the interception was unlawfully obtained-I hope the Democrats are listening to this because it is relevant to what I hope will be their vote on this matter-- Senator Archer —Ever the optimist. Senator GARETH EVANS —That is the only reason I am making the speech at this stage, because I thought they were going to listen. It is all very well to speak for posterity but I would rather something more immediate. What I am saying, for Senator Macklin's benefit and the benefit of a cast of a thousand Democrats behind him that I know will back his judgment in these matters as on so many other things, is that the policy underlying the intercept legislation is to narrow very greatly the areas in which that information so obtained can be communicated, for the reason in turn that there is an underlying policy that there ought to be no encouragement whatsoever given to people, whoever they are, whatever positions they might occupy and whatever police force they might be involved in, to engage in unlawful intercepts. I think Senator Durack could probably accept the force of that policy argument. The only breach we are now establishing in that policy is to enable what was an oddity in the past, that is to say, information obtained illegally to be communicated to a law enforcement agency for the purposes of a prosecution of the offence of obtaining information unlawfully. There was a rather silly catch- 22 in the legislation, as it previously stood, which is being corrected by the proposed new clause 7C of this Bill. We are making one further breach in that time honoured principle, and that is to say that this particular Age tape material, which we assume has been obtained unlawfully, if in fact it is authentic at all, can be passed lawfully to Mr Justice Stewart or to the New South Wales Commissioner of Public Complaints. What the Opposition wants us to do now is to extend the range of lawful communication of this material much wider by enabling it to be given to the National Crime Authority, not in pursuit of some particular reference that that Authority has or may have from either the Commonwealth or the Inter-Governmental Committee, but for the Authority to do what it likes with the material in the context of its general investigative power, as well as some future specific reference. In other words, the material is to be given to the National Crime Authority in an open-ended way so that the Authority may utilise the material in the exercise of its own open-ended investigative power. It is that aspect of the matter that does cause us some concern. It is one thing, we would say, to make the material available to a royal commission, such as Mr Justice Stewart's, with limited terms of reference, or it is another thing of a similar order to make it available to the New South Wales Commissioner of Public Complaints in the exercise of his jurisdiction to deal with complaints or alleged misbehaviour involving official misconduct. It is quite another, we would argue, to make it available to the Crime Authority with its comparatively open-ended jurisdiction. It is at odds with the policy that we have been trying to hold the line on, and that is to confine as narrowly as possible the way in which this material may be dealt with in order not to encourage other people in the future to obtain material unlawfully in the hope or expectation that that unlawfully obtained material then will be able to wend its way to crime busting agencies or law enforcement authorities. The material may well prove to have ultimately some utility, but that has always been the case with unlawfully obtained intercept material. It may well have had lots of utility in the past but governments have held the line because of that overriding policy consideration. It is a matter for judgment as to whether the line should be drawn now, at this point, or whether there is something so special about this Age material that it justifies allowing the line to slip further in this way. I personally would doubt that there is something so special about this material. That tended to be the judgment of Mr Temby, to the extent that he was able to come to grips with that part of it which dealt with the possible commission of Federal offences. I am not sure whether it is any more substantial so far as State offences are concerned. It may be substantial, of course, so far as the Trimbole material is concerned, with Trimbole being, on the face of it, a prime target of the Age material, if indeed it was authentically obtained and put together. But that, of course, is within the competence of Mr Justice Stewart to explore. The further point we would make, I suppose, although it is a lesser one, is that if the material is referred to the National Crime Authority a degree of duplication of effort would be involved under the amendment in that both the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking and the Crime Authority would be required to satisfy themselves, before using the material in any substantive way, that it was in fact authentic, because that hurdle requirement is built into the terms of the amendment as it has been drafted by Senator Durack. So one way and another we say that it is preferable at this stage to hold the line where it traditionally has been held, namely, as narrowly as possible. By all means let the New South Wales Commissioner of Public Complaints and Mr Justice Stewart look at it from their respective viewpoints, with the object of establishing authenticity and providence. By all means let those two bodies use the substantive material, if its authenticity is established, for the purposes of their inquiries and by all means, if all of those conditions are satisfied, let the Government have another look at it in a few months' time if it is clear that some of this material is authentic and can be utilised profitably for other investigations. But do not let us make that assumption at this early stage. Let us hold the line on that basic policy issue of not allowing illegally obtained material to have wide currency. The final point I make is that if, despite all that, the Senate is minded to confer the power for this material to be given to the Crime Authority let it at least be understood that by enabling the Authority to look at the material under the terms of this provision we are surely not creating an obligation on the Authority to work its way systematically through the material, to hold hearings on it and to establish the authenticity, or the providence or the possible relevance of it to other inquiries. As I understand it, the only basis on which the argument is being put by Senator Durack is that if the material proves substantively to be relevant to something that the Crime Authority might be doing or might decide it wants to do, the Crime Authority ought not to be inhibited from using this material. As I understand Senator Durack, he is not going so far as to say that, by virtue of the passage of his amendment, there ought to be an obligation on the Crime Authority itself to mount a major investigation. After all, let us appreciate what is involved in this material. The transcript part of it goes for something over 500 pages. It deals, as I recall, with something over 3,000 purported different conversations. It sprawls all over the place. Only a comparatively small part of it is likely to be, even on the face of it, of immediate utility to the kinds of investigations in which the Crime Authority might be expected to engage. It would be unfortunate if this amendment were to be passed and then the Authority were to be plagued with public suggestions, allegations or claims in a few months' time that it had not acted on the basis of the capacity vested in it by this amendment. I do not know whether Senator Durack wants to say anything more on that subject, but I hope that what he has in mind by this amendment is simply an enabling provision so that the Authority will not be unable to use the material, rather than something which would create an obligation on the Authority to mount a major investigation . Perhaps we could have some clarification of that. That would certainly be the Government's view of what the implications of this provision are. Let me finish with one final reminder that the basic policy issue involved here is one that involves a matter of judgment. In all the circumstances of this obviously significant material, is it really necessary that we go so far as to add a whole extra layer of potential avenues for communication of this material when it has been manifestly unlawfully obtained? May it not be better to acknowledge the special case that is involved here but keep it to the limited area of Stewart and the New South Wales Commissioner to start with? Let us re- examine the position in a few months' time if it becomes apparent that any significant hindrance is being posed to law enforcement agencies by it being limited in this way. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.49) —I thank the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) for the eloquent speech he made to the Australian Democrats. I have some questions and want to make some comments on the general proposition. The Attorney was making a case in relation to the principle of using unlawfully obtained material. As he suggested, that is certainly a matter of judgment. However, in the debate that we had on the Opposition's amendment to the second reading motion, I indicated that we did not support the reference to the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking because it demonstrated a lack of confidence in the National Crime Authority. If that is the case, it would possibly suggest, conversely, that if this material were not to go to the National Crime Authority it would be an indication of a lack of confidence in the Authority. Therefore, following the position that we took in relation to the Opposition's amendment to the second reading motion, the argument would have to be that we would support its amendments moved at the Committee stage. The Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill, particularly proposed new section 7B (1) (a), presents another problem. If the material were to go to Royal Commissioner Stewart in his capacity as a royal commissioner, it seems to me that there would be some difficulty in then saying that that material should not go to the National Crime Authority, whose Chairman happens to be the same person. If, in his capacity as a royal commissioner, he discovers material which seems to him to be pertinent to other activities he is currently undertaking as the Chairman of the National Crime Authority, what type of schizophrenic operation would he have to go through in making sure that he does not leak that material to himself? Since he is the same person as the person operating the Commission and we are giving him this material in that capacity, it seems to me to be odd, quite aside from the principle involved, that the Authority under the same person should not be receiving it. That in no way canvasses the principle of the matter. I just think that in the circumstances it would be odd if, indeed , the royal commissioner did not have access to and the use of that material in both his capacities since they are likely to intercept in some quite marked ways . I do not think the Attorney-General put forward any substantive reason for not allowing this material to go to the National Crime Authority. As I read the amendments moved by Senator Durack, the clear intention is that the Authority could use that material but that it would not be compelled to do so. For example , in amendment 6 to clause 3, which seeks to add proposed new section 7B (5), if a document is given to the Authority it may make use of that document for the purposes of the performance of its functions. That seems to be the general context, because the other specifications under paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) are only specifications of that general proposition if the Authority goes ahead. There seems to be no obligation, at least on my reading, on it to do anything. Finally, I raise the point that the Attorney-General, in opposing these amendments, talked about the possibility of doing this at a later stage if it seemed necessary to do so. I wonder why, in this circumstance, one would be bothered not doing it now, on the basis that the Authority will only have a reference in relation to any of this material if it goes to the Inter- Governmental Committee anyhow-- Senator Gareth Evans —No. Senator MACKLIN —It receives the material-- Senator Gareth Evans —But it can use it for its general investigative powers. Senator MACKLIN —It can use it for its general investigations, yes; but then if it wants to make use of the material further it must seek a reference from the Inter-Governmental Committee. It can use it for its non-coercive investigations, certainly; I am not denying that. Indeed, it is because it is able to use the material in its non-coercive, normal investigatory operations, that one may wish it to have the material, because it may lead to the Authority undertaking certain lines of investigation and even asking for certain references from the Inter-Governmental Committee. Senator Gareth Evans —No, but one of the things the Crime Authority can do in the exercise of its general investigative power is to package prosecution evidence and give it to local law enforcement agencies without having a reference at all. So one is opening up the whole question of the use of illegally obtained evidence. Senator MACKLIN —I am talking in terms of the Authority itself and its subsequent investigations rather than the other types of activities it has been given the power to do out of the work it does in its non-coercive role. On all those counts it seems to me that there really is not a great deal of substantive reason why one would not want to do it. I think also there is at least one good reason for doing it, given the situation of the Chairman and the Royal Commissioner being the same person. In those circumstances it seems a good reason for doing so in relation to these documents. I do not think that that necessarily has to be taken as a general precedent for other types of activity. However, it seems to me that that in many ways might also be useful. I do not want to make any sort of hard statement on the matter, but it is a point of rather exquisite judgment as to whether indeed we use unlawfully obtained material which is excessively damaging and excessively useful in the fight against organised crime. We may be holding back far too far in not allowing the National Crime Authority to make use of that material. Of course, such material still would not be able to be used at a later stage, particularly in terms of court proceedings. However, that material may give the Authority a line in investigation which opens up lawfully obtained evidence at a later stage. Senator Gareth Evans —There is no absolute barrier for it being used in court proceedings. It is a matter for the discretion of the court. Senator MACKLIN —Well, discretion-- Senator Gareth Evans —So you are opening the issue up. Senator MACKLIN —Yes, and I think that in those circumstances probably the most that can be done-probably at the moment I lean in favour of this-is to allow the Authority to make use of that type of material and rely on the courts in their discretion to decide whether it will be admissible evidence. I think this is an area of judgment on which people differ without in any way being for or against crime. I think it is a matter of the judgments which one wants to make in terms of ability to fight crime as against the also very important demands of the protection of people's individual liberties. As the Attorney-General said, where that line is drawn in many circumstances is a very difficult problem. Certainly, at the moment I cannot see any reason why the amendments proposed by Senator Durack should not be accepted. On the face of them they seem in their intent to be a useful adjunct to the work that the Authority will be carrying out. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(9.58) —I thank Senator Macklin for his comments in relation to the amendment. I think his comments were very sensible and went to the point of the amendment. I suggest that if the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) gave some weight to those comments-I acknowledge that he gave weight to my arguments too-and pondered on my arguments and Senator Macklin 's arguments he may see the wisdom of the Opposition amendment. I think it would be better if a decision on this matter was one across party lines in this chamber. I think it is a matter of very considerable significance that we have that bipartisan attitude in relation to a matter of such sensitivity. I take the Attorney's point that there is an overriding public policy interest in the privacy of the telephone system. The clear object and intention of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act and its predecessors was all to give effect to that policy. Therefore, there have to be very strict rules about the use of such material either lawfully obtained in the narrow circumstances permitted or indeed unlawfully obtained. I framed this amendment having regard to that overriding policy consideration and came to the conclusion that the only appropriate body to have this material, apart from the bodies contained in the Government's Bill itself, would be the National Crime Authority. I guess there might be a temptation to say that a lot of this material ought to be given to a number of other law enforcement agencies. We know, for instance, that Mr Redlich asked the Government whether he could give the material that he had to the Victoria Police, following presumably a perfectly reasonable request from the Victoria Police to see material which may have been relevant to breaches of Victorian law. We know that police forces in Australia for a long time have been anxious to be able to make use of the product of the interception of telephone communications for their own investigations and, from the police point of view, that is a reasonable request. After the National Crime Authority has had some experience and perhaps has given us some more advice, we in this Parliament will really have to bite the bullet at some stage on this broader question-though not today. I emphasise that I acknowledge that overriding policy , and acknowledge the fact that every time we chip away at it we may seriously erode the principle itself. In the case of this material which has excited such public concern, and certainly if genuine is highly relevant to the type of function that we have given the National Crime Authority, it does seem quite appropriate for the National Crime Authority to have it and then make a decision for itself as to whether aspects of the material are of such importance to its investigations that it should be used either in the Authority's ordinary investigative role or, if it thinks it necessary-Mr Temby suggests this-it may seek a reference so that its coercive powers can be exercised. At this stage we do not even know whether this material is illegally obtained. We think it probably is but we do not know for sure. So, in a sense, we are not breaching that principle which, by the holus bolus use of illegally obtained material, may be seen to be a serious erosion of the principle of the Act itself. But we have this curious situation which Senator Macklin has referred to-I overlooked mentioning it when speaking in support of these amendments in the first place-and which the Attorney himself has acknowledged. Under the interception Act, although it is an offence under sub-section 7 (4) of the Act to divulge or communicate to another person or make use of any information obtained by intercepting a telephone communication, nevertheless under sub- section 7 (6) that is qualified to the extent that a person may give information obtained by intercepting a telephone communication in certain circumstances and may give it in evidence in certain proceedings. So we have a situation where although it cannot be given to a person in order to inquire into the possible offences listed in 7 (6), nevertheless if the information is there, having been obtained, it may be given in evidence in these proceedings subject of course to the overriding principles and discretion of the court as enunciated by the High Court of Australia in Bunning and Cross. I am sure the Attorney is aware of the decision of the Tasmanian Supreme Court in the Regina and Migliorini case in which this principle was given effect to. I do not think we need that Authority to come to that conclusion in the light of Bunning and Cross. We do have a rather odd situation in that in a prosecution resulting from, say, a national crime authority's investigations some of this Age tapes material could be given in evidence, with the court's discretion, but that national crime authority itself could not use it for the purpose of investigating for the preparation of the prosecution brief. It is a rather odd situation. I believe the National Crime Authority is one in which we all have confidence. It is not any old law enforcement agency. It would not give rise to the public disquiet which handing such material to some other law enforcement agency may do. I believe there are very strong arguments in favour of this amendment. I hope that the Attorney will reconsider it in the light of the interesting discussion we have had this morning about these matters which, on the one hand, are very sensitive and, on the other, raise anxious questions in regard to the proper investigation, the fullest investigation, of organised crime. Finally, in answer to the Attorney's query to me-Senator Macklin has already answered it-there is nothing in my amendments which requires the National Crime Authority to take any steps. I do not seek to put pressure on members of the Authority to take any steps. I am simply saying that they ought to have this material. If in their judgment it is useful to them they ought to be able to make such use of it as they feel is helpful to them and desirable in the public interest. There is certainly nothing in my amendments which says that they have to act upon it. I think it would be unrealistic, on the other hand, if in light of the notoriety of these tapes, there were not some interest in what use they may make of the material. Nevertheless, that is another matter. I do not propose to put any pressure on members of the Authority that they should be taking any particular action in relation to the material. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.08) —I thank both Senator Durack and Senator Macklin for some calm, reasoned and intelligent-with respect, I am not being patronising-contributions to a debate which does raise sensitive and difficult questions. I acknowledge the force of the points that have been made by both honourable senators. I acknowledge some of the anomalies, as it were, in the legislation, to which Senator Durack referred, and the practical way that this might be expected to operate, to which Senator Macklin referred. However, on balance, I do not think that I am yet persuaded that those considerations outweigh what I regard as the more fundamental considerations about the need to confine, as narrowly as humanly possible, any exceptions to the principle that lawfully, but more particularly unlawfully, intercepted material ought not to be communicated. With that in mind, the Government would continue to oppose the amendments but not press that opposition to the point of division. Amendments agreed to. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.09) —I move: Page 3, proposed new sub-section 7C, after 'document' (wherever occurring), insert 'or information'. My amendment to clause 3 of the Bill concerns proposed new section 7C which is a declaration of Parliament's intention to avoid doubts about the ambit of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act. I have already referred to the provision, which is in the widest possible terms, contained in existing section 7 (4) which reads: A person shall not divulge or communicate to another person, or make use of or record any information obtained by intercepting a communication . . . There are some exceptions. Proposed new section 7 (4) raises the question of whether or not any information can be given to a law enforcement agency even in relation to the question of investigating the possible illegal interception itself. We know that even the Solicitor General of New South Wales questioned whether or not she was entitled to have the material for the purpose of investigating breaches of State laws. I suppose the question could have been raised by Mr Temby or it could apply to whether the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge could have had the material. Senator Gareth Evans —Or me. Senator DURACK —Or the Attorney himself. On one interpretation this has an extraordinary wide effect, which I am sure is not the way that it would or should be interpreted. For those who have been in the position of handling some of this material in recent months it is a matter of some concern as they are all very significantly responsible for the enforcement and the observance of the law . We support the proposed new section. It is very proper to clarify the matter, although in fact it does not clarify it to the extent that may have been required by the Solicitor General of New South Wales or even the Attorney- General. I am not absolutely certain or not my amendment is required but it occured to me that if a person has a document which he suspects is a record of an interception of a telephone conversation, the amendment proposes that he can give that document to law enforcement agencies. He may not just have a document. He may have other information or he may have information only about a document. He may have seen a document. Somebody might have shown it to him but not given it to him, but he may have information about it. He may have to describe it, and so on. As I have said, I have proposed this amendment to raise the question as to whether or not it would not be preferable, as my amendment suggests, to add the word 'information' after the word 'document' just to clarify the general position. I would welcome any comment the Attorney has to make as to whether he sees any necessity for it. I only raised the amendment in that sense. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.12) —I was simply going to say that the Government shares Senator Durack's doubts as to whether this amendment is necessary in these forms. But equally clearly we do not see any harm in putting it in and accordingly we would not resist the amendment just perhaps to make it absolutely clear that that is indeed the intended scope of the provision. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.13) — The only question I was going to ask relates to the proposed insertion of the words 'or information'. If any information were put into writing would it not then constitute a document under proposed new section 7C? Presumably the only other type of information that is not written would be oral because on my reading of the section this definition would seem to fall under the drafting that is already there in the Bill. Senator Gareth Evans —Particularly since the document is defined in the Acts Interpretation Act very widely to cover all sorts of other forms of communication. But I do not resist it. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.14) —That would be true. What I had in mind was a situation where a person has not put information in writing. This person has seen a document, and goes to the police and says: 'Look, Joe Blow has shown me this document. I think it is a document which records an interception'. He will have to explain something about it and in the process he may in fact be breaching the Act. Senator Gareth Evans —That is hardly likely, but we will not oppose it. Amendment agreed to. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.15) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 2, proposed new paragraph 7B (1) (a), lines 6 and 7, leave out 'by Letters Patent dated 25 June 1981 to be a Commissioner to make inquiry into certain matters', insert 'by the Governor of the State of New South Wales by Letters Patent dated 24 June 1981 to be a Commissioner to make inquiry into certain matters and by the Administrator of the Government of the Commonwealth by Letters Patent dated 25 June 1981 to be a Commissioner to make inquiry into certain matters'. (2) Page 2, proposed new sub-section 7B (31), line 27, leave out 'the inquiry', insert 'any inquiry'. The amendments are just to ensure that Mr Justice Stewart will receive the document not only in his capacity as a Commonwealth royal commissioner but also in his capacity as a royal commissioner appointed under the law in New South Wales. It will be recalled that there are joint Letters Patent establishing the drug trafficking royal commission reference for Mr Justice Stewart. It was inadvertently omitted in a first draft of this legislation. It was just desired to clarify that small point. Amendments agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. Debate resumed from 2 October, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(10.16) — We are dealing with a group of bounty Bills. I propose certain amendments to them with which we will deal in the Committee stage. The comments which I wish to make relatively briefly in relation to the Bills are grouped into two categories. One is simply that the Bounty (Computers) Bill 1984 proposes to introduce a bounty on the manufacture of certain computer hardware, computer sub-assemblies and electronic micro- circuits. The bounty period is from 6 July 1984 to 5 July 1990 and the bounty will be paid at the rate of 25 per cent of value added. The bounty is part of the Government's decision which was made on the Industries Assistance Commission report entitled 'Computer Hardware and Software, Typewriters, Calculating and other Office Machines, Parts and Accessories, Recording Media, Metal Working Tools and Robots' dated 7 February 1984. The Government's decision in relation to the bounty also foreshadowed that changes would be made to Customs tariff legislation to allow imports into Australia of certain computer hardware, computer sub-assemblies and electronic microcircuits at minimum rates of tariff. The decision taken by the Government was welcomed by equipment suppliers and equipment manufacturers. Nevertheless, considerable concern is being expressed about the need for a decision. The previous position was that there had been a bounty under the Automatic Data Processing Equipment Act 1977 which had been extended over a period. That had provided certain assistance to automatic data processing construction in Australia. The position is that the Automatic Data Processing Equipment Bounty Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 with which we are dealing today is simply an extension of that legislation, which had run out as of 6 May, to the date on which the Bounty (Computers) Bill 1984 is to come into force which is, retrospectively, 6 July 1984. So the two Bills are inter-related , the Automatic Data Processing Equipment Bounty Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 being simply to extend, ex post facto, the legitimacy of the continuation of the payment of the bounty under the 1977 legislation from 6 May 1984 to 5 July 1984. The amount involved is anticipated to be about $200,000. The Opposition supports this obviously necessary legislation. I have no further comment to make, nor an amendment to move, in relation to that Bill. In other words, that is a Bill which I think we may now put aside for practical purposes. I go back to the Bill which deals with the future. The Bounty (Computers) Bill 1984, when enacted, will operate for six years and this will be an extremely important period in the development of the computer industry in Australia. I think that this legislation will enable the Australian computer industry to reduce the price of computers purchased by industry and commerce and this will have carry through effects on the efficiency of many sections of both manufacturing industry and the tertiary sector of Australian industry. We certainly welcome steps which will have those impacts. The Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button), in a news release of 5 July, the day before the new scheme was to come into effect, said: This decision, combined with our earlier decisions, means that we are now moving towards a proper mixture of development measures to meet specific industry needs and measures which provide a framework for longer term growth. The Press release stated that the bounty would be of 25 per cent value added. It also stated: the cost of systems design and systems software will be eligible for bounty. bounty will be paid on all production whether for domestic or export sale. The two bounties are estimated to cost about $7m next year. I am not quite sure what he meant at the time he made that statement. I think probably he meant during the 1984-85 year. The Minister nods his head and I thank him for that. I imagine that the statement was drafted perhaps before 30 June and came out in July. He was talking about that year. Certainly the Opposition supports this legislation. We have proposed measures in our own industry and commerce policy which are designed to encourage the development of the use of computer aided design and manufacture. We have made provision for assistance for the introduction of flexible manufacturing systems. Without taking a lot of the time of the Senate to discuss in detail the problems of manufacturing industry in Australia, I think it is common cause amongst most people who have studied the subject of manufacturing industry that one of the things that is badly needed in Australia is assistance and encouragement to the upgrading to the maximum extent of those areas of Australian manufacturing industry where equipment is either out of date or not as modern as it could be and, therefore, not as competitive as it could be when compared with the equipment of producers in other countries. The sorts of steps which can be taken which will make Australia more productive and competitive are steps which are to be welcomed. Again, I believe it is common ground that for Australian manufacturing industry to reverse the declining trend which has been taking place over recent years it will be necessary not to rely solely upon import replacement and the domestic market but to expand in a competitive way the export market and to increase Australia's share of that total market. That being so, the provisions of this legislation will play a part in encouraging the achievement of that objective. I therefore indicate that the Opposition supports this proposal. But as I mentioned, an amendment will be moved at the Committee stage, as has been the case in relation to similar legislation, because the Bill contains what have become in recent times standard clauses relating to search and entry by authorised officers without a warrant. This is a matter of some concern which I will address at the Committee stage and I will move an amendment in relation to it. The next Bill in this cognate debate is the Bounty (Electric Motors) Bill which proposes to pay a bounty at a rate of 14 per cent to manufacturers of electric motors which have a power output of between 0.746 kilowatts and 38 kilowatts. The value added of the motor must be at least 33 1/3 per cent of the total factory cost for the bounty to be paid. The bounty is to be payable from 17 July 1984 for a 12-month period or longer. Again, I point to the fact that it is retrospective. But as is common in these sorts of provisions, that form of retrospectivity is accepted because it has been announced and people are clear as to the date from which a benefit will become payable. It is very different from retrospectively imposing a penalty which people did not know would be imposed. I draw the distinction between the two and make no further point about the retrospectivity. The Bill gives the Government the power to extend payment of the bounty by publishing a notice in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. This provision is made to enable the Government's decision on the IAC report on long term assistance for the industry due on 16 April 1985 to be announced while this temporary measure is still in place. As the period for extension is open-ended- that is, it could be extended ad infinitum-the Opposition has to consider whether there should be a fixed period. I will refer to that further in a moment . The payment of the bounty, as I said, is one which is temporary pending the recommendations of the long term report. Although there has been a shake-out in the industry in recent times, it is quite obvious that there is a necessity for there to be a continuation of assistance pending the long term decision being taken. The Commission in its recommendation for short term assistance suggested that assistance should not be accorded to the local industry. This was not accepted by the Government. The Government has implemented the bounty as a temporary measure and has also done so at a slightly increased rate of 30 per cent. Again, the Opposition accepts the Government's right to make its assessment and its decision about how it should deal with the temporary problems of this industry. The payment of the bounty is limited to a maximum of $300,000 to any one manufacturer during the bounty period. The total cost in 1984-85 is estimated to be less than $500,000 and accordingly we are not dealing with a huge amount of money. We look forward to a report in April next year on long term assistance, and a decision by government following that. At that time it would be more appropriate to debate this in more detail. As I mentioned in relation to the Bounty (Computers) Bill, this Bill contains a provision for the right of authorised officers to enter premises without a warrant, to search and take documents. That is a provision which, for reasons which I will outline at the Committee stage, the Opposition believes is inappropriate; it should be subject to the normal requirement of the issue of a warrant for the right of entry and search. The next Bills to which I refer-the Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Amendment Bill 1984 and the Bounty (Tractor Cabs) Amendment Bill 1984-are related although they are separate Bills. When the Industries Assistance Commission Report on Agricultural Wheeled Tractors and Certain Parts was tabled in the Senate on 22 August, I made some comments on the report and on the problems of the agricultural wheeled tractor industry in Australia. I noted that that drew forth responses from some people. One of the things I wish to correct is that I said that there is really only one manufacturer of agricultural wheeled tractors left in Australia and referred to Chamberlain John Deere Pty Ltd. I should have qualified that by saying 'of a range of tractors'. I was not intending to exclude those manufacturers of the small quantities of very heavy equipment which are rather more special and have different problems, to which I will advert shortly. What I did point out is that although a bounty is being paid the position in Australia for the tractor industry is that there is very hectic competition. If one looks through the rural Press and rural magazines, it appears that discounting is taking place at a significant rate. There are the problems of a very large number of varieties of tractors and of whether in the future servicing and parts will be available for all those tractors throughout Australia or whether some people who have bought some of the makes of tractors which are being introduced into Australia at the moment may find themselves with useless equipment eventually-I refer not only to tractors but also to other agricultural machinery-or whether there is a reasonable assurance that parts and servicing will be available throughout Australia for the wide variety of tractors which are available and which have been purchased. On 7 March this year I asked a question of the Minister for Industry and Commerce and recently, on 17 September, I received a reply. The reply from the Minister indicated: There are more than 40 brands of tractors and in excess of 300 models (mainly from overseas) competing on the Australian market which is of the order of some 13,000 units per year. He stated: Such a competitive market should by its nature ensure a certain level of performance by the dealer organisation if continuity of sales is to be secured. It is in the farmer's own interests for them to thoroughly investigate a dealer 's ability to provide the required services and to seek information about recent performance in this regard. However, I would not argue against action by the industry to eliminate or reduce the potential problem for future purchasers of tractors. If after appropriate examination of the facts the industry concludes some measure of self regulation is desirable, codes of conduct could be developed by the industry (including Australian manufacturers) and representatives of the farmers. He continued: Of course, codes of ethics, etc., should not substantially lessen competition in a market or otherwise contravene the Trade Practices Act, unless the Trade Practices Commission is satisfied there are countervailing public benefits. Consumer protection is primarily a matter for the States and the parties involved should use avenues provided by the States in the first instance if they wish to proceed further. The Minister prefaced his answer by indicating, as I had asked him to do, whether he was aware that from time to time suggestions had been made about regulation of the Australian market in relation to service and parts and particularly whether this could be done by self-regulation. I read that into the Hansard to explain the sorts of concerns to which I was referring when I addressed the matter on 22 August last. I draw attention also to the fact that there is a difference between the number of distributors, which I was informed on inquiry existed in the industry in Australia, and the number of brands referred to by the Minister in his answer. But the difference is not particularly significant. The point is the same, and that is that at a time when we are trying to see whether this Government's efforts to reduce the number of models and the number of manufacturers of motor vehicles in Australia is bringing down the problems being experienced by the automobile industry, we are seeing an expansion of the number of tractors and of agricultural implements being made available in Australia. I did not think it was very radical when I was drawing attention on 22 August to the fact that this expansion was taking place and that perhaps the users as well as the manufacturers and distributors should give some thought to some form of self-regulation before they reach the stage of getting into such difficulties that government feels it incumbent upon it to intervene in some way more than just by the provision of the bounty which is provided for in this legislation. I was a little surprised to get quite a strong reaction from Chamberlain John Deere. I make it perfectly clear that my comments in relation to Chamberlain John Deere were to point to the irony of a bounty being paid to a local manufacturer when what was happening was that that manufacturer was having to compete in a very heavily competitive discount market, or what appear from advertisements and from statements made by many of the people involved in the industry is a heavily discounted market. I referred in no way adversely to the performance of Chamberlain John Deere as an Australian manufacturer with a variety of models or to the manufacturers of those large specialised tractors which are manufactured in relatively small numbers but to a high standard by some manufacturers in Western Australia, Victoria and New South Wales. The bounty rates which are proposed are those which appear to the Government to be reasonable for the purpose, and the Opposition does not in any way oppose the Government's decision in that respect. Before I go on to the Bounty (Tractor Cabs) Amendment Bill 1984 I wish to refer to the anomaly which exists-I will refer to it in more detail at the Committee stage-with imported tractors. If they are already fully built, complete with engines, the engine component does not attract duty. But if an engine alone is imported into Australia-the sorts of engines which are required for virtually all the tractors manufactured in Australia have to be imported-a duty of 2 per cent is payable, which is a positive disincentive to the manufacture of Australian tractors. That is an anomalous situation which the Opposition believes should be the subject not only of attention but also of correction in the interests of equity and economic efficency. I will be moving an amendment, which has been circulated, when I conclude my remarks in relation to the tractor cabs. It is an amendment to the motion for the second reading of this Bill, the Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Amendment Bill. I will therefore have to ask that we take the second reading separately. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I do not think that will be necessary, Senator Rae. The Senate has agreed to take them all together. Senator PETER RAE —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I therefore move: At end of motion, add ', but, in respect of the Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Amendment Bill 1984, the Senate is of the opinion that, in the interests of equity and of economic efficiency: (a) existing anomalies in relation to duties on diesel engines for tractors and to the application of the bounty for Australian manufactured, or substantially manufactured, agricultural wheeled tractors should be resolved by the removal of the 2 per cent duty on diesel engines imported for incorporation in Australian manufactured, or substantially manufactured, tractors, until such time as Australia's commitments under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade no longer require the imposition of duty on the importation into Australia of diesel engines already installed in completely built-up tractors, and that thereafter the matter should be reconsidered; and further, (b) until such time as the Government makes a final decision on the long-term future arrangements for the agricultural wheeled tractor industry in Australia, the existing bounty should be extended to all agricultural wheeled tractors manufactured, or substantially manufactured, in Australia'. The Opposition has raised those matters in an endeavour to provide a little more equity into the tractory industry in Australia in extending the bounty to manufacturers of large tractors as well as small tractors and, secondly, to overcome the anomalous situation to which I referred where, if an engine for a tractor is imported for a tractor which was manufactured in Australia, a 2 per cent duty has to be paid, whereas if a tractor is imported wholly made up, it does not attract any duty. This is a positive penalty on the Australian manufacturing industry which may be regarded as anomalous and undesirable. The next matter to which I refer briefly concerns the Bounty (Tractor Cabs) Amendment Bill 1984, which proposes to extend the temporary bounty of 15 per cent from 10 June 1984 to 31 December 1984, or until the Government's decision on the IAC report on long term assistance for the industry is announced, but not later than 30 June 1985. The Bill also deletes retrospectively the term 'heat treated' from the definition of bountiable cab. The IAC recommended in its interim report on agricultural wheeled tractors and certain parts that assistance not be extended due to the substantial changes taking place in the industry. There is considerable evidence of some very real problems to major manufacturers in this area, including in particular A. F. Gason Pty Ltd, from Ararat, which is one of those firms which is heavily involved in the manufacture of tractor cabs in Australia. They are being adversely affected by the fact that a large percentage of tractors imported into Australia-as I have already said a large number are being imported-are being imported with cabs already fitted. This has reduced the markets available to the major producer, A. F. Gason Pty Ltd, as well as to others involved in that industry. (Extension of time granted) I am being as quick as I can. There are some five Bills to debate but I will only be a few minutes longer. I point out that the extension of the bounty to 31 December 1984 is proposed to cost some $85,000. I ask for the confirmation of the Minister that my understanding is correct. Is the estimate of $85,000 for a continuation only until 31 December 1984? If the Minister exercises the right which he has under the Bill to extend the time to 30 June 1985, the amount involved would be greater. The Minister nods and I thank him. But the amounts involved are not large and the Opposition does not propose to object to the particular type of extension of Executive power, although we do wish to draw attention to this, as did the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills in its tenth report dated 3 October 1984 when it drew attention to this type of extension under various pieces of legislation where a Minister is given power to extend the operation of bounty legislation. The Opposition's attitude is that where there is power to extend for a limited period that is not an offence in relation to the general principle that there should be a time limit in relation to the length of time which Parliament provides for the payment of any particular bounty. In other words there is a terminating date. The way in which the Bills operate means that there are two terminating dates. The first terminating date allows the Bill to operate until the end of the year with the Minister having the power to extend it for another specific period, until 30 June 1985. The Opposition views an open-ended right of extension with greater concern and would adopt a different attitude to the introduction of a practice of just open-ended rights of Executive extension. Senator Button —So would I. Senator PETER RAE —So would Senator Button and I thank him. I make the point that although attention has been drawn to this fact, we regard it as really just a matter of the Parliament identifying two possible conclusion dates. As far as the tractor cab industry is concerned, the principal manufacturer has taken a wide number of steps to make his industry as efficient as possible, but one of the major problems is the volume question rather than that of the efficiency of the industry. I am assured that the Australian industry is an extremely efficient producer of tractor cabs and that there is a continuing market for a variety of different types of special cabs, for those types of equipment which do not at the moment have the cab attached at the time of import . These include road graders and various other types of equipment. The Opposition will not oppose the Bill, but we do wish to raise one question. Is the Minister satisfied that there is no dumping of cabs from another country, which is affecting this industry and this Australian manufacturer's prospect of being able to compete? The question has been raised, but I do not have sufficient evidence to make a specific allegation. If there has been no investigation, will the Minister consider checking further as to whether there is a dumping element involved at this stage? With those comments I indicate that the Opposition does not oppose these Bills, but it moves an amendment to the Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Amendment Bill and it will have certain amendments at the Committee stage of the Bills. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(10.52) —There are some fairly complex issues involved in relation to this group of Bills, but Senator Rae has canvassed most of the important ones. Perhaps it is unfair to assess relative importance to particular Bills as against others when bounties are being paid, but people in particular industries see the bounties to their industries as being most important. However, I would just single out the decisions in relation to computers and automatic data processing as being very important. Senator Rae pointed to the importance of these decisions, both in terms of growth of the local computer industry and its capacity to export. I share those views and regard these as very important Bills. A second reading amendment has been moved with regard to the Bounty ( Agricultural Tractors) Amendment Bill. It seeks to express an opinion of the Senate and I would make the point that I generally agree with the sentiments in it. Although the matter must be finally considered by the Government, there is an Industries Assistance Commission report which has been distributed to the industry, seeking comments. It is anticipated that the Government should be in a position to make a decision on that IAC report by the end of this year or early next year, and that will be done. Paragraph (a) of the amendment to the Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Amendment Bill deals with the question in particular of the 2 per cent revenue duty on diesel engines. I totally agree with Senator Rae's point about that issue, but I remind him in a not too political sense that in 1979 the Fraser Government introduced the 2 per cent revenue duty on a wide range of products as a revenue measure. I am not seeking to make too political a point, but I think perhaps that in those times there was less consideration by governments as a whole of the cost burdens, things which at that time seemed innocuous, imposed on industry. I look foward to the day when this Government, if it is re-elected, takes the view that the revenue which is obtained from these measures is not proportionate with the burden which is imposed on some industries. In relation to the tractor cabs legislation, Senator Rae asked a specific question as to whether I was satisfied that dumping of tractor cabs was not taking place. I have no information on that question. The Department investigates dumping matters in response to a complaint. I am advised that there has been no complaint, but I would not be averse to Gaston Brothers Pty Ltd being contacted to see whether there is such a complaint. But I am not in a position to be satisfied or otherwise at this stage that dumping is taking place . I know that Senator Rae wants to move amendments at the Committee stage in what has become a Blue Hills issue. He gets full marks for consistency on this matter , at least in this Parliament, if not in the last. Senator Peter Rae —I think I have been consistent for 15 years. Senator BUTTON —I know the honourable senator pleads innocence personally. He wants to put forward some amendments about the right of search and I take it that those can be dealt with at an appropriate time. The debate on these issues is becoming more bi-partisan and thoughtful than it has often been in the past. I welcome that. I have nothing further to add to the debate. Senator Rae has made a number of important points in his contribution and I think we are in agreement on many of the basic issues. It is just a question of how these are handled in particular respects. I commend the Bills to the Senate. Amendment negatived. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania) —by leave- In light of the general support of the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) but vote against the specific wording of my amendment, I invite him to consider whether he would accept an amendment to say that the Senate is of the opinion that it is important that the Government give urgent consideration, in the interests of equity and economic efficiency to those questions. If the Minister would be prepared to consider that, I would seek leave to move it as an alternative amendment. It seems to me that there was a bipartisanship in relation to these matters. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce) —by leave-I am quite happy to accept that. I only said no to the previous amendment because I did not want any decision of the Government to be pre-empted by the wording of the amendment. I do not have any lack of sympathy personally with what is in it. If Senator Rae moves his amendment in the amended form, we will not vote against it . Motion (by Senator Peter Rae)-by leave-agreed to. At end of motion, add ', but, in respect of the Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Amendment Bill 1984 the Senate is of the opinion that it is important that the Government give urgent consideration in the interests of equity and economic efficiency, to whether- (a) existing anomalies in relation to duties on diesel engines for tractors and to the application of the bounty for Australian manufactured, or substantially manufactured, agricultural wheeled tractors should be resolved by the removal of the 2 per cent duty on diesel engines imported for incorporation in Australian manufactured, or substantially manufactured, tractors, until such time as Australia's commitments under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade no longer require the imposition of duty on the importation into Australia of diesel engines already installed in completely built-up tractors, and that thereafter the matter should be reconsidered; and further, (b) until such time as the Government makes a final decision on the long-term future arrangements for the agricultural wheeled tractor industry in Australia, the existing bounty should be extended to all agricultural wheeled tractors manufactured, or substantially manufactured, in Australia'. Senator Peter Rae —I thank the Senate for granting leave to do that. Amendment agreed to. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. The Bills. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(11.01) —I indicated earlier, at the second reading stage, that I would be moving certain amendments in relation to the right of entry and search without warrant. I believe that I can speak only once on this legislation in Committee so I will deal with the amendments in a block. I do not wish to speak at great length on this but rather to develop a little further the comments which I made on the Bounty (Two-Stroke Engines) Bill 1984 on 14 June 1984. I gave a number of reasons for expressing some concern at the right of entry and search in circumstances where no warrant was obtained. I adopt the words I used at that time as part of the argument. I would like also to adopt some of the words used on 4 June 1969 by the then Leader of the Opposition, Senator Murphy, in debate on the Meat Chicken Levy Collection Bill. He said: This great power of entry and search should not be allowed to grow by virtue of its introduction into Bill after Bill on primary production. He referred to the fact that there has been a growth in the number of pimary production Bills containing this type of provision. He also made some other references, to which I referred in my speech in June this year. I refer also to the Law Reform Commission's Criminal Investigation Report (No. 2) dated 5 September 1975. In the chapter entitled 'Search, Surveillance and Entrapment', in paragraph 188 and following paragraphs, reference is made in some detail to the history of practice and law relating to search and seizure and even in relation to particular types of legislation. I refer to the Commission's recommendations because I believe they are important recommendations which ought to be read into the Hansard as part of what I believe will probably be a continuing debate. At paragraph 197 the report says: The Commission's recommendation is, put shortly, that all searches and seizures be unlawful unless made pursuant either to a court order or warrant, or, if made without a warrant, in accordance with one of the following criteria: (a) in response to circumstances of such seriousness and urgency as to require and justify immediate action without the authority of such an order or warrant; (b) at the invitation, or with the consent, of the person occupying the premises or in charge of the vehicle in question, a signed acknowledgment being prima facie evidence that such an invitation was made or consent given, the absence of such acknowledgment being prima facie evidence that it was not; or (c ) pursuant to specifically designated statutory authority. I pause to point out that this legislation would provide for that category (c) and it is to that category that the Law Reform Commission refers in paragraph 198, where it says: What we mean to achieve by the above general provisions is the subject of more detailed exposition in the paragraphs which follow. In particular, we shall indicate the improvements that we think can be made in relation to the issuing of warrants and shall outline a proposal for the introduction of telephone search warrants. We shall indicate briefly why we think explicit provision in respect of searches by consent should be made and will also indicate the existing statutory authority in respect to search and seizure that ought to be preserved, and that which ought to be amended. As to the proposed category of warrantless searches described in (a) above, our view is that while the legislation should not attempt to state exhaustively the situation which could satisfy the standards of 'seriousness and urgency' there referred to, it is appropriate that three specific classes of 'urgent' searches be spelt out. These classes are: (i) searches incident to arrest; (ii) emergency searches necessary to prevent loss of evidence; and (iii) searches of persons and vehicles suspected on reasonable grounds to be carrying any article which is an offensive weapon, or is either the fruit, instrument or material evidence of the commission of a serious offence. Of these, we have dealt with (i) above and there is no need to repeat here what was there said; (ii) needs some explanation- it is given following- and (iii) perhaps needs some justification, which we offer below. I commend paragraph 199 and the later paragraphs which set out the explanations. In particular, paragraphs 206 and 207, under the heading 'Searches Pursuant to Other Statutory Authority,' say: It has already been explained and need not be repeated here why it is that the Commission has treated the powers of customs officers as being within its terms of reference and the powers of all other federal officers, apart from members of the Australia Police, as being outside them. Our recommendations so far as the search and seizure powers of customs officers are concerned are relatively straightforward. First, all references to general warrants should be repealed. They should be replaced by a power to search with a warrant obtained from a magistrate, and without warrant in circumstances of compelling need for immediate action, the power in both respects running parallel with that available to members of the Australia Police. In the particular white-collar- crime context of revenue frauds, there should be a specific power to search for and copy documents pursuant to warrant, similar to that contained in cl.263 (4) of the Corporations and Securities Industry Bill 1975. Secondly, there are certain existing powers of search without warrant conferred by the Customs Act 1901-1974 which are perfectly appropriate in a border situation but which in terms are not so limited. The Commission's recommendation here is that the power to detain and search suspected persons, or vehicles, should be restricted in its application to 'customs areas', which would be defined to include ports, wharves, dock-side warehouses, customs halls, airport aprons and their environs. There may be a case, so far as personal searches within customs areas are concerned, for slightly extending the permissable scope of personal searches beyond the limits we specified in our discussion of this above. It may, for example, be not unreasonable to permit customs officers to engage, where they have reasonable grounds for suspicion, in a complete external search of the person of a suspect without calling in aid a medical practitioner. However we certainly could not countenance customs officers themselves engaging in any search of body cavities. Such a procedure should be carried out in the same way as has been recommended for police medical examinations above. So far as the general supervision of personal searches by customs officers is concerned , the present provision in s.196 of the Customs Act whereby a suspected person may require to be taken before a justice or the collector before he is searched should be amended by confirming the review power to a justice and requiring that the person be notified of his right of access to a justice before any such search is undertaken. Paragraph 208 of the report then went on to refer to the third way in which Customs powers should be amended. I do not intend to read that paragraph because what I have done is to indicate that the view I am putting regarding the general operation of Customs, which was put forward by the Law Reform Commission in its criminal investigation report, is that the law in relation to the administration of Customs should be more limited and stronger in its requirement for the issue of a warrant. If that is so, how much stronger the argument is that in relation to bounties and excises there should be a requirement for the issue of a warrant before the right of entry and search. I repeat the comments I made previously about the need to preserve some of the basic and fundamental rights in a free society. If it is not good enough for the community to allow the police, in the pursuit of major crime, including murder, a right of entry and search without warrant, then how does one justify the right of entry and search without warrant in the pursuit of the administration of bounty, be the bounty amount relatively large or, as it is in many cases, relatively small? I seek leave to move my amendments together. Leave granted. Senator PETER RAE —I move amendments to the Bounty (Electric Motors) Bill 1984 as follows: (1) Page 2, clause 3, sub-clause (2), line 27, after, 'day' (second occurring), insert 'not later than 16 July 1986'. (2) Page 16, clause 26, sub-clause (1), line 39, after ' reasonable times', insert ', with the consent of the occupier or in pursuance of a warrant issued under sub-section (1B)'. (3) Page 17, clause 26, after sub-clause (1), insert the following new sub- clauses: '(1A) An authorized officer may make application to a Justice for a warrant authorizing the authorized officer to enter the premises to which the application relates. '(1B) If, on an application under sub-section (1A), the Justice is satisfied, by information on oath or affirmation, that it is reasonably necessary that the authorized officer should have access to the premises to which the application relates, the Justice may grant a warrant authorizing the authorized officer to enter the premises for the purpose of exercising the functions of an authorized officer under this section. '(1C) A warrant granted under sub-section (1B) shall include- (a) a statement of the purpose for which the warrant is issued; (b) a description of the kind of things authorized to be inspected or copied or from which extracts may be taken; and (c) a date, not being later than one month after the date of issue of the warrant, upon which the warrant ceases to have effect.'. To the Bounty (Computers) Bill 1984 I move the following amendments: (1) Page 19, clause 24, sub-clause (1), line 21, after 'reasonable times', insert ', with the consent of the occupier or in pursuance of a warrant issued under sub-section (1B)'. (2) Page 19, clause 24, after sub-clause (1), insert the following new sub- clauses: '(1A) An authorized officer may make application to a Justice for a warrant authorizing the authorized officer to enter the premises to which the application relates. '(1B) If, on an application under sub-section (1A), the Justice is satisfied, by information on oath or affirmation, that it is reasonably necessary that the authorized officer should have access to the premises to which the application relates, the Justice may grant a warrant authorizing the authorized officer to enter the premises for the purpose of exercising the functions of an authorized officer under this section. '(1C) A warrant granted under sub-section (1B) shall include- (a) a statement of the purpose for which the warrant is issued; (b) a description of the kind of things authorized to be inspected or copied or from which extracts may be taken; and (c) a date, not being later than one month after the date of issue of the warrant, upon which the warrant ceases to have effect.'. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(11.12) —As I said earlier, I think that we have been through this argument before. The Government opposes the amendments moved by Senator Rae. He referred in his comments to the Bounty (Two-Stroke Engines) Bill which was debated in this place earlier this year. On that occasion he gave notice that on every occasion he would move similar amendments. I congratulate him on his dilligence. At that time the Senate had a quite lengthy debate about the matter of entry by warrant under bounty legislation. The provisions which are contained in this bounty legislation and to which Senator Rae objects-I think that on the last occasion we agreed they were included in 19 bounty Acts-are not new. They are consistent with the powers provided by governments of all political persuasions to ensure that taxpayers are fully protected by appropriate audits of the expenditure of taxpayers' money. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills did not draw the attention of honourable senators to the power in the Bills on this occasion. The proposition that a warrant should be obtained granting officers a right of entry to commercial premises is, in the Government's view, inappropriate for compliance auditing of bounty payments. In saying that I am repeating what I have said on other occasions. I just say that with respect the readings from the report of the Australian Law Reform Commission do not, in my view, extend the ambit or the content of this debate. The extracts to which Senator Rae referred are largely concerned with the power of Customs to search and seize property and to conduct body searches. In these bounty Bills we are not talking about that sort of situation. We are talking about the right to inspect and copy documents. Those are the powers which are essentially included in the Bills. Senator Peter Rae —Enter. Senator BUTTON —Enter, inspect and copy documents, I concede that. They are the powers about which we are talking. For the reasons which I enumerated on many occasions we will not accede to the amendments moved by Senator Rae. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(11.15) —I thank the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) for his reply, which was not unanticipated. In the light of the absence of honourable senators on this side of the chamber who may have been present to participate in the debate, had they been interested-they were informed that the amendments would be moved-and in the light of what they have indicated by their vote on the last occasion that I called a division on these matters, having moved the amendments and anticipating that the Minister will not support them, I do not propose to call a division. I wish to explain and have it on record that the reason I do not call a division is that I think it would be simply a repetition of what has already been clearly determined on a previous vote. I do not want to waste the time of the Committee by calling a division. Amendments negatived. Bills agreed to. Bills reported without amendment; reports adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Button) read a third time. Debate resumed from 4 October, on motion by Senator Ryan: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(11.18) —The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill, the Income Tax Assessment Amendment (No. 4) Bill and the Income Tax ( International Agreements) Amendment Bill, which are before the Senate, are complex and important Bills in the Government's taxation measures arising from the Budget and other decisions that have been taken. They cover a wide area of taxation law and in themselves bring many changes to the taxation law. There are differing reasons for the Bills. For instance, the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill is one that has been introduced to make substantial amendments to many of the offence and prosecution provisions. The amendments have arisen partly from a review which was initiated during the term of the former Government when the then Treasurer, Mr Howard, recognised that in many instances throughout the taxation Acts, rates had not been increased for many years. There has been no updating, upgrading or review of provisions relating to penalty and prosecution. So in that context we welcome the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill and the many changes that it seeks to make. I will refer to some matters which are of concern to us a little later. I now refer to the Income Tax Assessment Amendment (No. 4) Bill which again has many provisions within it and seeks to change many matters, most of them arising out of Budget announcements that have been made by the Government. One of the matters that I wish to refer to relates to transfer of losses within a company group. In this context, it is interesting to note that the Government has reversed its decision of March 1983 and will now proceed with the proposal on this matter that had been introduced by the former Government. It is a proposal that would enable a loss suffered by one resident company to be an allowable deduction to another resident company in the same company group. That seemed to us to be a suitable and responsible proposal for change, and we welcome its introduction in the legislation that is before us. In introducing this proposal no mention was made of the fact that it was a reversal of the Government's previous decision but it is nevertheless an important initiative and we welcome it, whatever description it is given. The business sector should be reminded, and I am sure it already knows, that the new proposal applies only to losses incurred in the 1984-85 year or later, effectively denying the business sector deductions on the 1982-83 and 1983-84 losses which could have been covered if the previous Government's decision had been upheld on the change of government. The delay related to difficulties perceived by the business sector is caused by the requirement that there be 100 per cent common ownership between companies. This has seriously disadvantaged those groups which have been unable by very small percentages to complete mergers and takeovers. The present legislation before us makes no concession in this direction. When we reach the Committee stage in dealing with this legislation the Opposition will move an amendment that relates to this matter. Other provisions within the Income Tax Assessment Amendment (No. 4) Bill relate to such things as capital expenditure on non-residential income-producing buildings. The provision within the legislation increases the annual deduction allowable to 4 per cent of the cost of construction. This provision will cost something like $4m in the 1985-86 year. Although this is a modest extension of the capital expenditure depreciation provision it is something that will be of assistance to the construction industry and to those who gain their income from tourism. I think it is probably an overstatement to say that it is a significant boost. It is helpful and I am sure it will be welcomed but it is still a fairly modest increase that has been given. We welcome also the extension of the investment allowance cut-off date for installation of new equipment from July 1986 to July 1987. This will cost up to $100m and it will be helpful. I think the Government again needed to look at its attitude with regard to investment allowance and the assistance and the incentive that it gave. I am glad that the extension of time provided for in this legislation has been given. In this legislation in the area of mineral exploration and prospecting, deductibility of expenditure is extended beyond a taxpayer's mining and associated income to income from any source. That proposal is something that has been suggested to me through the years as being desirable, and I am glad to see its introduction. This provision will cost about $8m in the 1985-86 year. It is again of modest benefit to the mining industry, but it is of benefit and is something that people felt would be an incentive to investment in mineral exploration. If a provision of this kind can give such an incentive just how much additional expenditure will be given in this area and what beneficial effect it will have remain to be seen. I recognise that the very substantial representations that have been made over the years have always been along the lines that that was all that was needed to increase rapidly the investment that people were prepared to make. So it will be interesting to see just what does occur as a result of this provision. The increases in zone rebates are matters that were referred to in the Budget. They will cost something like $11m in a full year. They increase the basic component in zones A and B. This move is a recognition of the disadvantage experienced by people living in those zones in comparison with people in the rest of Australia. This is the Bill that also provides for the extension of the dependent spouse rebate to de facto spouses. On this matter, I wish on behalf of the Opposition to make a statement similar to that which was made by my colleague John Howard in the House of Representatives when the legislation was before that House. I want to make a quite clear statement that the Opposition is unhappy about this extension of the spouse rebate in the way in which it is provided for in the legislation. It is not our intention to try to defeat the relevant clause or to move an amendment to it but I use this opportunity to state that extension of the spouse rebate is not and was not our policy throughout all the years of government and it is a change that we resisted when we were in government. I recognise that representations have been made. They were made to me. The contrast between social security legislation and income tax legislation has often quite erroneously been used as a reason for making a change in the income tax law, but after all the considerations that were given to this matter when in government, we did not feel that it was a change that we were prepared to make in income tax law. The former Treasurer reminded the House on Tuesday that he had had many representations but he resisted them, and he expressed the view of the former Government that governments should continue to discriminate in favour of orthodox marital arrangements and that in doing so governments were not passing moral judgments or moral sanctions on people's arrangements. In making the comments that I make on behalf of the Opposition, I am not making such judgments in this instance. It is not our intention to use this opportunity to have any debate on matters of social change but simply to state that as far as income tax law is concerned it would not be our policy to extend the spouse rebate to those who are in de facto arrangements. I will follow again what was said on Tuesday by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in debate on these Bills. He said: There are occasions when governments ought to pay some regard to symbolism, and I think it is very unfortunate that the Government of this country has decided to remove yet another bias in our system towards orthodox marriage arrangements. It has to be said, as the Deputy Leader said, that we are not making moral judgments about people's personal arrangements; rather we are looking at those instances where governments are required to make laws. They are required to extend benefits. By their preferences they are giving recognition either to a situation that might have arisen in the case of, say, social security legislation, where we are looking at income support or, in the case of tax law, a benefit being widened to include another group in the community. I make those comments on behalf of the Opposition as an expression of our view that it is not our policy that this should have been done, but it is not something on which we will be moving any amendment at this stage. The other matters in the tax Bills before us relate to such a diversity of things that many of them can be referred to as we work through them in the Committee stage. The Income Tax (International Agreements) Amendment Bill is one on which there has been very little comment. I make very little comment on it because the changes it makes are in accordance with agreements with other countries, in this case Belgium and Malta. The Opposition has no opposition to those measures. The Income Tax Assessment Amendment (No. 4) Bill covers such things as the dependent spouse rebate and the rebate for pensioners and social security beneficiaries and makes Budget provisions for them. The changes that have been made to income tax law, in at least the rebate for pensioners instance, endeavour to offset the disadvantage that has resulted from the failure to index the tax threshold. The measure before us lifts the taxable income level below which the $250 pensioner rebate is available to a figure of $5,533 and to $5,595 for subsequent years, This is an endeavour to overcome the disadvantage that would be suffered by pensioners as incomes rise and they are affected by tax thresholds. My colleague, Senator Messner, made some comments on this not so very long ago and showed that it really does not have the same effect as another way of dealing with these matters could have had. However, it is the Budget proposal. I want to make a brief comment with regard to the provisional tax that is to be calculated and the basis on which it is to be calculated under this legislation. The legislation provides for the 1984-85 provisional tax to be calculated on the basis of a 10 per cent rise on 1983-84 taxable income and varies the tax rates as outlined in the Budget along with the Medicare levy. It is of some interest to us that as the major component for this year's provisional tax rise is farm incomes which are forecast to fall this year, it would seem that the Budget's 10 per cent assumption about provisional tax payers' incomes could be a rather heroic sort of assumption. I think it is not disputed that farm incomes will be likely to fall substantially in this year. It is of interest to us that this figure of 10 per cent for the calculation is the one on which the Budget relies. Nobody would expect that figure to be achieved in terms of the provisional income tax for those people concerned. Other things could be said again and again in a general tax debate, because it is a public debate in this country at present. Some people are awaiting tax policies from the Opposition which will be released in the very near future. Others are waiting for the outcome of the review of its tax policy that the Government has stated is occurring. As we have said in other debates, we cannot look at income tax without looking at Medicare as being an identified levy but in no sense different from the levy of income tax. When we consider the additional expenditure requirement of Medicare of something like $2 billion and we know that the levy is to raise something like $1.2 billion, we need to consider the fact that there is an increase in personal tax, whether identified or not, to cover that additional expenditure. When considering the figures for the tax itself and the Medicare levy, it is of some interest to me at least to consider this month's financial statement of transactions released by the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins). The Minister's statement released just a few days ago demonstrates the effect of the Government 's policies on tax because it shows such figures as a 20 per cent rise in gross pay as you earn tax over the first two months of 1984-85. It also shows a 31 per cent decrease in PAYE refunds and a 33 per cent growth in net tax PAYE receipts. The figures that relate to refunds are of interest because they reflect the removal of health care and housing rebates and other tax changes which means that hundreds of thousands of people who would have received tax refunds have not received them. In fact, I am sure that both Government and Opposition members and senators would have received representations from constituents who in this year not only did not receive the tax refund that they expected but who also received assessments for additional tax to be paid. That is of significance when governments or oppositions talk about tax policy. People who had expectations of certain levels of tax now find that their expectations have not been realised; in fact, they have the difficulty of meeting some of their commitments under tax assessments. I am sure that public interest in the Government's tax policy is one that is growing and one which will grow as people see the reflection of these figures in the changes in refunds and the growth in net PAYE receipts in the most recent statement that has been released by the Minister for Finance. Government tax policy is of interest because from public statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and other Ministers we know that the Economic Planning Advisory Council is the body that is working closely with the Government on tax policy. If we accept that the Budget itself was a result of the strong influence of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and we now hear that the tax policy to be put to the Government is the responsibility of EPAC, we await with some interest, in view of some of the statements of members of EPAC, a tax policy statement. I believe we can assume that the tax policy that will emerge from EPAC will introduce new taxes. It will introduce such things as a capital gains tax. I hope that the tax policy will be available for public reception before we go into the forthcoming election because the tax changes to rebates and other areas made by the present Government-such as the fact that there has not been recognition of growth in wages and the five new tax structures provided in the Budget-make many people wonder what exactly will be their personal tax commitment by the end of this financial year. I hope that any tax policy changes arising from EPAC or from the Government will be made clear and that people will not be left in a position in which under the present tax policy they are required to make increased tax payments. The Government talked about giving people a $7.60 a week tax refund, but ignored the fact that there was something like a 23 per cent increase in tax. We await with some interest the decisions on a general tax policy that will be placed before us. I hope those decisions will not be put to one side until after the next election which is almost upon us. With regard to one of the Bills, I said earlier that I was principally concerned about the introduction of a reverse onus of proof. I will deal with the matter in more detail when we move into the Committee stage. In the debate in the House of Representatives on this matter the shadow Treasurer expressed our concern. He sought information and response from the Treasurer (Mr Keating) or the Minister Assisting the Treasurer, the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford). I read with some interest and very carefully the brief response that was given by the Minister. It did not entirely cover our concerns; nor did it answer the representations we have had from lawyers and others on this very important matter. When we first expressed our concern about it, it was not in response to the lawyers, the professional body. Our concern was at the reverse onus of proof. I know that it will be said that it exists in other legislation. It was certainly introduced in the Companies Act when we were in government and, as was mentioned by the Minister in the House of Representatives, it is in other legislation. But it is something that needs to be treated seriously and carefully before it is introduced. For instance, I note that the Digest of Bills and bodies that study these matters have drawn attention to this. Whilst we make it clear that we regard these Bills as Budget Bills and we do not seek in any way to hold up the many changes that arise from the Budget with which we concur, we believe that a second look at the introduction of the reverse onus of proof in this legislation is something that would be worthy of consideration. I foreshadow that following the Committee stage I will seek to have the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill 1984 analysed by a Senate committee so that those in the community who have concerns about it will have the opportunity to put their points of view. In addition, the Government would have more time in which to consider those matters. That will be our intention in the Committee stage. I have another concern which might be considered small in terms of money with regard to the Income Tax Assessment Amendment (No. 4) Bill 1984. It relates to gifts of fodder and stock that were made following the disastrous Ash Wednesday fires. We accept that we were the Government at the time facing the electors. We made a public commitment that gifts of fodder and stock would be allowable tax deductions. We accept that we made that commitment. We believe that this was a very helpful undertaking in that people who had something that could be shared at that time were encouraged to give some relief. We understand that a public commitment was also made by the then Leader of the Opposition, now Prime Minister, that a Labor government would also make gifts of fodder and stock an allowable taxation deduction. We would have thought that the Government could have used this opportunity to fulfil that commitment and to make the legislation applicable to that year. Therefore, again at the Committee stage, we will move an amendment, which we hope will be supported, which will have the effect of making gifts of fodder and stock that were made following the disastrous fires to be allowable deductions. Again, we will await the outcome of the Committee's response and hope that there will be support for it in this place. Some other matters may be raised by members of the Opposition. I see that there is a quite lengthy speakers list on the Bills. I will be raising matters on behalf of the Opposition during and following the Committee stage. With those remarks, I hope that the Bills are given a speedy passage because of the requirements of the Government to have this taxation legislation passed before the Parliament rises. I recognise that amended legislation might need to go to the other place. I understand, too, that government amendments will be moved in this place and that will require action in the other place later. With those comments, I commend the Bills for the reasons that I have outlined. I have foreshadowed our opposition to just a few measures that I hope the Senate might support. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(11.44) — I would like to reinforce what Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle has just said about the back-down by the Government with respect to tax exemption on gifts that were made to relieve the burden faced by the victims of the disastrous Ash Wednesday fire stricken areas. I can recall that day very well because after flying through an incredibly turbulent sky on that day Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle and I were greeted with the news when we landed of the disasters that had occurred in South Australia and Victoria in particular. I would like to make the point at this stage that the Government is negligent in not providing sales tax exemption for fire equipment installed by householders in those fire prone areas who wish to prevent similar disasters to that which occurred on that unhappy day. There is no doubt that the whole question of tax restructuring has been neglected for a number of years. I do not excuse previous governments for that either because, as Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle and I emphasised last year when speaking in the Budget debate, it is quite clear that Australia on a comparable basis is one of the most highly directly taxed nations and one of the lowest indirectly taxed countries. There is a need to restructure our taxation system to relieve the personal taxation burden in some way or other and to use the indirect area of taxation. It has been suggested on many occasions that consideration should be given to imposing, say, flat tax to a certain level of income. I suggest that consideration ought to be given to re-examining this. It is suggested that the tax free level ought to be increased. The tax free level of income at the moment is something of the order of $4,595 a year. The Australian Labor Party, of course, promised that the tax free level would be raised to $5,000 a year. This promise has not been forthcoming yet. We have become used to the Labor Party not honouring a promise it made during the last election campaign. But these things need to be looked at. We ought to look at the rate of taxation on overtime, in the interests of encouraging people to work harder, increase their productivity and become more efficient and effective. We should look at other areas of taxation. I believe that it would be viable to introduce a flat rate of tax to a certain level of income. Senator Messner, with his accounting background, may be able to put arguments for or against this matter. However, it is worthy of examination. Perhaps we could tax incomes of up to $30,000 a year at 25 per cent or 27 1/2 per cent and incomes above $30,000 at no more than, say, 40 per cent. But I think those sorts of propositions ought to be examined. I think that that sort of measure would help to prevent tax evasion . It would certainly minimise the problem in that area. An examination must also be made of the cash economy. I have been given an estimate that something of the order of $10,000m a year could be involved. I think that Senator Messner said that the amount is something like 10 per cent of gross revenue. He would have a pretty good idea about that. The shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), made a point two days ago about what the Treasurer, Mr Paul Keating, said at a meeting of the Australia-America Association in New York earlier in the year. Mr Keating said that the next thing on the agenda was to reform the taxation system and our taxation structure. I am sure we welcome that thought. It is a question of how the Labor Party intends to implement it. Mr Howard also drew attention to the possibility of the Government introducing a capital gains tax and probably a wealth tax if it is re-elected. He challenged the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to say where he stood on those two issues. He also made mention of the possibility of a reintroduction of death duties. The Government must make its intentions perfectly clear on those three matters. Many comments have been made throughout the community with respect to death duties, and capital gains taxes. I refer in the first instance to a statement by the Prime Minister in May this year when he denied that the Government was considering introducing a death duty as a possible alternative to its controversial assets test scheme. He has not made many comments about that in recent times. He said at that time that a death duty proposal was being considered by the Government's Panel of Review of Proposed Income and Assets Test but that that did not mean that the Government had it under consideration. At that time, however, Mr Hawke, conceded that the imposition of such a tax would seriously affect children and the upward mobility of families. In an article in the Australian of 9 May 1984 he is reported to have said: . . . the proposal was one of several being considered by the panel, which is due to report back to the Government late this month or early next. The Government should inform the Senate and the community of its intention because it is quite clear that death duties will affect the children of people who have died and it will clearly affect the upward mobility of families. I have always said that a capital gains tax would have a detrimental effect not only on the wealthy people of this country, who make up a fairly small percentage of the population, but also on the majority of the working people of Australia, who can be regarded as being relatively affluent when compared with the working people of, say, the early 1900s. An article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 5 May, written by Mr Ross Gittins, the Economics Editor, drew attention to this point. In that article he referred to a paper by John R. Piggott entitled 'The Distribution of Wealth in Australia-a Survey'. It is discussion paper No. 93 from the Centre for Economic Policy Research, Australian National University, Canberra. The article stated: The proportion of wealth held by the top 1 per cent of adult individuals has decreased sharply since 1915. The share of wealth held by the bottom 90 per cent increased from 22 per cent in 1915 to between 35 and 40 per cent in the late 60s . The article makes the comment that it is difficult-at the moment, I think pretty impossible-to work out the distribution of income in Australia. The article stated: The short answer is that we don't know a lot about the distribution of income in Australia and we know even less about the distribution of wealth. The figures we do have are pretty rough-and-ready. We have been told that the share of wealth held by the bottom 90 per cent of the population increased from 22 per cent in 1915 to between 35 and 40 per cent in the late 1960s. Obviously the figures for the present would show a further increase. A capital gains tax will not affect the people the Labor Party would like it to affect most of all; it will affect the people whom the Labor Party purports to represent. The farmers have had something to say about the issue, too. Farmers, of course, are always regarded as being plutocrats, land owners of great wealth. However, the average annual farm income at the moment would amount to only a few thousands dollars-I am not sure of the exact figure. An article in the Age on 27 June this year, headlined 'Farmers allege deals on capital gains tax', states: Deals were being done between business and the Federal Government to ease the introduction of capital gains taxes, the National Farmers Federation claimed . . . The president of the federation, McLachlan, told the annual conference of the Victorian Farmers and Graziers Association that farmers had to act urgently against capital gains tax before a positive image was built up for such a tax. . . . . ''If we are not careful the farm sector will find 'consensus' (on capital gains tax) which has been reached without the participation of ourselves, the major affected party.'' The federation fears that the Federal Government is engineering community support for capital gains tax. Farmers believe that the business community was roped into supporting centralised wage fixing at last year's national economic summit. Mr McLachlan said farmers were being hurt by Australia's deteriorating international competitiveness and high exchange rates. ''Interest rates will be the key to the return of rural prosperity.'' I think that is a very true statement and one that ought to be regarded by the Government as significant. An international expert from the United Kingdom cast doubts upon a capital gains tax. I quote from a statement made by Mr Peter Browne, the head of Touche Ross International's tax services, in an article in the Age of 13 June 1984: Returns from a capital gains tax were unlikely to be significant in the short term and might not be high enough to enable cuts in personal tax . . . In the UK, which has had such a tax for 20 years, the yield was less than 1 per cent of total tax revenues. ''Not only that, the imposition of the tax has driven a large number of small investors out of the stock and gilt-edge market.' ' This figure did not include the costs of collecting the impost. . . . . He criticised a capital gains tax because the Government was able to offer . . . exempt bonds, diverting funds from the private sector ''which tends to distort the operation of free capital markets.'' I believe those points ought to be observed by Australians. Quite often we make the same mistakes that have been proved to be wrong in overseas countries and fail to take corrective remedies here. In fact the opposite has been the case many times where we have followed the mistakes that have been proven to have been made in overseas countries. Australia, being a young developing country, should be in a position to capitalise not only with respect to our economic considerations but also with respect to our economic considerations but also with respect to the development and restructuring of our industries. We have seen in Australia that we can lead the world in initial research in matters such as Interscan. We have done much initial work on the Jindalee over-the-horizon radar. We are doing important work on green laser technology for oceanography. We are poised and in a position to lead the world in computer software design work which could be the basis for an incredibly large industry in Australia. Yet we have failed to capitalise on these initiatives. One thing that particularly distresses me-as it does the Minister for Science and Technology, Mr Barry Jones, and well he might be disturbed and distressed-is that the Government has reduced its funding of research in Australia. We have seen the hypocrisy of the Prime Minister who only a few days ago challenged industry to spend more on research and developing its initiatives. That is all very well for him to say that, on the one hand. He has not given industry any encouragement to do that. On the other hand, in the current Budget he has reduced the amount being spent on research in Australia. For every dollar spent on initial research in Australia, $10 has to be spent to develop it. Successive governments have failed to recognise the point which I made in conjunction with my colleagues on the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment when we presented a report to the then Government in 1979. We said that industry in Australia had lost its entrepreneurial drive and that the reason was that governments were preoccupied with propping up inefficiency in industry through tariff protection and that, rather, governments should be selective in their attitude to tariffs. They should examine those industries that need to be encouraged to become more entrepreneurial and to encourage them to spend those $10: $1 compared with pure research and development and provide them with tax incentives to develop the initiatives so that we can capitalise in many areas in the international world market. I can point to several areas. I have already mentioned Interscan. We have lost the initiative there and other countries are now capitalising on it. We can go back further with respect to zerography which was developed in the defence laboratories in South Australia. What did we do? We did not develop that to our advantage. The Japanese did. They are capitalising on the economic and employment advantages of that technology. It is very important for any government or successive governments to have regard to that. But we see the hypocrisy of this overrated Prime Minister. I believe the Press is culpable in praising up this man, this Mr 73 per cent inordinately-- Senator Messner —Sixty-six now. Senator JESSOP —It has dropped to 66 per cent. Senator Gareth Evans —It beats 25. Senator JESSOP —It may beat 25 per cent but I do not regard that as important. I recall one occasion when Malcolm Fraser was at the lowest point with respect to the popularity polls but we beat the Australian Labor Party into the ground on that occasion, and we will beat it into the ground on the next occasion. I wish to talk about this overrated Prime Minister. Who is he? He is a small man with an inflated ego and with a very good coiffure. He has his hair done regularly so that he presents himself well and he instructs his Ministers to become-- Senator Gareth Evans —Point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President. The honourable senator is descending into personal abuse which is quite inappropriate for a chamber as dignified as this. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —There is no point of order but, Senator Jessop, can I just suggest that you refrain from participating in that kind of debate. Senator JESSOP —I just wanted to praise the Prime Minister by saying how elegant he looks dressed in his blue suit. One would almost think he was a Liberal by the way he parades himself in the public arena. What is more, I understand that Ministers of the Labor Government have been instructed to smarten themselves up a bit and dress a bit more elegantly than they used to do when in opposition. In this way I believe they are presenting a phoney image to the public. The polls that are being carried out in Australia are quite wrong because this Prime Minister, having broken most of his election promises-- Senator Grimes —You don't like him, I gather. Senator JESSOP —I am not talking about him personally. As a matter of fact I regard him personally as quite an affable fellow. I have no personal objection to him but I do say that he is overrated in the eyes of the public largely because of the media giving him inordinate and I think preferential treatment. If one looks at the record of the Government it is clear that the success with which it has met has been because it has followed the policies of the Fraser Government. The Fraser Government initiated the wage pause, and very wisely. The present Government is continuing that, with the exception of course, to which I referred last night, that it has chosen to allow certain parts of the Public Service-the top echelons of the Public Service and statutory authorities and judges-to have an 11.7 per cent wage increase. Apart from that, it has been successful in following the policies established by the Fraser Government in containing and reducing inflation. I give the Government credit for recognising the good sense established by the previous Government in that respect. Of course , the Prime Minister has capitalised in every way with the breaking of the drought. This has helped him. That is fair enough. I suppose we would welcome that sort of assistance. He has also capitalised on Australia's winning the America's Cup and all the other sporting events. But the Opposition and the public believe that the things that have been introduced by this Government by way of taxation on superannuation, Medicare and the much discussed and much hacked about assets test have been absolute disasters. I have had many people come to me complaining that their tax rebate cheques have shrunken considerably over the last 12 months. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —Some of them have to pay tax. Senator JESSOP —I was going to make that point. Some of them, instead of having received very much smaller rebate cheques, now find themselves in the position where they have in fact to pay more tax. That is what the Labor Government does for the small wage earners, the pay as you earn taxpayers and all those people who look to this Government for some sort of support. I conclude by referring again to the question of capital gains tax. This comment comes from the Australian Financial Review of 27 June. It was a comment made by Dr Jeffry Timmons, Professor of Entrepreneurial Studies at Babson College in Massachusetts . He had this to say: . . . President Johnson, looking for more money to pour into Vietnam, lifted the capital gains tax rate from 25 per cent to 48 per cent. The inflow of new capital dropped from $171 million in 1969, when the tax rose, to $97 million the next year and continued down to a low of just $17 million in 1976. Similarly, the number of new small companies floated on the stockmarket slumped from about 900 in 1969 to none in 1971. Since the tax rate was cut back to 28 per cent in 1978, new venture capital raised has gone from $39 million in 1977 to more than $4,000 million last year, with a now effective 20 per cent tax rate. If we want to throttle industry and throttle the enterprise of the large majority of people in Australia, the answer is to introduce a capital gains tax and stifle incentive to invest in Australia, and stifle people who wish to provide for themselves in the future while at the same time possibly saving the Government a lot of money in the future with respect to pensions. With those few words I support what Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle has had to say with respect to the Opposition's view on these measures. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(12.12) —The first thing that needs to be said about these taxation Bills is that they are part of the Budget of this Government. The second thing that needs to be said is that this Government is the highest taxing government since World War II. We have seen personal income tax go up by some 23 per cent in this Budget, yet this follows the 1983-84 year when so many tax rebates, such as for Medicare and housing interest and also, of course, the general concessional rebate, were abolished and/or effectively put out of use in such a way as to result in an enormous impact on the individual taxpayer in Australia. As my colleague, who has just resumed his seat, has said, many people have seen the impact of this in their latest tax refunds. They have realised that their refunds this year have fallen dramatically and many people, instead of getting money back from the Australian Taxation Office, as they usually would, find that they are faced with having to pay tax. Senator Jessop —They are being taxed twice in a lot of areas. Senator MESSNER —As my colleague has pointed out-I think he is referring to Medicare-people are in fact being taxed twice. These circumstances are becoming apparent to the Australian people, but they are nothing compared with what this Government has in mind for us if it succeeds in winning the election in December . We know that because none other than the Minister for Science and Technology, Mr Barry Jones, has already told us that we have to put up taxes in order to pay more for science and technology and for developments in other areas of government expenditure. That is on the record, and we have the first signs of it here. My colleague Senator Jessop has already referred to the prospect of a capital gains tax or other kinds of capital taxes which this Government has in mind. We have on the record the authority of none other than the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) on this because in this last year he has introduced an assets test. In Labor Essays of 1983 he said: 'You cannot bring in an assets test for pensioners without introducing a capital gains tax'. Consequently we will be hearing more about that in the new year if Labor is re- elected. These things have to be discussed in this kind of forum at this time because they are vital to the understanding of what this Hawke Labor Government is all about. It is about obfuscation and about putting the issues under the carpet until after December when it can come in with a brand new set of proposals having been re-elected, if the people can be misled in that way, and consequently putting them into practice later. We know already, of course, that the runs are on the board about the way in which this Government can cover its tracks. Look at the misleading statements about the lump sum superannuation tax. We were going to have a tax of 30 per cent, but when we finally get down to it, people find they are paying 31 per cent, and it is taking more out of their pockets than the Government originally proposed in the legislation. That is the way this Government behaves, manoeuvering behind the scenes, behind the curtains , to cover its tracks and to get on with doing things that obviously are not attractive in terms of vote winning power. Let us come to some of the points in this legislation. There are some rather worthy propositions included in this legislation, and the first one is the transfer of company losses within company groups. I believe this is a major step forward. This is something which was proposed by the former Government and, was knocked off by this Government when it came to power as being one of its major steps forward in the hard decision area. Now of course it has reversed its opinion on that and reintroduced the measure in order to take account of something that the former Government, the Fraser Government, had thought through at the time. I think the Government is to be credited with some intelligence in having recognised the truth of those proposals, and we do not take that away from it. There are one or two points that I ask the Minister to advise us upon during his winding up remarks. Firstly, on page 2 of the second reading speech of the Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford) I read this: . . . a loss of one company in a group will be able to be transferred to other members of the company group in any of the seven years succeeding the year of loss. That seems to indicate to me that we are talking about a carry-back of losses and a reopening of former assessments of other companies. I would like to know whether that in fact is so and whether the Government did intend that, because, to my mind, it does open a very important principle, and one for which I have argued over a long period. That is that as well as carrying forward losses to be offset against future incomes of companies, that principle should also apply, perhaps within certain time limits, back to past assessments so as to take advantage of that as well. I am thinking of the peculiar circumstances that sometimes arise with companies with special and exceptional sources of income such as project builders and people of that kind. Nevertheless, I would like the Minister's statements on whether my understanding of that is correct and whether that is the Government's intention. I notice also in this area that the amount of tax forgone is claimed to be $ 200m in the 1985-86 year and that in future years this is expected to drop to about $50m. There is no indication of when this would occur, but I would like to know how the government can confidently expect that there would be a significant drop in the cost of this proposal when it has no way of assessing what would be the level of losses of individual companies, and especially of companies within groups, in the years ahead. As to the general proposition that there is likely to be a drop, I would have thought that even applying the general reasoning in connection with inflation, we could only expect that level to rise. I would like to hear some explanation of this. On the question of the dependent spouse rebate, we have made our position quite clear. The Opposition is very concerned about the measure that the Government has brought down. This is, of course, in relation to the extension of the spouse rebate to de facto relationships. I will not go over the same ground as my colleague Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, but I would like to make one point. I have very great concern about how the Taxation Commissioner will be able to establish what is a bona fide domestic relationship in the circumstances and what degree of intrusion will be raised by the tax office in establishing that such circumstances exist. Senator Grimes —Do you have the same objection to the Director-General of Social Security? Senator MESSNER —I am merely asking for the Minister's explanation. I do not want to debate the matter in those terms. I would like to hear from the Minister 's advisers, through him. I understand the Minister's point, but I would like to know what the Taxation Commissioner is proposing in this respect. If the Minister can satisfy us that it will be along the same lines as the Department of Social Security, I will be interested to hear it because I think that there are other matters and problems involved than the ones that apply in the Department of Social Security. Senator Grimes —The honourable senator has never raised questions about the Director-General of Social Security, who has been doing this for 20 to 30 years. Senator MESSNER —I have just explained my position and I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments. A second area of concern is the question of rebates available for pensioners. The Minister for Social Security in other times, particularly in his Press statement of 8 August 1982, made it perfectly clear that he did not believe that pensioners should be paying taxes. The circumstances of that statement must be read against the background of the then forthcoming election. The Government, having won that election, appears to have dropped that statement and that promise, which are no longer applicable. Even though the Government has now introduced higher rebates for pensioners and other beneficiaries as are included in this Bill, the fact is that the tax liability of pensioners will rise in this financial year. At this point I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a statement prepared by the Parliamentary Library setting out the relative increases in pensioner taxation payments as a result of this Government's Budget. I think that the Minister has seen this document before. Senator Grimes —Is it a full statement? You have not left anything out? Senator MESSNER —It is exactly the same statement as the one that has been published. Senator Grimes —That is not what I am asking. I am asking whether it is the full statement. Senator MESSNER —Nothing has been left out. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- 1982-83 TO 1984-85 Additional income weekly 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Additional income per annum . . 260 520 780 1,040 1,300 1,560 1,820 2,080 2,340 2,600 1984-85 pension 4,771 4,771 4,771 4,771 4,771 4,771 4,771 4,641 4,511 4,381 4,251 Total income 4,771 5,031 5,291 5,551 5,811 6,071 6,331 6,461 6,591 6,721 6,851 Tax (1984-85) 47 116 186 255 324 394 463 498 532 567 602 Pensioner rebate 250 250 250 248 215 183 150 134 118 102 85 Net Tax Nil Nil Nil 7 109 211 313 364 414 465 517 *1983- 84 pension 4,445 4,445 4,445 4,445 4,445 4,445 4,445 4,315 4,185 4,055 3,925 Total income 4,445 4,705 4,965 5,225 5,485 5,745 6,005 6,135 6,265 6,395 6,525 Tax (1983-84) Nil 33 111 189 267 345 423 462 501 540 579 Pensioner rebate . . 250 250 250 243 210 178 162 146 129 113 Net Tax Nil Nil Nil Nil 24 135 245 300 355 411 466 *1982-83 pension 4,012 4,012 4,012 4,012 4,012 4,012 4,012 3,882 3, 752 3,622 3,492 Total income 4,012 4,272 4,532 4,792 5,052 5,312 5,572 5,702 5, 832 5,962 6,092 Tax (1982-83) Nil Nil 21 101 181 261 340 380 420 460 500 Pensioner rebate . . . . 167 167 161 129 96 80 64 48 31 Net Tax Nil Nil Nil Nil 20 132 244 300 356 412 469 * Actual Pension Income: Department of Social Security. Economics and Commerce Group 7 September 1984 Legislative Research Service Senator MESSNER —The statement shows that a single pensioner was paying $20 in tax in the 1983-84 financial year. In this current financial year that amount will rise to $109. This will affect other pensioners in other categories commensurately. I turn to the question of provisional tax which is included in this Bill. There is a reference to the increase in the rate at which incomes will be deemed to have risen for the purposes of provisional tax in this financial year. I see in the Minister's second reading speech that an increase of 10 per cent is expected in incomes this year. That comes as a bit of a surprise to me in the light of the Government's confident remarks that incomes will not be rising at anything like that rate in the current financial year. The Government is also confident that the inflation rate will be far lower than 10 per cent. I take it that because of the wonderful accord that exists between the union movement and the Government there are not likely to be wage increases over and above the indexation for inflation. I think that the Government claims an inflation figure this year of 4 or 5 per cent, so I wonder if the Minister will explain why the taxation office has included an extra 10 per cent in people's income for provisional tax purposes as against the likely inflation figure this year of 4 or 5 per cent. One must also bear in mind that the Government is confidently predicting to the Australian people that this level of increase will fall even further in future years. Why then has a figure of 10 per cent been selected? There could be one other possible explanation-that is that the Government has been telling us a pack of lies over the past year about the way in which labour costs will move in the next financial year. I now turn to the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Bill and draw the Senate's attention to changes occurring in respect of penalties for companies. I particularly wish to draw attention to the new provisions for the reversal of the onus of proof on the part of managers and/or officers of companies where penalties are to apply. This provision is incorporated in section 8Y of the new Bill where it is deemed that the management, or any person taking part in the management of a corporation, shall be deemed to have committed the taxation offence for which the corporation is being punished, sued or prosecuted by virtue of the application of the penal clauses of the Act. My point is that certainly one could make out a fair case for management being held responsible for the actions of the corporation and, indeed, there are examples of this under company law already. This is commonly referred to as 'the shedding of the company veil'. But I think a rather different interpretation should be put on this in the context of the taxation situation. On advice from the Taxation Commissioner, the Government is increasingly handing over discretions and/or making rights virtually absolute for the Commissioner to take action in certain cases and deeming situations to exist by virtue of particular interpretations of the law in an increasing number of circumstances that come before us for debate in this Parliament within new legislation. By virtue of this clause, there is another example of the move towards an absolute and categorical approach on the part of the Commissioner in order to ensure that certain circumstances are deemed to have occurred and then leaving it to the taxpayer to challenge that and take action in the courts to prove his innocence. Those unfortunate changes in the law and in the way it is administered are becoming all too common features of legislation these days. In this case we have people who have been officers of companies, perhaps 10 or 15 years or even longer before a certain event has occurred which has led to the prosecution of a company, who can be taken up under this clause and deemed to have committed an offence. Those people then have to go into court and prove their innocence. That is contrary to all principles of British law and I believe that it is wrong in these circumstances. I draw attention to the particular section of the Bill which will create enormous problems for the future. It seems to follow the same kind of thinking that has been applied by this Government in seeking to retrospectively impose taxes upon people who have benefited from certain tax avoidance schemes. There is no need to develop that point any further, we have all debated legislation of that kind in this place at great length and I am sure that Senator Harradine for one would be aware of those circumstances. This kind of legislation appears to go down that same track. By reversing the onus of proof, by saying that people are guilty until they can prove themselves innocent, is something which I think needs to be brought to the attention of the people continually and exposed and debated in the community. The second point that ought to be made is that obviously many former officers of companies engaged in the management of those companies over many years before their retirement will have done things which they may have forgotten the detail of but about which they have not had access to records of the company. All of these things will militate against them when they come to the courts to try to prove their innocence. We have to remember, too, that undoubtedly in a number of cases people who have retired and moved on into their old age will be forced to deal with circumstances which are far beyond them. No doubt they will be involved with heavy legal expense as well in trying to prove their innocence. All in all I think this is as the Law Council of Australia has said, a staggering and unprecedented reversal of the onus of proof, imposing an improper and necessary burden and a change in the fundamental rights of every Australian. I believe that the Government is wrong on this. Undoubtedly it will not change its mind because this legislation follows its approach, as I have pointed out. I anticipate that it will not consider this matter as being something for future amendment. I do hope that it administers this provision wisely and has guidelines in the future which are quite clear about what kind of people will be caught in these circumstances. The other point that needs to be made about the reversal of the onus of proof provision is that one wonders whether fines or penalties imposed upon officers or former officers of companies, will create liabilities on the heirs and successors of those officers as a result of claiming under common law compensation for loss by the companies as a result of actions on the part of the officers of those companies, if that is deemed to be so rather than proven. I wonder whether the Government has considered that aspect and I would like to hear from it whether the Commissioner would be expected to take that into account. Of course one has to point out that it may not be the Commissioner who takes action in these cases; shareholders of a corporation itself may take action against officers where this kind of thing is proven. I refer briefly to page 3 of the Minister's second reading speech, where he talks about a tax agent being convicted of the offence of knowingly making a false statement or failing to keep proper records, or of falsifying or concealing the identity of a person, et cetera. The penalty imposed upon the tax agent is that his or her registration will be suspended for a minimum of three months. As the Minister would know, most tax agents have blanket arrangements with the Taxation Commissioner for an extension of time for taxpayers to lodge their returns. If a tax agent's licence is suspended before taxpayers have lodged their returns under those arrangements, does it mean that those taxpayers would then be in default for not having lodged their returns, not being covered by those arrangements entered into by the tax agent, and therefore be subject to prosecution by the Taxation Commissioner? I would like to have the Government's assurance that innocent people in that situation will be protected against the Commissioner's actions. On page 5 of the Minister's second reading speech there is reference to directors and company officers acting honestly and with reasonable competence in the management of a company's affairs not having anything to fear as a result of this legislation. I am glad to see the Minister's assurance in that respect. But I do want again to raise the question of unintentional errors, which do occur from time to time. What will be the Commissioner's guidelines in dealing with circumstances of that kind? I am really trying to establish whether directors and company officers who deem themselves to have made honest mistakes-apparently that is a term well known to the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) in particular, because he applies it to himself so often-are required to be overseen or judged by a court or whether the matter can be settled by negotiations in the normal way, with the Taxation Commissioner and the agent of the taxpayer or with whomsover might have an interest in the matter. Mr Deputy President, I wish to draw one or two other minor points to your attention. Those points are in connection with the clauses relating to the new departure provisions. After reading page 9 of the second reading speech I am not entirely sure whether the service of a departure prohibition order on a person will be easily lifted in circumstances where that person can put down a clear case as to his liability. Will he have to await a full assessment by the Taxation Commissioner of his affairs? If so, if there are questions about past year losses or perhaps involvement in other transactions which are related to partnerships, trusts or other matters which require further checking and examination, will he be able to obtain readily the departure authorisation certificate which the Minister is going to institute in order to have people cleared for departure overseas? I can envisage all kinds of blockages arising in the system if there are not clear-cut guidelines and easy methods of administering this proposal, and I do hope that the Government has a clear understanding of the problems that it could be causing as a result. I conclude merely by drawing attention to the remarks of the Government very early in this debate, and in particular to the remarks again of the Minister for Science and Technology who has demonstrated to us that this Government intends to raise taxes after the election if it is re-elected. It is only honest that the Government should say whether that is correct, and make its position clear. I do hope that in the course of its great rush of honesty to the head it will make clear its position on capital gains taxes, death duties and a harsher assets test before the election so that we can have a thorough debate on these matters in the course of the campaign that is to come upon us very soon. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(12.40) —I start my speech on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill by making a few general observations about taxation in this country, first of all with reference to the Income Tax Assessment Act. The Income Tax Assessment Act is the most voluminous Act we have in this country. The legislation which is before us today will add a staggering further 230 pages to that Act. Mr Deputy President, I am sure that you have seen a copy of that Act. It is almost the thickness of a telephone book for a major capital city. The average Australian simply cannot understand what is in it; nor, more importantly, can the average business man, either a big businessman on the board of Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd or a small businessman running a backyard company with five or six people working for him. That imposes very great limitations on business in Australia. We cannot have a situation in which we break our basic tenet that ignorance of the law is no defence. We simply cannot have people pleading ignorance and evading laws. There is an enormous argument for simplifying the Income Tax Assessment Act so that the majority of people involved in commerce at least understand most of what is involved in the Act. The two great needs in getting Australia back to economic health are, first of all, the reform of the Income Tax Assessment Act and, secondly, the reform of our industrial relations. Tragically, both those fields are getting worse and worse under a Labor government. Debate on this legislation is not the time for discussion on the industrial relations scene, but we have seen a marked consolidation and an expansion of the powers of the trade union movement; so much so that Mr Dolan spends more time in the office of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) than he spends in his own office as the head of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. We had the open and avowed involvement of the ACTU this year in planning the Budget. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why the deficit is so large. We have to give business a break because it is only by the expansion of private industry in this country that we will get the unemployment figures down from where they are. A lot of nonsense has gone on about the new jobs which have been created in this country. I must point out that the overwhelming majority of those jobs that have been created under Labor have been created by expanding the Public Service, by spending other people's money to provide jobs in a non- competitive and largely non-productive environment. The rest of the growth in employment-that in private industry-regrettably has been low. In reforming the tax system three broad goals have to be pursued: The Income Tax Assessment Act has to be simplified so that it will be more comprehensible to the average person; the Act itself has to be made a great deal fairer; and, above all, it has to provide an incentive for people to get out and earn some money. Both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) have talked about reform in recent months but, as Senator Messner said, there are no details of this. They have a moral obligation-if they have any morals-to come clean with the Australian community and tell us the details of what they intend to do with their tax reform. I will come back to that a little later in my speech. On the performance of the Government in the 18 months it has been in office we do not have any confidence that those reforms will be productive or rewarding for the Australian economy. We have seen very great taxation increases. The aggregate personal income tax take will go up by 23 per cent this year alone. The aggregate take from provisional tax will go up by a staggering 47 per cent. Of course, the individual rate for provisional tax has been hiked by 10 per cent in the face of a declared inflation rate of around 6.5 per cent, or whatever the Government is claiming. Every person who pays provisional tax is paying a 10 per cent increment this year. In this Budget we have seen the introduction of new tax scales. We now have five tax scales instead of three. That means, quite simply, that everyone pays more tax and pays it sooner. In this chamber earlier in the week one of the Government senators made a very naive statement about the need to provide an incentive in the tax scheme. To his thinking, somehow or other the introduction of a new 25c in the dollar tax on a yearly income of $4,596 provided an incentive. I cannot understand that at all. It just means that someone who would not have paid income tax under the Liberal- National Party scales now has the dubious pleasure of paying tax to this Government. At the other end of the scale, people will now have the pleasure of paying the top rate of 60c in the dollar when their annual salary reaches $35, 001, instead of when it reaches $35,789. It is absolutely wrong for any person to be paying more tax to the Government than that person is able to make out of his activities. We simply cannot have an incentive when the major part of the reward for that effort is going to an impersonal government. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Senator MacGIBBON —The Attorney-General will recall explaining to the Senate in answer to a question of mine on Wednesday the forms of investigation which could be launched by the National Crime Authority and saying that what was happening at the moment essentially was 'sifting and processing', to use his own words, the Costigan information. I ask whether the Attorney-General is aware that on the same day the Special Minister of State, referring to Mr Costigan, told the House of Representatives: All the investigations he has handed over to the National Crime Authority are still being carried out. Does the Attorney agree that like the Prime Minister, who mistakenly referred to references having been given to the Authority from the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, the Special Minister of State has also sought to mislead the public by suggesting that the Authority is currently engaged in full scale pursuit of criminals identified by Mr Costigan? Why does the Government persist with trying to create this impression when on the Attorney's own admission the Authority is involved in little more than an assessment of the Costigan material? Senator GARETH EVANS —If the Opposition is going to derive nourishment from these semantic trivialities, I will do my best to accommodate it. There is no substantial point here involved. The Costigan investigations are still being pursued to the extent that there is collation, there is analysis, as I understand it, going on in relation to the Costigan material and collators and data input people are continuing to operate. Investigations are being pursued in the sense that none of them are not being pursued and no decision has been made to terminate any particular investigation. Obviously, that is so because we are in the middle, clearly, of a transition process, which process is not complete either in the sense of initiating new formal references which will enable the exercise of coercive powers or in the sense of decisions being made not to pursue particular lines of inquiry that have been initiated by the Costigan Commission. I ought to say that a number of the Costigan investigations that are now summarised in the now famous 42 summaries document were investigations which have not in fact been taken very far by the Costigan Commission or in which nothing much in many instances had been done for a very long time. A lot of them were simply recording information which had been received and which might or might not need to be followed up as a result of further investigative effort at some later stage. But all these considerations are consistent both with what I have told the Senate and with what Mr Young, the Special Minister of State, has told the House, and I see no justification at all for the attempt to drive some sort of opportunistic wedge between different ways of expressing the same state of affairs that the honourable senator is now attempting. Senator COLSTON —I direct a question to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. In computing the income of a service pensioner for the purposes of the income test, are disability pensions disregarded as income? In the same way, are disability pensions disregarded in calculating the rate of supplementary assistance payable to a service pensioner? If not, what would be the cost of introducing this concession to those who would otherwise be eligible to receive supplementary assistance? Senator GIETZELT —I have been asked quite a number of questions in the last year or so about the pensions paid by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. I think it has to be said that there is a degree of confusion about them. There are two substantial types of pensions. One is a social welfare pension, known as the service pension, and the other group of pensions can be described largely as compensatory, covering disability pensions, including totally and permanently incapacitated pensions, the attendant's allowance, recreation and transport allowance, war widow's pensions, et cetera. A great deal of confusion has crept into that area when issues such as the assets test, tax and other matters have been debated in the Parliament in recent months. I stress that the disability pension is completely disregarded as income in the assessment of a service pension entitlement. In addition it is paid tax free. It is free of any income test and will not be subject to the forthcoming assets test. This is in recognition of the compensatory nature of the disability pension. The disability pension is, however, treated as income in determining a service pensioner's eligibility for supplementary assistance for rent allowance, a matter that was stressed by Senator Colston in his question. This is because the supplementary assistance is paid strictly on the basis of need to those pensioners who are identified as being in dire circumstances and therefore meet the guidelines; in particular it is paid to those whose weekly rents represent a large portion of their total financial resources. The current maximum supplementary assistance is $10 a week and as a result of the recent Budget that is to rise in November to $15 a week. About 26,000 service pensioners receive such supplementary assistance. If the disability pension were to be disregarded in determining service pensions entitlement in supplementary assistance, about 5 ,000 service pensioners would become eligible for supplementary assistance. So the annual cost of such a measure would be about $2m at current rates or about $ 3m at the new rates. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the gallery of Mr Justice McClelland, a former senator and Minister. I welcome him back to the Senate. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator DURACK —I remind the Attorney-General of answers that he gave to Senate Estimates Committee E last Tuesday evening in relation to the National Crime Authority's vote. The result of his answers was that he said that at the moment apart from the commissioners there are four lawyers engaged on a full time or part time basis on the sifting of the Costigan material. I ask whether the Attorney is aware of a statement made last night by his colleague the Special Minister of State in which that Minister referred to another 20 people who were working on this same material, additional to the lawyers mentioned by Senator Evans on Tuesday. I ask: Did those extra 20 people take up their full time positions within the last 48 hours and what are the qualifications and functions of the staff who were described by Mr Young as analysts and of the six who were described as collators. What are their qualifications and what is their status? Senator GARETH EVANS —As to the last part of that question relating to the qualifications and status of the persons described as collators and analysts, I will have to take that on notice, and seek a reply. As to the first part of the question, the reality is that this week we are in the middle of a formal transition of staff from the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union to the Crime Authority. It is the case , I am told, that 89 of the Costigan staff formally transferred to the NCA as of 1 October, that is to say, the beginning of this week, but on the basis that the Commissioner would continue to have priority on their services for his report. I am told that 80 per cent of these people have in turn, as of this week, largely completed their work on the report and the NCA is paying their salaries now. Arrangements are being put in place this week for them to do work under the direction of the Authority. It was of course the case that a significant proportion of the Costigan staff was continuing to spend time, as I indicated in answer a moment ago to Senator MacGibbon, on the collation and analysis on a continuing basis of material that was already in the possession of the Costigan Commission and was, of course, also the subject of the Costigan summaries transferred to the NCA. Once again one can argue about which particular box these people are to be described as being in at any given point in time, but it is an unproductive argument because we are in the middle of a transition process in which the Authority is mobilising resources. It is not recreating resources externally. It would be a pointless, futile, expensive waste of time to create a separate bureaucracy when the full transfer of the Costigan staff resources is so imminent. Once again I believe there is no inconsistency in anything I may have told the Senate Estimates Committee as to the work of lawyers working specifically on advising the Authority as to what might properly be the subject of a formal reference and what Mr Young might have said last night so far as the overall staffing position is concerned. Senator DURACK —Mr Deputy President, I ask a supplementary question. Do I understand from that answer that the extra people mentioned by the Special Minister of State have only just been transferred? Are they part of this group that was transferred to the Authority only the other day? Senator GARETH EVANS —The three members have only just been transferred to the formal authority of the National Crime Authority, but that is not to say that they have only just started work on the particular Costigan material because the job that a great many of these people have been doing all along has been working on the further adding to and refinement of and reshaping of the material that has been in the Costigan Commission's possession. I am not in a position to give any more detail on that. I will see what further information the Special Minister of State is able to supply. Senator RICHARDSON —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. What is the progress of the Government's steel industry plan? In particular, has Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd continued to make the investments it pledged as part of its contribution to the plan? Senator BUTTON —It is indeed opportune that Senator Richardson should choose today to ask that particular question. I am able to inform the Senate that the progress of the steel industry plan is very satisfactory to the Government and marks a reversal in the fortunes of the steel industry. I just remind the Senate that when this Government came to office the steel industry was in disarray and grave fears were held for the future of that industry. The Government acted quickly to put into operation the steel industry plan which provided-- Senator Messner —Huh! Senator BUTTON —Senator Boswell finds that amusing. I repeat that the Government acted quickly, something Senator Boswell has not done in his time here that I have noticed. Senator Boswell —Mr Deputy President, I take a point of order. I made absolutely no remark. I was sitting here quite innocently and was attacked by the Leader of the Opposition. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator BUTTON —I was making the point that the Government acted quickly to put in place a steel industry plan which provided job security for workers in the industry as well as assistance from the Government in exchange for a commitment by the company to invest and modernise its steel plant. I am very pleased to be able to inform the Senate that today BHP announced its decision to install a second continuous slab caster at the Port Kembla steelworks. This is a major investment involving some $146m and will mean virtually that all the Port Kembla steel will be continuous cast by 1988. That is front line technology in the steel industry and the Government very much welcomes this announcement by BHP. Work will start immediately on the continuous caster and BHP has said that it will be completed over three years and that 80 per cent of the money involved will be spent in Australia. So we welcome the company's announcement today and see it as evidence of the success of the steel plan. Other evidence is, of course, relevant to Senator Richardson's question. I refer to the fact that annual production is now running at some six million tonnes a year, close to operating capacity. Production in the period January to August 1984 increased by 15 per cent over the same period last year. Productivity is exceeding initial targets and is currently averaging 267 tonnes per employee per year, the target being set for this time being 250 tonnes, so it is well in excess of the set target. Employment in the steel division, excluding collieries, at the end of August 1984 was 24,500 compared with 25,000 in January 1984, but employment reductions have been achieved by natural attrition. Profit for the steel industry division in 1984 was $72m, representing a 3 per cent return on funds. As I said, the Government welcomes this progress in the steel industry and looks forward to presiding over further improvement in that industry in due course. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. I assure him that I do not wish to drive an opportunistic wedge between him and his fellow Ministers by asking this question, but I would like to get some acknowledgment of real concern on his part and evidence of real determination to deal with crime in an effective way. So I ask the Attorney: Does he share the widespread concern at the continuing series of allegations affecting the administration of justice and law enforcement in the State of New South Wales? Does he agree that matters such as the prisoner early release scandal, the Humphreys-Farquhar case, the Cessna-Milner case, last weekend's allegations about large scale police involvement in the heroin trade, and all the matters made public in the Age tapes and the transcripts are part of what seems to be an evergrowing mosaic of crime and corruption in that State? Given the Commonwealth's direct interest in the proper operation of that State's judicial system and the fact that close co- operation is required between law enforcement agencies of both Governments, I ask: Has the Attorney had any discussions with the Prime Minister or any other relevant Federal ministerial colleagues as to what action might be taken by the Commonwealth to allay evergrowing public concern at this apparently uncheckable explosion of illegal activity? If he has, has any action been proposed? If he has not, will he initiate such discussions and suggest that Federal and State Ministers should meet in the near future to consider in what way this worrying trend might be reversed? Senator GARETH EVANS —I think the only evident trend in this matter is in the rhetoric of the Opposition which has been escalating with great rapidity as we come closer to the election date. I notice that the problem of organised crime is not so intensely felt by the Leader of the Opposition that he even bothered to contribute to the debate on the National Crime Authority when that particular parliamentary occasion presented itself in the House of Representatives a few months ago. Of course it is the case that any series of allegations about organised crime is a matter of concern for any government anywhere in this country. To the extent that allegations are continuing to be made about crime in New South Wales it is obviously a matter of concern for the New South Wales Government as it is for everyone else in this country. Equally, it is the case that the New South Wales Government is acting with considerable expedition, dispatch and competence in dealing with these allegations as they are made, one at a time. I will not be party here or anywhere else to the kind of state of mind which has been so assiduously cultivated by the Opposition in recent days, weeks and months, namely, that the mere making of an allegation or innuendo is itself sufficient evidence that there is justification for that allegation being made. It is a matter of waiting for the processes of the court system to work themselves out before making strident and over-confident assertions of the kind we hear so often from the other side. Those processes are working themselves out . So far as the Commonwealth's role in all this is concerned, we have, of course, been anxious to set in place and to maintain co-operative law enforcement arrangements with all the States, not just New South Wales. As I indicated in answer to a question a few days ago, joint taskforces have been very productive indeed in dealing in recent years with the particular problem of drug trafficking. The whole question of Federal-State co-operation in dealing with organised crime has been what the whole debate on the Crime Authority has been about over the last 18 months and indeed going back into the life of the previous Government. The big difference between our approach to this matter and that of the previous Government is that we have succeeded in putting into place through the agency of the Crime Authority co-operative arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States which will genuinely ensure that a major attack is mounted on these phenomena. There is nothing whatsoever to apologise about so far as this Government's approach to organised crime and the fighting of it is concerned. Our budgetary allocations for that purpose, through the Australian Federal Police, the doubling of expenditure on the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, and the further additions to the expenditure that will be incurred this year, bringing expenditure for the Crime Authority up to $8.6m, all attest to that state of affairs. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question which follows the suggestion in the early part of the reply from the Attorney-General that the concern being expressed by the Opposition was related to the nearness of an election. Does the Attorney-General confirm, in the light of that allegation, that the previous Government established a crimes commission, that from the early days of the life of the present Government the Opposition has consistently urged strong action on the Government, that when he introduced his National Crime Authority Bill we were responsible for sending it off to a Senate committee, that the Senate committee unanimously recommended that the Authority be given more teeth than the Attorney-General has deigned to give it in its original form and that the Opposition sought strengthening of that Crime Authority during the parliamentary session when the legislation went through this place? In other words, I ask: Will he admit all of those facts, which are facts, and does he agree that they deny his allegation that we are raising this just because the Parliament is on the eve of an election? It is a pathetic allegation. Senator GARETH EVANS —The Opposition, when in government, did not succeed in establishing a crimes commission. It passed legislation through both Houses but had got no further than that by the time it confronted the election of the early part of 1983. Senator Missen —That is not true. Senator GARETH EVANS —Well, if it is not true, Senator Missen, get up and tell me why it is not true. Senator Missen —There was a chairman. Senator GARETH EVANS —It was a chairman designate. If the honourable senator cannot draw the distinction, once again I am obliged to remind him that there are some limitations on my willingness to be patient with his interjections. We are well aware of the way in which the debate on the Crime Authority's establishment has proceeded over the last 18 months. I do not need to be reminded of the chronology by Senator Chaney. I do need to remind him, however, that the crimes commission proposed by his Government had not won any kind of response from the States other than one of hostility and anxiety and a desire not to find it the most attractive way forward to resolve this. I further remind him that when the subject of the powers of the new Authority was debated in this place earlier this year the Opposition in this place moved no motions to increase the powers of the Crime Authority other than a motion to enable it to use its coercive powers of its own motion without requiring a reference. There were some other amendments proposed about the number of members , the quorum and matters of that kind. The only amendment that was moved went, as I recall it, to the question of self-starting in the application of coercive powers. On that particular proposal, to increase the teeth of the Authority, the Opposition felt so strongly about it, as I have had occasion to remind it earlier this week, that it did not even divide on the proposition. So once again it is cant, hypocrisy and humbug that we are hearing from the Leader of the Opposition here today. Senator REYNOLDS —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Territories and Local Government to figures on the allocation of funds by the Queensland Government to the various local government authorities in that State through the Queensland Grants Commission. Is the Minister aware that the percentage increases for 1984-85 in allocations to these authorities vary dramatically between the different regions of the State? In particular, does the Minister agree that the western shires of Queensland have been savagely discriminated against by the Queensland Government? Senator GIETZELT —Yes, I have seen the figures arising out of the decision of the Queensland Grants Commission which has the responsibility of allocating Federal funds to the various local government authorities in Queensland. One can only come to the conclusion that it has done so on a highly discriminatory basis. The purpose of the Grants Commission is, of course, to top up or even up the facilities and resources in local government areas. But that practice is not being followed in respect of Queensland. For example, the allocations show that by far the biggest percentage increases in funds in 1984-85 have gone to the already well catered for, well developed districts like Albert which, of course, happens to be in Minister Hinze's stamping ground on the Gold Coast, and Noosa, which is in the heart of the seat of Federal National Party member Clarrie Millar. The dis- advantaged and isolated communities of Queensland-I have heard many members of the Opposition speak on this-particularly the areas in the Gulf region of the State, have been very savagely treated in this allocation. Therefore, there is reason to doubt the way in which the Grants Commission is carrying out the Federal Government's express desire that a policy should be followed that assists the less developed areas so that there is a degree of balance in the way in which local government develops throughout Queensland. I have a copy of the letter which the Shire Clerk of the Shire of Burke in the Gulf region wrote to the Queensland Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, last month , protesting against the harsh discrimination that is being practised against the local authorities in the Gulf region and drawing attention particularly to the gap between the Premier's public expressions of concern, which I am expressing here today, and his actual deeds when those expressions are put into practice by the Grants Commission. The figures in the correspondence provided on the scale of the discrimination are very enlightening. Although I have not had the opportunity to show the letter to the Opposition, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the letter to the Premier of Queensland from the Council of the Shire of Burke. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- THE COUNCIL OF THE SHIRE OF BURKE Our Ref: 2/6 HBM Council Contact: K. Bourne-McRae The Hon. Sir J. Bjelke- Petersen, Premier and Treasurer P.O. Box 191, Brisbane, North Quay, Queensland 4000. My dear Premier, REF:-GRANTS COMMISSION We are compelled to write and express this Council's disappointment, yet again, in the 1984-85 allocations from your government's Grant Commissioners. Sir, I remind you that when you met with the representatives of the Gulf Local Authorities Development Association (G.L.A.D.A.) in Normanton last October, you voiced your concern in 'how the Grants Commission were allocating funds to this remote and forgotten region'. However, as you can see from the listed percentages below, not one single thing has changed-in fact in real terms the gap has widened drastically. 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 Percentage Percentage Percentage increase increase increase Local Authorities on 1981-82 on 1982-83 on 1983-84 Johnstone 20.61 11.05 10.6 Noosa 8.59 11.08 14.7 Albert 34.34 11.02 16.9 Mulgrave 33.57 11.06 11.6 Logan 34.32 9.93 7.8 Maroochy 34.35 11.01 5.4 Burke 7.11 4.29 2.6 (GLADA) Carpentaria 8.43 4.10 2.6 (GLADA) Etheridge 7.72 4.05 2 .6 (GLADA) Croydon 20.38 6.88 5.4 (GLADA) It is our strongest belief that the allocations are a FARCE and in NO WAY attempt to comply with Section 13 of the act, which states: (1) The Commission shall- (a) Make recommendations to the Minister with respect to the allocation of moneys that the State is entitled to receive from the Commonwealth each year by way of financial assistance for local government purposes for allocation amongst Local Authorities on a general equalization basis, that is to say, on a basis that has the object of ensuring so far as is practicable, that each Local Authority is able to function, by reasonable effort, at a standard not appreciably below the standard of other Local Authorities in the State, being a basis that takes account of differences in the capacities of the Local Authorities to raise revenue and differences in the amounts required to be expended by the Local Authorities in the performance of their functions. It is no good crying foul on the Federal Government's allocations, when on receipt of a statewide increase of 5.9% you allow such variations to occur to the disadvantage of your citizens choosing to reside in the Gulf to develop this State. It is this Shire's views, that on present allocation to this area in the financial year 1986-87 we will in effect be receiving minus increases in our allocations! As Premier and Treasurer, the Council of the Shire of Burke believes you are the only person who can correct this blatant rip-off of disadvantaged Local Authorities throughout this Northern Region of Queensland. Yours sincerely, Kevin Bourne-McRae Shire Clerk 19.9.84 c.c. Minister for Northern Development Senator BOSWELL —My question is addressed to Senator Georges in his capacity as Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare. I respect Senator Georges's position as the independent Chairman of the Committee-his stand on matters of principle is well known in this place. Senator Cook —Is that a question? Senator BOSWELL —No, it is not. The question is coming. I ask him, so that he can get a broader perspective of animal and wildlife management by rural people, to accompany rural industry leaders and me, in the Christmas recess, on a western inspection of our joint electorate where I can show him first hand kangaroo culling programs and the care that graziers and farmers take of their livestock. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Georges, do you understand that as spokesman for the Committee you can reply only to something that relates to the Committee? Senator GEORGES —Of course; I would not dare do anything else. I thank the honourable senator for his invitation. I know that considerable concern has been expressed in the rural industry at the appointment of this Committee by the Senate. I also know that that concern was increased considerably when I was appointed as Chairman. I have a reputation in Queensland of being an urban guerrilla. As one rural newspaper put it, I am not exactly an apostle of the rural industry. I assure them that their concern is misplaced. The Committee will carry out inquiries in rural areas and will take advantage of invitations such as the one Senator Boswell has given. As to the matter of kangaroo culling, I do not know whether Senator Boswell suggests that we ought to go together on a kangaroo shooting expedition. If that is the case, I cannot imagine myself stumbling around the bush in the dark with Senator Boswell. In that situation I know who would be shot, and it would not be the kangaroo. However, could I suggest to him that he ought not to use the word 'cull'; he ought to be using the word 'harvest'. There is a very significant difference between those words. Culling is carried out in the interests of the species. However, I would suspect that harvesting may not be in the interests of the kangaroo species. However, we will be examining the problem very comprehensively . At present the Committee is looking at the problems of live sheep exports and also-- Senator Archer —The question of live sheep exports. Senator GEORGES —I am sorry; it is a problem. Whether there is a solution to the problem of live sheep exports and also kangaroo management in Australia is another matter. The Committee has a number of references, which will take quite some time. If we find that there are delays, we will bring down interim reports. It will be a costly exercise for the Committee. Having had experience of what is going on in Senate Committee rooms 1 and 2, we might make an application for a Budget before the money runs out. Senator SIBRAA —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Treasurer been drawn to reports in the Australian Financial Review, indicating that the consumer electronics industry, in a submission to the Economic Planning Advisory Council, has called for the adoption of a retail consumption tax as a substitute for sales tax? Could the Minister inform the Senate of the Government's attitude towards the introduction of such a tax? Senator WALSH —I am aware of the report. As I understand it, the suggestion was that it be a tax imposed at retail level as a replacement for the existing tax at wholesale level. It would not necessarily be a new tax. I am advised by the Treasurer that EPAC is discussing priority areas for reform of the tax system, particularly insofar as it may relate to desirable changes to the taxation base. A retail tax is just one of the options which have been suggested. The Government has made no decisions on any of these matters at this stage and believes that there should be considerable community debate. Indeed, the Government would welcome debate on those issues. There are, however, no proposals-I am advised of this by the Treasurer-under the Government's consideration at this time to move along the lines being considered by the Consumer Electronics Suppliers Association, which I believe is the organisation to which Senator Sibraa referred. There is, however, in that suggestion one fairly obvious administrative difficulty which ought to be noted; that is, that for any tax system levied at the retail level one would expect that a very much larger number of individual firms would be required to submit returns, returns which would have to be processed within the Taxation Office, as against the tax applied at wholesale level. Therefore, while that does not necessarily preclude a retail tax or a tax levied at retail level being desirable, and it is not the last word on the subject, I would expect that there would be very substantial extra administrative costs and difficulties associated with collecting a sales tax at retail level as distinct from wholesale level, where sales taxes are currently imposed and collected. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, concerns the serious anomaly which exists in the Commonwealth Government subsidy paid to nursing home patients in Queensland. Is the Minister aware that according to the Queensland Courier-Mail yesterday the Federal Minister for Health is reported to have said that every State is treated in the same way in relation to subsidies to nursing homes? Can he explain how figures in the Budget Statements under the section 'Nursing Home and Domiciliary Care Services and Benefits' show that daily benefits paid to patients in Victoria are $45.15, in South Australia and the Northern Territory $ 37.80 and in New South Wales $32.35, while the daily rate paid to Queensland patients is only $26.65? Does he not consider that the sick aged in Queensland are being discriminated against and are at a distinct disadvantage in regard to the patient benefit they receive towards their nursing home accommodation fees, making it obvious that the sick aged in Queensland are treated as second class citizens? Senator GRIMES —I am afraid I do not have at my fingertips the exact details that Senator Bjelke-Petersen would like. She knows as well as anyone that the nursing care subsidy is based on the costs per inmate of those homes in the various States and therefore they vary from State to State with those costs, and those costs vary from State to State because of States regulations and other matters. It is very easy for Senator Bjelke-Petersen conveniently to pick out the fact that the subsidy in Queensland is lower than it is in other States. It has nothing to do with the Commonwealth's concern for the aged people in nursing homes in Queensland. It has nothing to do with the Commonwealth's concern for the aged in nursing homes in other States. It has merely to do with the variation in costs. But I will get a more detailed reply from the Minister for Health and let Senator Bjelke-Petersen know as soon as possible. Senator GILES —I refer the Attorney-General to a resolution of the Australian Labor Party National Conference in July of this year which commits the Government to hold a national conference to examine all aspects of domestic violence, including child molestation and rape within marriage. This conference is designed to arrive at recommendations regarding appropriate Commonwealth and State legislation, police procedures and counselling facilities for both the victims of such crimes and offenders. Recalling that the Attorney-General responded positively to the resolution, I ask him what steps he has taken to meet this undertaking. Senator GARETH EVANS —A number of positive steps have already been taken to deal with the question of developing a national approach to the problem of domestic violence. In April of this year the Australian Institute of Criminology conducted a workshop in Canberra on the situation of victims of crime in Australia. Delegates included people from all over the country, including the Territories. Subsequently, in May and June the Director of the Institute wrote to all State and Territory community welfare departments, crown law departments, women's advisory officers and commissioners of police seeking up to date information on victim support services and remedies coming within their jurisdictions or known to them. The object of that exercise was twofold: To enable a comprehensive national list of such services to be compiled and published and also to facilitate preparation of Australia's position paper for the seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime, which is to be held in Milan next year, one agenda item of which relates specifically to victims of crime. Some replies to those letters are still outstanding, so it is not yet possible to publish a comprehensive list. However, it is possible to say that while the range of available services has increased and is increasing, there still remain significant areas which are underserviced, in particular country areas, which for the most part are not at all well provided for. The Institute of Criminology has further, after discussion with me, offered to host a national conference on all aspects of domestic violence against adults and children, both sexual and non-sexual violence, in September or October of next year. It seems to me appropriate that an independent statutory authority should undertake this task. Accordingly, I have accepted that offer by the Institute. Of course, the Government will listen very closely to whatever recommendations come forth from that conference. My own commitment and concern on the issue are attested to by the fact that I have recently referred the problem of domestic violence in the Australian Capital Territory to the Australian Law Reform Commission for investigation and recommendation. I will be shortly ensuring that invitations to attend this conference are sent out to all relevant State, Territory and Commonwealth authorities, as well as to persons involved in the practice of family law, independent experts and appropriate voluntary agencies. If it is to be successful, this exercise will require a great deal of State and Territory co- operation in the future, and I am confident that by the way things are going that will be forthcoming. Senator PETER RAE —I ask the Attorney-General: Is it a fact that major crime in Australia frequently involves the use of corporations and the corporate veil? Is it also a fact that the National Companies and Securities Commission has power to investigate behaviour and activity in relation to corporations and their management and possible abuses and manipulations in relation to both corporations and trading and securities in corporations? Is it a fact that this Government has so far prevented by legislation the new National Crime Authority from having access to the information and investigations of the National Companies and Securities Commission, thereby limiting its powers to investigate crime in Australia? Senator GARETH EVANS —The answer to the firt two parts of the question, as Senator Rae well knows, is yes. As to the third part of the question, I had not appreciated that there was anything in the text of the legislation which expresssly prohibited-- Senator Peter Rae —Section 20. Senator GARETH EVANS —Section 20. Whether that makes it impossible for the National Companies and Securities Commission to hand over information is a question to which further attention will have to be given. I know that there is no requirement that they can be compelled to hand over such information, but as to the question of a voluntary handing over I know that that is something about which Mr Justice Stewart wrote to the Government recently seeking an amendment to the legislation. Perhaps that is what Senator Rae has in mind, but I thought that that was simply seeking clarification rather than something that was necessary in order to enable data to flow in an appropriate case. I am happy to check the point and I will advise Senator Rae further. I take the point of what he is saying, that it is desirable that there be as much communication of data by investigative agencies as possible in this area and, to the extent that the companies and securities law enforcement agencies do have a relevance, as they clearly do to some aspects of organised crime, there ought to be as much data flow as possible. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to the defeat in the Senate on four occasions of the Government's legislation to recover taxes which have been evaded under the bottom of the harbour schemes. Does the tax sharing formula which enables State governments to share in Commonwealth revenues also have the effect of making State governments share in revenues lost to the Commonwealth Budget as a result of the defeat of the Government's tax avoidance and evasion legislation? If the State governments do share in the revenue losses, will the Minister indicate the scale of those lost revenues? Senator WALSH —Under the existing tax sharing arrangements, the States and the Northern Territory in total receive some 20.72 per cent of total Commonwealth tax collections in the previous year. Therefore, as Senator Maguire has correctly implied, to the extent that Commonwealth revenues are reduced the revenues of the States are automatically reduced in the succeeding year. Of course, it is correct that on four separate occasions tax recoupment Bills, not always the same Bill, have been rejected by the Senate. On one occasion, if the tax recoupment Bill when put to the Senate had not been rejected by the Senate, some $570m or thereabouts of additional revenue would have been collected by the Commonwealth, although it would not have all fallen due in one year. Overlooking the lagged effect, of course, the $570m which was not collected by the Commonwealth because of the actions of the Senate would have provided to the States and the Northern Territory in total some $67m and would also, I might add , have provided to local government authorities throughout Australia an additional $10m, or something greater than that amount, as their share of that tax revenue, which was not collected because of the actions of the Senate. However, the $67m additional revenue which would have been distributed to the States and the Northern Territory in total because of the minimum guarantees applicable to some States, would not have been shared in the same proportions as the revenue payments actually made have been shared. I make that explanation because I am about to cite figures for a couple of States as the additional revenue that would have been received had the additional Commonwealth taxation revenue of $570m been collected. For example, New South Wales would have received an additional $30m and Queensland would have received $25m. Senator Macklin, as a reputed representative of the State of Queensland, might well reflect upon the fact that, as a result of the vote that he cast in the Senate- to be fair to him, half the members of the Senate cast a vote in the same way- the State of Queensland will automatically receive $25m less than it would have received had that particular tax recoupment Bill been passed by the Senate. It is something that I particularly recommend that Senator Macklin reflects on. If I may be so bold, I also recommend that the electors of Queensland think about that when they are next casting their vote for the Senate. Senator MACKLIN —Has the Attorney-General seen a telex addressed to the Prime Minister from the Australian Nuclear Veterans Association concerning the grant of legal aid? Is it true that the Association was told on Friday 7 September, that it would receive funds towards the engagement of a junior counsel, a solicitor, reasonable disbursements, air travel, assistance with office space and resources for counsel and solicitor? Is it true that the person responsible for the advice given to the Association overturned that so that on the following Tuesday the Association was notified that its grant would be substantially reduced to cover a part of a junior counsel's services, office space and resources? Is this the way that legal aid is determined by the Attorney-General and does the Minister agree that in fact such a reduction in legal aid to the Association will seriously hamper its case to the Royal Commission into British Nuclear Tests in Australia between 1952 and 1963? Senator GARETH EVANS —This is an example of the kinds of problems that are besetting all governments around the country with legal aid delivery generally, and in particular in the context of the burgeoning proliferation of commissions of inquiry and royal commissions of one kind or another. The sequence of events here is as follows: In its decision to establish the McClelland Royal Commission into British Nuclear Tests in Australia between 1952 and 1963, the Government agreed to the provision of financial assistance towards the legal costs of persons or orgaisations given leave to appear before the Commission, with the extent of that assistance to be determined by me as Attorney-General and by the Minister for Finance. On 7 September, following applications the resolution of which was sought to be made with great urgency, the solicitors of the following bodies were notified of my approval, given earlier that day, of financial assistance for legal representation as follows: To the Australian Nuclear Veterans Association of New South Wales, junior counsel plus solicitor; to the Maralinga and Monte Bello Atomic Ex-Servicemen's Association, the same. The Australian Nuclear Veterans Associations of both Queensland and South Australia were to have a solicitor each and a shared junior counsel. That was the original decision, made against a background of urgently pressed demands that legal aid resources be made available so that proofs of evidence could be prepared for a sitting early the following week. Following that decision a number of questions were asked within the Government and further detailed consideration was given to the question of legal aid that was appropriate for these bodies, and indeed a review of the whole of the Government's expenditure on the Royal Commission was undertaken. That review produced in my mind clear conclusions that the four bodies concerned had a very large measure of common interest and that, while they certainly needed the resources of their own solicitors to get together the proofs of evidence, the actual presentation of their evidence could well be done by a single counsel- that indeed to do otherwise would tend to unmercifully protract the proceedings- but, moreover, that there should be provision that, in the event that a conflict of interest did arise between the respective organisations, the Government should make some commitment to ensure that counsel were available to enable the competing viewpoints to be expressed. Bearing all that in mind and bearing in mind the very great savings in both time and money that would result if some of these resources could be aggregated, a decision was made four days later, on 11 September, to review the original decision and reduce the legal aid grant insofar as personnel were concerned to just one junior counsel for all of the four organisations plus the solicitor resources that I have mentioned. Further discussions have taken place subsequently. Just a couple of days ago, on 3 October, I advised the solicitors for the respective organisations that, instead of a junior counsel, as was originally proposed, it would now be possible for the Government to meet their further demands for a senior counsel in substitution for the junior counsel. Indeed, a very appropriate gentelman from the New South Wales Bar has accepted that brief at what will be an additional cost to the Commonwealth of about $32, 000 over the period, but still at a saving overall of close to three-quarters of a million dollars on what would have been the original cost had counsel been given to all of them. I repeat the assurance that I hope has been communicated to the respective organisations that, in the event that a genuine conflict of interest arises, the Commonwealth will of course be sympathetic to that and be prepared to assist in making counsel available to make sure that those competing interests are resolved. However, I rather suspect that the reason for demanding separate representation at the advocacy level as distinct from the preparation of proofs has more to do with other considerations than with those going to the most effective presentation of the nuclear veterans' case. As such I believe the Commonwealth was justified in its decision, although changing decisions midstream is not a course to be recommended. I readily acknowledge the force of the criticism in that respect. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I ask him: What government action is proposed to complement the work of existing government procedures in supplying information to new settlers in Australia? Senator GRIMES —Honourable senators opposite will be very surprised to know that, as far as I know, that is not a dorothy dixer. I am afraid that if Senator Childs did give warning of that to my colleague Mr West, nobody gave me warning. I do not have in my mind the details of increased services to new settlers although I know Mr West has made a statement about it in the last few days. I will seek the full information for Senator Childs and apoligise that I do not have it now. Senator MESSNER —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has he noted the recent action of the New South Wales Government in offering lump sums to its employees who are members of the State superannuation scheme in order to reduce the future cost of its present pension scheme? Does this fly in the face of the Federal Government's lump sum superannuation tax whose objective is to force people to accept periodical payments rather than lump sums upon retirement? Will not this muddle cause the employees now taking a lump sum to lose up to 30 per cent of their future benefit, and thus cause them to become more heavily dependent upon the age pension in the future, with the obvious end result of causing higher levels of dependency in the future and hence more cost to the taxpayer? Senator WALSH —It is debatable whether superannuation is a finance or a taxation matter, but the superannuation scheme is, I think, an administrative responsibility of the Minister for Finance. Senator Messner said that the objective of the Commonwealth in imposing a higher level of taxation on lump sum payments was to force people to take out pensions in lieu of lump sum payments. They are not forced to do that, of course. People have the option of rolling over a lump sum entitlement into a periodic payment or of paying the rate of tax applicable to whatever lump sum there might be. Senator Messner asked whether the action of the New South Wales Government flew in the face of Commonwealth action, or words to that effect. As I understand it the New South Wales Government took the action it did because, being a responsible Australian Labor Party Government-as distinct from typically irresponsible government of other persuasions-it was very concerned at the fact that there was a very large unfunded liability under the State superannuation scheme which would increase very substantially in the succeeding decades. The New South Wales Government made the choice that it was going to reduce that unfunded liability by making a change. Now people may approve or disapprove of the change that was made, but I do not believe it is my place to sit in judgment over the New South Wales Government as to whether it should have made the particular type of change that it did. But it is fair to observe the reasons why a change was made. It was that the New South Wales Government had decided that it would be irresponsible to allow a scheme to continue in operation indefinitely which was accumulating a growing unfunded liablity, thereby imposing very great difficulties upon governments in the future. Senator Messner, if he is critical of that, is I presume advocating the sorts of policies which the Government of which he was a member applied throughout most of its term in office, and that was short term thinking with no regard at all for the future financial problems which would be faced by governments. The fiscal irresponsibility ultimately culminated in the inheritance passed on to this Government-that was an impending deficit for the 1983-84 financial year on a no policy change basis of almost $10 billion. That was the end product of the fiscal irresponsibility of the Fraser Government, the type of fiscal irresponsibility which I judge from the tone of Senator Messner's question and comments this afternoon he would have a non-Labor Government pursue or resurrect if that non-Labor Government should ever be elected. Senator MESSNER —Mr Deputy President, I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister confirm that he intends to cut back the $10 billion unfunded amount on the Commonwealth superannuation scheme by employing the same instruments as the New South Wales Government? Senator WALSH —I passed no judgment, and I explicitly said so, on the decision which the New South Wales Government has made. I believe that is a decision for the State Government to make and it is an area of responsibility entirely within its domain and it acted accordingly. Senator PRIMMER —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Has he seen reports of a statement by Senator Messner in the Daily Mirror of 3 October 1984 about granny flats and the assets test? Has the Minister been able to work out whose granny the honourable senator was talking about? Senator GIETZELT —It is impossible to work out whose granny we are talking about because the article is thoroughly misleading. Senator Messner has made both a thoughtless and heartless statement and it clearly indicates his lack of understanding of what a granny flat is. A granny flat is an additional structure of room or rooms, or an additional dwelling erected on a ratepayer's property after it has been approved by a local government authority. Therefore it is the property of the ratepayer who wants to provide accommodation for his or her aged parents and it is properly called a granny flat. Having said that, of course it is the asset of the original landowner or ratepayer and it is not the asset of the pensioner. The report therefore is very confusing because it is not clear whether the honourable senator is talking about the pensioner or pensioners who wish to provide their aged parents with a granny flat, or whether he is talking about aged pensioners who are being offered a granny flat by their children. If we have a very unusual circumstance, for example, of a service pensioner of 60 years of age owning a property, of course that person is in no way affected by increasing the value of the property in respect of his or her own service pension. However, if an 80 year old parent is going to live in the granny flat of course it is not regarded as an asset in terms of the older person, the parent, occupying the granny flat. In the same article Senator Messner says: It is extremely difficult to obtain a separate title for granny flats as they are generally considered as part of the original house. Of course they are. That is local government ordinance. Therefore it just proves that that is a fearmongering statement, just like those we have had from Senator Messner ever since the Government has talked about establishing an assets test. Of course it creates distress when there is no need for distress to be created because no granny flat, whether it is owned by the children or the parent, is taken into account when we are assessing the right of a pensioner to maintain an existing pension. Therefore I say that the article is thoroughly misleading. In fact it has just the opposite effect of what Senator Messner has sought to create. Senator ARCHER —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. He probably does not have a brief on this either . Having had representations from a United Kingdom farming family with a strong experience and capability in that area with a view to migrating to Australia and bringing with them investment capital in excess of $A1m, and having had them rejected out of hand, can the Minister advise me what additional qualifications would be necessary for such a family to obtain eligibility to be accepted into Australia? Senator GRIMES —Mr Deputy President, as Senator Archer expected, I have no brief on an individual case such as this, nor am I likely to. As Senator Archer knows, this Government, like the previous Government, has a points system for immigrants entering this country. That system includes factors such as the amount of capital, skills and so on. I have no knowledge off the top of my head of what happened in this case. I suggest that Senator Archer should do what Senator Walters did yesterday, that is, come to me with specific details of the case and I will find out from the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Senator Archer —I have been to the Minister. Senator GRIMES —If Senator Archer has been to the Minister perhaps he could enlighten us about the reasons which the Minister gave for refusing that case and which he did not include in his question. Had he included them I might have been able to give him a more specific answer. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Martin proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The deception being perpetrated on Australians by the Hawke Government's introduction of Socialism by stealth. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(3.04) —It has been noteworthy that in the period of the Hawke Government since March last year how commonly commentators have attached the phrases 'liberal' and 'conservative' to it. It is also noteworthy that in the case of a Labor government that is praise, but in the case of a Liberal government that is criticism. I think it may well be a reflection of the fact that people are thankful for having what appears to be a conservative Labor government because things could be so much worse. The purpose of this matter of public importance today is to blow that myth apart. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and members of the Government do not apply the term 'conservative' to themselves. When the term is used the Prime Minister smiles broadly and nods benignly. He does not say it himself because, in fact, it is not true. This Labor Party in government is no different in substance from other Labor parties in government. The difference is in its style. It has moved more slowly than, for example, the Whitlam Government in implementing its socialist objectives. It has used soothing and reassuring rhetoric on occasions, but in fact its objectives are no different and the effect of its policies is no different. In the short time that the Hawke Government has been in power there has already been a large number of instances that demonstrate the objectives of a socialist government. Socialism is, of course, inherently hostile to private assets and investment. It believes that the state knows best how to spend the nation's and the individual's wealth. It believes that the state knows best how to direct our life choices. One means of directing them is to limit them. This Government has already, through social welfare policies, medical policies, taxing and expenditure policies and policies in relation to a large number of individual industries, embarked on its basic program. People in Australia are slowly but surely discovering the limitation of their choices and a lessening of their discretion in their own patterns of behaviour and consumption. The difference between a socialist government and a free enterprise government is best summarised in the most basic and important areas of choice. For a truly free society, individuals should have a free choice of consumption and in a number of areas, including medical and educational, this Government moved early to limit the individual's choice. There is a major difference in the choice of life's goals. Basic to our society for some time has been the right to provide for personal security in old age, middle age or whenever. Also basic has been the choice of disbursement of income . That is the reason that low taxation is a high priority. Socialism likes high tax. It moves rapidly towards high tax, as has the Hawke Government as I shall demonstrate in a few minutes. Lowering the freedom of choice of the individual means that fewer choices have to be made available and gives the Government greater powers and rights in relation to the way in which citizens will live. This socialist Government limits choice in essentials and thereby brings about an increased dependency on government. We had a debate in the Senate earlier this week on the subject of the assets test and associated matters. Government senators yawn and the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, takes another valium whenever this subject comes up. But it is basic. There is nothing more basic in affecting people's life styles throughout their lives than how one affects their choices at the end of their working years. This Government's tax on lump sum superannuation has had a number of effects, not all of them immediately apparent in quantifiable terms, but all of them immediate in their effect on Australians. Low incentives to investment in superannuation result in a disincentive to long term investment in those assets which would give security. The money which would otherwise be invested by individuals in what were previously good investment proposals will now go during people's lifetimes either in increased tax or increased consumption. The long term effect of this on the economy as a whole will be to reduce a very significant private investment source and to increase the dependency of individuals on the Government in the twilight of their years because they have been persuaded that it is in their best interest to minimise their assets. They have lost the incentive to provide for independence in their retirement years. One of the obnoxious things about the assets test is the assumption that it makes about wealth. Wealth is a word that is bandied about freely by this Government and its spokesmen. Wealth is, of course, something that glitters in everyone's mind's eye. Wealth means wealthy. To this Government in its socialist objectives, wealth means assets of any kind. If one has anything, one has wealth , which is the broadest possible meaning it could be given. Specifically through the Government's assets test those who have retired and who are pensioners will suffer a reduction in their assets if they fall within the net of the test. If these people do not want to dismantle their farms and what are really quite modest assets that they may have had for most of their lives they must take loans from the Government to enable them to keep an income and these will, in effect, become a death duty. Gift duties have also been reintroduced but only for aged pensioners. The incentive will be to divest oneself of any assets one might have above the minimum before one reaches retirement age. That reduces choice and is a dangerous path, as anyone involved with the elderly should know because of the evidence of exploitation of the elderly which has been given in recent years in research that has been undertaken by those involved in these areas at universities and elsewhere. Returning to the wealth tax, I refer to the words used by Senator Grimes in the Labor Essays of 1983. He said: To be consistent, those who argue for a pensions assets test should also argue for the personal income tax to be supplemented by a substantial tax on personal assets-in other words, a wealth tax. There is it-assets of equal wealth. That is Senator Grimes's view, the socialist view. To be consistent with this obnoxious assets test that is what a good socialist government should do. I believe this one will do it. One of the most startling Government documents I have come across in recent times was a speech by the Minister for Health, the Hon. Neal Blewett, at the Pan Pacific Surgical Congress in Sydney on, I think, 20 March 1984. The Government introduced a compulsory medical insurance system through a tax, a levy, and Dr Blewett, in his speech, is quite clear about this Medicare levy. He said: Medicare does also have an income redistribution aspect in that because the additional cost of its introduction are funded by a 1 per cent tax levy the rich will pay more than the poor. It embraces the concepts of universality of cover with payment related to income which the Government believes are both essential to a fair health insurance system. However, it also retains fee for service medical practice and the professional independence that this permits, as the basic system of remuneration. I do not have time this afternoon to elaborate on that last comment but many others involved in the health debate will. The genuine long term prospects of fee for service are not very good. By introducing this Medicare system the Government did two things: It reduced the real choice of the health insurance options of Australians and it introduced , as Dr Blewett said, an income redistribution mechanism basic to socialism. The strength of the previous system-I do not say it did not have its weaknesses; I personally always preferred the Queensland system-was that people had real choice. For a reasonable sum of money they could insure themselves for private treatment by doctors and in hospitals. Now, because of this extra tax slug, this redistributive mechanism, people have in effect less choice. A very much smaller proportion of the community can afford both forms of insurance. I note very quickly this basic and tired socialist rhetoric of dividing the population into the rich and the poor. Anyone who pays more than the poor is therefore rich. That is a fallacy in Australian society. Most people are on moderate, middle incomes; they are paying more than the poor but they are not rich. The true element of choice has been removed. Dr Blewett has other plans. He has plans for directing and determining the availability of specialists in our medical system. He continued in his speech: I believe that some economic pressure is desirable in medical practice and that Governments must have more say in all aspects of medical manpower supply . . . If Government is expected to act to reduce the intake of medical undergraduates to prevent undesirable situations being created in general practice, there is also a need for Government participation in determining specalist numbers. I suggest there are two reasons for limiting the number of undergraduates. The first concerns supply but the other is that medical students are extremely expensive to train and the view has been taken that it would be irresponsible to encourage larger numbers of students than the market can bear into a lengthy medical training program which is highly expensive. The method of selection and training of specialists is something quite different and does not involve those elements. It has been that sort of manipulation of medical manpower in the United Kingdom that has led to shortages of suitable people, the pressure of a heavy work load on doctors and without doubt a downgrading of what was previously an excellent medical system. Even more astonishing is the substance of the remainder of Dr Blewett's speech. I quote from it: Because doctors operate at the micro level they do not see the costs that their decision generates. Governments operate at the macro level where cost decisions are the daily staple of political life . . . One can expound on the need for professional independence, but in a world of finite resources with cost constraint on all Governments-that individual decision on open heart surgery is inextricably linked to a decision on the provision of additional intensive care facilities for premature births. That is true. The conclusion drawn is startling: Nearly every single cost question in the health has these kinds of political ramifications. Then there are the political questions with ethical ramifications, or rather ethical questions with political ramifications. These challenges mostly face the provider. Those questions relate to whether to undertake open heart surgery for a person in their 60's with other health problems whose life expectancy is probably not much more than another 10 years. An operation may guarantee that 10 years, but without it there would be an expectation of only another 5 years, or less. . . . . However, it is facile to suggest that these considerations are independent of outside constraints. The availability of operating time and of intensive care beds will contribute to the evolving attitude to performing these procedures. The general theory of medical intervention that 'more is better', will serve to increase the incidence of these expensive procedures, so long as Governments or private enterpreneurs extend the facilities that enable them to be performed. Therefore, I believe a system whereby Governments decide the overall availability of services and technology in the health system is desirable . . . These sorts of decisions cannot be left to the medical profession because it is the concentrated group that loses most from cost control policies. Those who stand to gain are diffuse, in the sense that only Government can represent the interests of the general public and taxpayers as a whole. I remind the Senate that those comments and conclusions are drawn in this context set by Dr Blewett: Does one perform surgery on someone in his or her 60s to provide a life expectancy of possibly another 10 years-- Senator Grimes —You prefer the American system, do you, where only the wealthy can have it? Senator MARTIN —The honourable senator should be specific about what the Australian system is in that case. Dr Blewett said: . . . only Government can represent the interests of the general public and taxpayers as a whole. I wonder who represents the interests of the 60-year-old needing open heart surgery. The thrust of his speech at that stage was that the private provision of hospitals and specialised medical facilities should be limited. I am not arguing for an open-ended Government budget but Dr Blewett argues, and this Government's policies implement, a line of reduction of the significance of the private sector, and particularly the private hospital sector. The Government's intention is intervention and control in the most personal and obnoxious manner. Basic also to socialism is an increase in the role of the public sector in a transfer from the private sector. The Australian Labor Party believes that it knows better than we do, or companies do, about what should happen with the country's wealth. Nobody denies that taxes have to be paid and that community facilities must be provided but the pattern of Labor in Government in relation to tax and intervention in industry is highly significant and certainly not at all conservative. Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table from the Budget documents, at page 355, which shows total Commonwealth Budget outlays in each year since 1974-75 and the proportion of gross domestic product represented by such outlays. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Increase on Budget Previous Outlays Year as a Budget Proportion Outlays Nominal Real(a) of GDP $m % % % 1974-75 17,820 46.0 19.6 28.8 1975-76 21,831 22.5 5.2 29.9 1976-77 24 ,093 10.4 -0.8 28.9 1977-78 26,717 10.9 2.5 29.5 1978-79 28,991 8.5 1.6 28.2 1979-80 31,637 9.1 -0.5 27.3 1980-81 36,098 14.1 3.4 27.3 1981-82 41,305 14.4 2.6 27.7 1982-83 48,935 18.5 6.5 29.9 1983-84 56,570 15.6 7.7 30.5 1984-85(e) 63,948 13.0 6.1 31.1 (a) Increase in outlays deflated by increase in the implicit price deflator for non-farm GDP. (e) Budget estimates. Senator MARTIN —In brief summary, the table shows that Budget outlays as a proportion of gross domestic product have risen by 1.2 per cent-the highest rise in recent time-under the Hawke Government. I seek leave also to have incorporated in Hansard tables from the Budget receipts document, at page 364, detailing the composition of Commonwealth Budget receipts for the period 1974-75 to 1983-84. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- Increase on Budget previous Real Proportion receipts year increase (a) of GDP $m % % % 1974-75 15,274 28.4 5.2 24.7 1975-76 18,264 19.6 2.7 25.0 1976-77 21, 374 17.0 5.2 25.6 1977-78 23,405 9.5 1.2 25.9 1978-79 25,534 9.1 2.2 24.9 1979 -80 29,603 15.9 5.7 25.6 1980-81 34,988 18.2 7.2 26.5 1981-82 40,758 16.5 4.5 27.3 1982-83 44,462 9.1 -1.9 27.2 1983-84 48,610 9.3 1.9 26.2 1984-85 (e) 57, 203 17.7 10.5 27.9 (a) Increase in receipts divided by the increase in the implicit price deflator for non-farm GDP. (e) Budget estimate. MAJOR CATEGORIES OF BUDGET RECEIPTS AS PROPORTION OF TOTAL BUDGET RECEIPTS Oil and Income Tax LPG Other Excise Excise Customs Sales Other Individuals Companies Duty Duty Duty Tax Receipts % % % % % % % 1974-75 50.5 15.4 . . 11.3 5.5 7.6 9.7 1975-76 50.5 13.8 1.4 11. 3 5.7 7.7 9.5 1976-77 51.7 13.2 1.6 10.0 6.0 7.7 9.8 1977-78 51.8 13.2 2.0 9.6 5.3 7.5 10.5 1978-79 50.1 11.9 4.8 10.3 5.7 6.9 10.3 1979-80 50.8 11.5 7.7 9.1 5.5 6.3 9.1 1980-81 50.1 13.4 8.9 7.8 5.4 6.0 8.4 1981-82 52.1 12.4 7.8 6.9 5. 3 7.0 8.5 1982-83 51.7 10.7 7.8 7.5 4.7 7.8 9.7 1983-84 50.8 9.0 7.5 8.4 4.9 8 .6 10.7 1984-85 (e) 53.1 9.4 6.5 7.6 4.9 8.2 10.3 (e) Budget estimate. Senator MARTIN —Those tables show that Budget receipts estimated for 1984-85 as a proportion of gross domestic product will rise to 27.9 per cent, an increase of 1.7 per cent on last year. The following comment is contained in this document: In 1984-85, the ratio-- that is, the proportion of gross domestic product expressed as a ratio-- is expected to increase to 27.9 per cent-the highest ratio in the post-World War II period. That illustrates the rate of increase of taxation under this Government. I seek also to have incorporated in Hansard a table of average annual growth rates of the Budget sector for 1972-73 to 1984-85. Leave granted. The table read as follows- AVERAGE ANNUAL GROWTH OF BUDGET SECTOR 1972-73-1984-85 (estimated) Revenue (Personal Total Budget Outlays Income Tax)(c) Receipts Deficit* Year Real(a) Nominal Real(a) Nominal Real(b) Nominal Real(b) Nominal $m $m $m $m $m $m $m $m Whitlam Government (3 budgets)- 1972-73 (Last McMahon Budget) 23,159 10,190 9,314 4,089 21,626 9,494 1,585 696 1975-76 (Last Whitlam Budget) 30,792 21,831 13,002 9,219 25,803 18,294 5,031 3 ,567 Average Annual Growth Rate-%pa 10.0 28.9 11.7 31.1 6.1 24.4 +47.0 +72.4 Fraser Government (7 budgets)- 1975-76 (Last Whitlam Budget) 30,792 21,831 13,002 9,219 25,803 18,294 5,031 3 ,567 1982-83 (Last Fraser Budget) 35,771 48,935 16,789 22,967 32,501 44,462 3, 270 4,473 Average Annual Growth Rate-%pa 2.2 12.2 3.7 13.9 3.4 13.5 -6.0 +3.3 Hawke Government (2 budgets)- 1982-83 (Last Fraser Budget) 35,771 48,935 16,789 22,967 32,501 44,462 3,270 4 ,473 1984-85 (estimate) 40,903 63,948 19,437 30,388 36,589 57,203 4,314 6,745 Average Annual Growth Rate-%pa 6.9 14.3 7.6 15.0 6.1 13.4 +14.9 +22.8 (a) Constant 1979-80 prices as per Budget Paper No. 1. (b) Constant 1979-80 prices using Implicit Price Deflator for Gross Non-Farm Product and a 6.5% increase in 1984-85 as per Budget Paper No. 1. (c) Note in both Whitlam and Hawke Governments revenue from personal income tax rose at a much higher rate than total budget receipts, showing that individuals bore a disproportionate share of the increase under both governments. * Average size of Deficit as % of GDP for: 3 Whitlam budgets-3.17%, 7 Fraser budgets-2.3%, 2 Hawke budgets-3.8%. Senator MARTIN —Briefly, the table shows that under the Whitlam Government revenue from personal income tax increased over three Budgets by 11.7 per cent; over seven Budgets of the Fraser Government it increased by 3.7 per cent; and over two Budgets of the Hawke Government it has increased by 7.6 per cent-more than twice the increase under the Fraser Government. This is a high tax government. It is also a high intervention government in industry. I conclude by quoting from a report on Australia by the stockbrokers Rowe and Pitman of London . Under the heading 'What should investors do?', the report states: Under a Federal Labor government, look out for the companies whose projects are in states which are marginal politically and then go in for some sophisticated political analysis as to whether this will in fact favour the project or not. Try to find those projects which have reasonably good profit returns but also employ much labour. Don't necessarily invest in the companies which may appear to be potentially the most profitable. If the employment-generating projects are not very rewarding, don't invest. And perhaps that's the best solution of all. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(3.20) —Senator Martin, in the course of her speech, suggested that 'what Senator Grimes does on occasions such as this is take another valium and away we go'. I remember once being asked to withdraw a similar statement when I suggested the same thing about a member of the Opposition. I can assure Senator Martin that I do not need to take a valium, especially after speeches such as hers and those which were heard in this place yesterday on pornographic videos and the flag. Now we have the socialist menace being reinstated again in this country. I point out that honourable senators on both sides of this chamber obviously feel the same way as I do about this, because they are staying away in droves. I am sure they will continue to stay away in droves. Quite frankly, I do not blame them. What we are hearing are the cries of desperate members of the Opposition who have the strange feeling that an election is coming on. Everything they have tried until now has failed. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) is rating about 25 per cent in the opinion polls; the Opposition is persistently rating way behind the Government; business confidence in the country is increasing; members of the business community are praising the actions of the Government. We seem to have criticism of the Government from only two sides. There are members of the far Left in this country, the Communist Party and the Socialist Party of Australia, who say that this Government is not socialist enough, that it is not doing the right thing, as a socialist government. Members of the far Right, who are represented by Senator Martin, are now saying that the Government is too socialist. I suppose what that means is that we must be just about right for a country with a mixed economy. Why did Senator Martin propose this matter of public importance? Senator Martin has spent the last three days in this chamber complaining terribly that I will not bring on the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill. She said it was awful that Senator Grimes and the Government would not bring on the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill which is so vital to her and, I suppose, her electoral prospects. Senator Crowley —We could have had it now. Senator GRIMES —The Bill could have been before us this afternoon. We will have it before us on Monday. I am desperate to get the Bill on now because I cannot wait to hear what Senator Martin has to say. The Senate is due to adjourn at 4 or 4.30 this afternoon; yet Senator Martin went back 20 years and brought up a matter of public importance in these terms: The deception being perpetrated on Australians by the Hawke Government's introduction of Socialism by stealth. Apart from the rather quaint olde worlde wording of that matter of public importance which shows that some things in this country never change-Senator Martin and her ilk are examples of that-it is also I believe, an insult to the voters and the people of this country who in every poll, even in the private polls done by the Liberal and National parties, are demonstrating that they support this Government and will continue to support this Government and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). That may stick in the craw of people such as Senator Martin. We are not used to Senator Martin putting down nonsense in matters of public importance such as this. It was even more surprising when we heard the basis of her argument. I thought she was going to make a good speech on the dreads of socialism by stealth, creeping socialism, the Red menace, all the sorts of things we have had in the past. No, it was another matter of public importance on the assets test and on Medicare. We have had five matters of public importance on those subjects this year. I suppose the Opposition thought it could not bring the subject up twice in one week with the same wording; so it dreamt up this extraordinary wording. Why has Senator Martin suddenly become a Red basher or a socialist basher? Why did she speak at all? When one looks through the Hansard record, one finds that she did not have much to say in the last couple of years, until the last few months. I suppose the real answer is that she is seeking to go to the other place. What electorate will she be representing? She will be representing all those charming people down on that beautiful part of Queensland, on the coast, with all their lovely assets and units. It is an electorate which she thinks she can fool because she thinks they will be swayed by this nonsense, by this fear of the Red menace, the socialist menace and socialism by stealth. I suppose the great pity is that we always enjoyed Senator Martin's speeches. I understand that she is to be replaced by former Senator Sheil. The wording of this matter of public importance is that of Senator Sheil, not Senator Martin, who usually makes much different speeches in this place. Let us get on to the gist of what Senator Martin had to say and the way in which she supported the matter of public importance which she raised this afternoon. The first thing I can recall her saying was that this Government is introducing socialism by stealth, because what this Government is doing is interfering with the free choice of consumption and, in particular, the free choice of consumption in education and health. She did not go on to elaborate how we were reducing the free choice of consumption in education. That just flitted away. I suppose there is some difficulty in elaborating on that because of the increased expenditure in this area. I suppose there is some difficulty with that because the Government has guaranteed increases in expenditure to independent schools for the next four years, with a review and, after that review, for the next eight years. So Senator Martin picked on health. She said that what had happened was that the Government had taken away the choice of people for their health care in this country by introducing Medicare, which is a universal health insurance scheme. That is an interesting area in which to bring up the matter of choice. I always think it is. People such as Senator Martin always advocate in this place what is wrong with our health scheme and with Medicare, the universal health insurance scheme which has been introduced into this country, as a similar scheme has been introduced into almost every other country in the Western world, with the exception of the United States of America. Even there a scheme has been introduced to cover large sections of the population, particularly the aged population, and even that has only been partly eroded by the extreme right wing Government of Ronald Reagan. People such as Senator Martin say that we are taking away freedom of choice and that what should happen in the medical profession and the medical business is that medicine and health care should be provided under a system of a free market . The great god of the free market, Adam Smith, who is so worshipped by Senator Martin and her ilk opposite, had something to say about the free market a couple of hundred years ago. He said that that market was terribly important; if that market wants to remain free the consumer and the seller should have knowledge of what is happening in the market; knowledge of what they are buying and selling and, therefore, that market can remain free. The problem with the marketing of medical services in this country or any other country is that we do not have that free market because the consumer, about whom Senator Martin claims she is so concerned, does not have that choice for several reasons. The first reason the consumer does not have that choice is that the consumer cannot pick whether he wants to buy the service because he cannot pick when he is going to be ill. Therefore, the first choice of whether to buy or not to buy is taken away. The second way in which the consumer's choice is taken away is that they do not have the knowledge. The consumer does not have the knowledge that the seller of the service, the doctor, the medical practitioner, has. Frequently the consumer is in the dark. Fortunate it is for the patient who has the same sort of knowledge as the medical practitioner who is involved in the case. So their choice is taken away once again. Throughout the Western world there has been a necessity for governments to interfere in the so-called process of the free market, so that the poor, the ignorant, the indigent can have access to adequate health care, so that people can have security in times of illness, so that the standard of basic health care provided for people does not depend on their wealth. In times of medical developments and of great expansion in knowledge of health and, in particular, in techniques relating to health, there does come a time when the whole community must think about what procedures can continue to be performed and what procedures it can continue to afford. It was in this context that Dr Blewett said about by-pass surgery in particular-open-heart surgery-that the time may come when we will have to make a choice that unless techniques improve and costs come down we as a community may have to make a choice about how many operations can be performed, when they can be performed and the circumstances under which they should be performed. That is not very satisfactory to Senator Martin. She claims that is taking away people's choice. What sort of choice is she talking about? In this country at the moment most people who need that sort of surgery can in fact get it either in private hospitals using their health insurance or in public hospitals using public hospital facilities. That does not apply in the United States of America. That does not apply under systems which Senator Martin is so concerned about, under which by and large only the wealthy can afford such procedures. Those people who are not wealthy either go broke or do not have that surgery. Those who are poor enter into a lottery-they will be treated if they happen to live in a city or State which provides the necessary facilities for public patients in public hospitals, and they are very limited. That is what Senator Martin wants to foist upon the patients of this country. She wants to foist on them a system which will say: 'If you have the dough you can have the procedure; if you do not you can go he'. Senator Martin —That is the United Kingdom system that you are introducing. Senator GRIMES —That is not the United Kingdom system; that is the United States system. Unfortunately it is the system that Senator Martin wants to foist onto the people of this country. We have said, and we have made no bones about it, that in this area we are interventionist. Of course we are interventionist. We are interventionist in the same way that John Gorton was going to be interventionist after the Nimmo Committee of Inquiry into Health Insurance in this country completed its inquiry. We are interventionist in a more sensible way than the previous Government was, which in fact had six health insurance schemes in the seven years that it was in government. Senator Crowley —That is a measure of intervention. Senator GRIMES —That is real intervention. There was so much intervention in those years that the people of this country got fed up. Every time a health insurance Bill was introduced in this place I used to get up and say: 'See you again next year. This won't work, and you know it won't work'. It never did work . We are not saying that about Medicare and the Opposition is not saying that about Medicare, because it is working. It will work and it will continue to work , and it will preserve the freedom of choice. Senator Peter Rae —It will work to put us back into government. Senator GRIMES —The honourable senator and his colleagues will be out of government for so long that the same situation will apply here as applied in Canada-there would be a revolution if his Party tried to remove a fair and equitable system of that type. Senator Martin is very selective in her talk about choice. She says it is perfectly legitimate for her, for me and for others-and I agree with her-to limit the number of medical trainees in this country, that it is perfectly legitimate to say to kids who may qualify at a high enough level: 'You can't do medicine because we can't afford it, and we are not going to pay for it'. Suddenly it is not legitimate for any government to say to people who want to be specialists and who are very much more expensive to train than are undergraduates: 'Look, we have more cardiac surgeons per head of population than anywhere else in the Western world. We have more renal surgeons than anywhere else in the Western world, we can't go on like this. We can't go on allowing the situation to develop in this way. Therefore we think we ought to cut down on the number of people we have in those speciality areas because we have a shortage in other areas'. Senator Martin says it is not legitimate to do that but it is perfectly legitimate to do the other thing. That is selective. Maybe she thinks there are a lot of retired specialists living in that new electorate of hers. Senator Crowley —There probably are. Senator GRIMES —There may well be. Maybe she has been to a few meetings of the Liberal Party in that electorate and maybe she is sniffing the air, but she is not sniffing the air of the whole electorate of this country. That is why she is sitting where she is and that is why she will stay sitting where she is. The next aspect that Senator Martin brought up to demonstrate that this Government was introducing creeping socialism, socialism by stealth, the red menace or whatever else she wanted to call it, was the fact that we wanted to change the tax laws on lump sum superannuation and introduce an assets test. She has taken up Senator Messner's cue. She says that that means that the Government will do all sorts of terrible things later on-it will introduce wealth taxes, capital gains taxes, probate and gift duties. Senator Martin —Will you? Senator GRIMES —While listening to Senator Martin I just happened to be reading today's National Times. What do we find in the National Times? We find a book review by Geoffrey Briot entitled: 'Liberals Face the Future: Essays on Australian Liberalism'. It is about Liberals and the essays are written by Liberals. Let us see what a Liberal who wrote one of these essays has to say and what questions he raises. This is the Liberal Party, not the Labor Party. Senator Martin —Who is it? Senator GRIMES —His name is Ian Macphee. I think he is a front bencher in Senator Martin's Party. He says: How long can Australia be the only OECD country without a consumption tax, probate tax, probate duty and a capital gains tax? He proceeds in his essay to point out that that is a very strange situation and that we are unique among the member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. What is more he points out that other countries of the OECD performed much better economically than ours did in the last seven years, but in the last year, under the socialist Government that Senator Martin is worried about, we performed a lot better than those countries. That is what sticks in Senator Martin's craw. For all the years her Party was in Government Australia was down at the bottom of the OECD ladder. Now that we are in government we suddenly have a higher growth rate than the rest of the OECD countries. Our inflation rate has decreased by a greater amount than has that of other OECD countries and our unemployment rate is decreasing in the same way. That is what sticks in Senator Martin's craw, and she does not like it. That is why she has to get up and make vague speeches like the one she made here today about creeping socialism. Senator Martin went on about the assets test. She said that we wanted to take away people's assets and we were taking away people's choice. She referred to the tax on superannuation and said that we were doing terrible and cruel things to people. We are unique in the OECD, in the Western world, in the way we treat superannuation lump sums. The tragedy is that in all the debate on the introduction of a tax on superannuation in this country, all the debate about the tax concessions we give at the time premiums are paid and we give to the superannuation companies, and all the debate on the concessional treatment of lump sums, both sides of this House of Parliament said: 'We will do this and we will continue to do this because people will be able to have an income in their retirement and they will no longer be a burden on the social security system of this country'. What has happened is that they all get the full pension and full fringe benefits and defeat the basic purpose that this Parliament set out to achieve. So this Government said: 'If that purpose is not being achieved we should do something about it'. We are doing something about it. In the case of the assets test both sides of this Parliament, including Senator Martin, say that what we need is a needs-based social security system. Needs cannot be assessed on income alone. If needs are to be assessed through a means test we have to include assets. Assets have to be included in people's income because if we do not include them we create enormous inequities which mean that the retired railway man or public servant on a small weekly superannuation payment living in the back western suburbs of Sydney has his or her pension reduced and fringe benefits taken away while the person with large assets holdings in contrived schemes, living in the sorts of areas that Senator Martin wants to represent, gets the full pension and the full fringe benefits. That is what this debate is about. That is why we are in fact wasting time this afternoon. That is why we are not debating the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill that Senator Martin has been bleating about all week. That is why we will not debate it until next week. Because the people of this country see through the Opposition's charade, this Government will stay in power for a long time. That is why the Hawke Government that Senator Martin was so rude about in her speech will stay in government for a long time. That is why Senator Martin will languish on the Opposition benches in the lower House. Long may she do so. But I must say with all charity that in view of the alternative to come in from Queensland we will miss her. Senator MARTIN(Queensland) —Mr Acting Deputy President, I claim under standing order 410 to have been misrepresented. Senator Grimes —You can't do that. Senator MARTIN —It is a genuine claim. Senator Grimes earlier in his speech made a misstatement of fact in relation to speeches I made in this place. He ascribed to me a particular motive in speaking today. It had to do with my being a candidate for a House of Representatives seat which he claimed included a large number of elderly and wealthy people. I do not debate whether it does or does not, but it was an overstatement. He said he had not heard much from me in the Senate in the last couple of years and that was the reason I was making this speech. He made the statement that I had not spoken much in the Senate in the last couple of years. Of course, I was not prepared for his statement so I have not looked at the facts, but I am sure that they would show that I have participated in more debates in the Senate in the last two years than in the previous two years. I am quite happy to go through these factual things with Senator Grimes, but it is a misrepresentation of my participation in the Senate this week and my reasons for participating today. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(3.41) — The Senate this afternoon is debating a matter of public importance moved by Senator Kathy Martin with her usual skill and attention to detail. That matter of public importance is: The deception perpetrated on Australians by the Hawke Government's introduction of Socialism by stealth. Senator Martin was cut short by time from completing the quote which she had from certain London investment advisers in relation to what people ought to do about Australia. The last part that she was not able to quote reads: Faced by a government which is essentially hostile to resource development and innately contemptuous of private enterprise perhaps it would be better to leave investment in Australia to the international institutions just like any other third world country. Having listened to Senator Grimes's speech I am more confirmed than ever before that the year is 1984 and that George Orwell made only one mistake. He talked about newspeak instead of Hawkespeak. If ever we have heard a load of Hawkespeak nonsense we heard it from Senator Grimes this afternoon. Let me talk for a minute about the nonsense of the prices and incomes accord. All the functions of government are to be taken over by this new corporate state-the corporate state of the unions and the Government, the industrial wing and the political wing of the Australian Labor Party. We had the theatre of the National Economic Summit Conference. It was sheer theatre. It was perhaps thespian joy to many. However, those who fear for the future of this country could see that it was in so many ways a confidence trick. What we find happening in this country is well set out in an article by Katharine West published in the Bulletin of 26 June of this year. When referring to the Government she said: Nor its determined attempts to undermine the independent bargaining power of both business and the trade unions-forcing them instead to take direct responsibility for decisions actually made by Government ministers and public servants. She went on to comment a little further about the Hawke revolution which drew forth some very interesting comments in the edition of the Bulletin of 14 August 1984. The author of a letter said: There is no doubt that we are experiencing political shifts which threaten to concentrate power in the hands of the few. The author also said: The 1984 ALP conference has reinforced and accelerated this trend and the formation of the Hawke corporate state. Skilful balancing of powerful forces, some solid arm-twisting behind closed doors and a dash of public theatre have produced a recipe which will reinforce the power of organised labor, big business and the Hawke Government. But clearly the corporate state does not care for people. The author of that letter was Senator Don Chipp, the Leader of the Australian Democrats in this chamber, so I have his support for what I am saying. When we look to see what the newspapers say about it we find that on Tuesday, 13 September 1983, the Australian said: Without any doubt, the outcome of the summit was all about improving the living standards of those still left with jobs and not about making the maximum effort to help those without them. This is the problem. Whilst some cosmetic financial deregulation has taken place under this Government, it has really been about entrenching power in the hands of the few at the expense of the many. This Government has not been about overcoming unemployment in Australia, which is a great and growing concern, but about ensuring that it will be able to control power indefinitely. It was made so clear by Senator Grimes this afternoon in everything that he had to say that his interest was in whether his Government would stay in power, not about whether he would overcome some of the problems to which Senator Martin adverted and to which many other people have been adverting. Many people in the community are concerned and will express their concern when they get a chance to vote. Let me talk about the shallowness of the recovery which this Government inherited. It inherited a recovery in which as a result of the wages pause which had been introduced by the former Government, the recovery from the drought- there can be only one recovery from a drought so there can be no benefit from it more than once-the United States recovery and the world recovery we had a situation of a temporary but relatively shallow recovery in the economy. If we look at the manufacturing industry which is a very good test of what has been happening, we find that the figures for the past 18 months show that there has been a steady decline in the rate of growth compared with that for the last quarter. There has been an actual fall in productivity. If we consider retailing figures we find that the major retailers of Australia are unable to find the alleged statistical uprise in the retail sector. If the major retailers of Australia are unable to find it, I think it very unlikely that the corner store would be able to. There has been a major but temporary growth as a result of the Government's pump priming through the housing policy. This has had a very beneficial effect for a large number of Australians and has certainly been beneficial to employment. However, what has it done to public sector borrowing requirements? The public sector borrowing requirements have doubled in the past two years. The impact of that must be to further threaten those who think of investing in the private sector, of investing in housing other than through some government sponsored scheme and theaten those who think they might do anything on their own behalf other than through the controlled areas of government. The accord again had that impact. The accord had the impact of threatening the growth of this country. It demands that the Australian Council of Trade Unions be given access to confidential Budget information which is denied even to the Economic Planning Advisory Council. The position is that because of the accord, the selfish accord , the document which is for the haves in employment rather than for the have nots, we have not seen any real solutions in industry. What we have seen is the sort of thing that came out of the industry policy discussion at the ALP conference in July, namely the resolution which reads: Conference affirms that interventionist policies which are closely monitored and comprehensive in nature are necessary to bring about the growth which is required on a sustained basis if unemployment is to fall on a continuous path. Fundamental to the interventionist policies required is a planning mechanism. In a letter circulated by the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, crowing about the Centre Left's success at the National Conference with the industry platform it was said that the Centre Left encouraged and facilitated negotiations between the Minister and the metalworkers in pursuit of an agreed policy. That is another bit of Hawkespeak because the position in fact has been as set out in the Australian Financial Review of 13 July 1984 under the heading 'Unions force revisions to the industry platform'. The article states: Industry development agreements on investment, pricing and employment will be written into the ALP industry policy platform today under a strongly-bargained deal between the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, and an alliance of metal unions and the Labor left and right wings. Senator Button —And right wings. Senator PETER RAE —There was a big flap on, from what I heard, so I suppose the Party had both wings going. We then find reported in the Weekend Australian of 14-15 July this headline: 'Pockets of disquiet greet new ALP industry strategy'. Very significant criticism was made of the new ALP policy-the interventionist nature of it, the extent to which it did not take into account the interests of small business, the extent to which it gave power to the two wings of the ALP, the political wing and the industrial wing. We found in the Australian Financial Review of 17 July an article headed 'Council rejects new planned market concept' . The article stated: The Business Council of Australia warned the Federal Government of strong business resistance to the AMFSU-inspired shift towards government and union intervention in industry policy which was incorporated in the ALP's platform last week. I do not have the time to read in more detail the comments about that. Let me just quote the comments of the Prime Minister himself, who apparently is fairly self-satisfied about what has been able to be achieved. An article in the Age of 18 August 1984 states: Referring to Australia as a successful corporate State, Mr Hawke said: 'the application of the principles of industrial democracy in the biggest business in the land has worked well. It is not planning in the throttling sense of Eastern bloc dictatorships, but based on voluntary co-operation. The sort of voluntary co-operation that we have seen was the sort that I gather Senator Button experienced at the ALP conference. The position is that borrowing generally has left us in a position where this country is at a very severe financial risk. Why we have to have an early Federal election is not for reasons of coincidental timing of the elections of both Houses because such an election could be held in May next year. It is because the Government well knows that its corporatist policies have brought this country to the point of risk of financial bankruptcy with the fall and deterioration in the recovery which this Government inherited. The Government is bringing this country to a stage where a mini-Budget will undoubtedly be necessary. The sooner the Government can get to an election, get back in and bring in a mini-Budget, the sooner it will be able to come out in its true colours. Perhaps when it is doing so it might cut out some of its corporatist expenditure such as the $4m it is spending on committees, such as the Economic Planning Advisory Council, the Australian Manufacturing Council and the industry councils, and such as the $750,000 or whatever that it is spending on the accord . The way in which this Government has set out to solve problems is to corporatise. Typical of that is the creation of the Steel Industry Authority and the Automotive Industry Authority. One can only say that corporatism is about power; corporatism is about privilege; corporatism is about socialism by stealth . Corporatism is not about looking after employment and equity opportunities. It is not even about egalitarianism. It is about the other alternative method of achieving the keeping of power within the hands of the few. As Maximilian Walsh said in the Sydney Morning Herald of 17 July: The fact that the Labor conference was not prepared to explore the really difficult questions of industry policy and, instead, adopted a policy dictated by an anti-intellectual, self-interested bunch of industrial power-brokers should be set against the Prime Minister's theme. That is the theme of the debate this afternoon. That is the theme of the concern expressed by the Opposition that what we have here is the development in so many areas-in the social, industrial and economic areas-of the corporatist state in which there is power and privilege to the few at the expense of the many. What this Government has done has been to do little for the have nots. It has done little for the pensioners and it has done little for the unemployed. It has done little other than repress the masses through the strength of what might be called the commissars, the industrial and political wings of the Australian Labor Party. It has sought to entrench its own power at the expense of the many citizens of Australia. It will not be long before the many citizens of Australia see what has been happening to them and, like John Stone, come out in the open and criticise the Government. John Stone, in his Shann Memorial Lecture, talking about Shann, said: What would he have thought, in that connection, of the nascent growth of our latter-day mini-corporate States?-generally hiding behind the rosy name of ' industry policy' but smelling no less repellant under that euphemism. He went on to say: Would not Shann have marvelled that the industrial philosophies of Fascism which had begun taking hold in the Europe-but never the Australia-of his day, were now being activated in his own country 54 years later? . . . Senator Button —That is not your MPI. Your MPI is about socialism, and not national socialism. Senator PETER RAE —I have wondered, and I have even asked the Minister, what is the difference between socialism and national socialism. I have inquired as to what is the difference between the way in which the corporatist state has been developed by the Australian Labor Party and the national socialist policies which have been put forward by some countries. I want quickly to add that it was not only nazi Germany that tried to follow national socialist policies; others put them forward at various times. I think that this matter could do with some consideration and explanation. But what John Stone said just a few weeks ago is partly in explanation of why he had tired of it and resigned from the Treasury. He did so to get away from this Government-this corporatist Government, this Government which is taking over Australia by socialism by stealth. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(3.57) —I start my remarks much as the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, did, by pointing out to Senator Peter Rae, who is sitting opposite, that not so long ago when a Government member accused someone of being a national socialist he had to withdraw that remark. I feel I can just pass over that remark, but if the honourable senator is into abuse, we note it. The Senate is debating a matter of public importance in these terms: The deception being perpetrated on Australians by the Hawke Government's introduction of Socialism by stealth. Senator Martin, in introducing this matter of great importance, argued that socialist policies are here. I say to her that they are, well and truly. We are a democratic socialist government. We are delighted that she has got that clear and we thank her for so clearly advertising what this Government has achieved though, it might be said, some of my colleagues in the Australian Labor Party are not quite so convinced. However, we are delighted that at least the Liberals are clear about it. The first word of any significance in the matter of public importance is the word 'deception'. The only deception that we can talk about is the deception that has been displayed by the Opposition; it does not even know what the real issues are. Members of the Opposition are the ones who are being deceived. It is a wonderful exercise in self-deception which they have then generously applied to all Australians. I would like to draw the attention of the Senate to the editorial in today's Adelaide Advertiser. The Advertiser is the main morning daily newspaper in South Australia and it is not known for its desperately radical views. The editorial in the Advertiser today had this to say, in part, when talking about the Opposition and Mr Peacock and their getting the issues right or wrong: The debate on Tuesday- that is, the debate in the House of Representatives on Tuesday- in which Mr Peacock failed to name the names which might have given some credibility to his denunciation of the Prime Minister as an associate of crooks, was a disastrous setback for him. The editorial continued: The fact is that the mere existence of organised crime in this country, as revealed by a series of Royal Commissions, cannot be attributed to Federal Government shortcomings. Nor can the Government fairly be attacked about it without clear evidence that it has evaded its responsibilities or has some direct association with criminals. The editorial goes on to talk about what the Federal Opposition should be doing. It states: Wider national issues, matters affecting the economy such as the future of the prices and incomes accord, possible changes in the structure of the taxation system, pensions, tariffs and trade policies are the things to which voters require candidates to direct their attention when election campaigns get underway. They have been too much overshadowed in recent times by matters of less substance. They remain the matters on which the Opposition should be probing for weaknesses in the Government's performance and undertakings for the future. I think it is very significant that the editorial points out that the Liberal Party of Australia quite clearly is self-deceived in what it regards as the important issues. It is not talking about what matters to the Australian people. It is not talking about the economy. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, is almost desperate for questions about the economy. From time to time some of his own back benchers give him the opportunity to speak about the economy, because the Opposition certainly will not. It has no policies on the economy. It has no understanding of what it will say and it has a big problem because this Government is achieving many of the things that the Opposition would like to have been able to achieve while it was in government during the seven years in which it led this country into an utterly disastrous state. We have heard the most extraordinary remarks from honourable senators opposite. Senator Martin talked about the need for choice. Quite clearly, her understanding of choice is choice for those who can afford it and not choice for all. She addressed this question under the heading of Medicare which is, of course, of no surprise to goverment senators. It is one of the few issues that the Opposition can sometimes complain about. Senator Martin thinks that there is more choice for people when two million Australians are not insured and therefore have to risk remaining well, knowing that if they should ever become ill or have an accident, the cost of their health care would be prohibitive. Under Medicare, those two million extra Australians are covered by the universal health scheme. They now have the choice. Two million Australians have a choice that previously they did not have. That is one of the benefits of the Medicare scheme. Senator Peter Rae —She did not say that. Senator CROWLEY —She definitely argued that under Medicare there was less choice . The interesting thing is that, in answer to Senator Martin, under Medicare this Government has ensured that two million Australians now have the choice and the confidence of being covered by the Medicare scheme which is universal and which guarantees that choice to all Australians. This Government does not believe in choice only for those who can pay; it believes in choice for all. It believes in redistribution. It unashamedly says that that is what it intends to do. The ridiculous notion that Medicare is reducing choice is very well illustrated by the two million people who now can choose. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time allocated under Sessional Orders for this debate has concluded. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Button) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of all or several of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of all or several of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Button) read a first time. Second Readings Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(4.03) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1984 The Bill is introduced in conjunction with the Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1984 and forms part of a legislative package with that Bill for arrangements to deal with secondary boycotts. The major purpose of the Bills relates to the Government's intention to repeal Sections 45D and 45E of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and to replace them with a more effective mechanism under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act for dealing with disputes involving secondary boycotts. Sections 45D and 45E which prohibit secondary boycotts and agreements giving effect to secondary boycotts were introduced into the Trade Practices Act by the Fraser Government. Section 45D has operated since 1977 and Section 45E since 1980. Section 45D has its origins in the 1976 report of the Swanson Committee, established to review the Trade Practices Act. One of the specific terms of reference of that Committee was to give particular attention to the application of the Act to anti-competitive conduct by employees and employee or employer organisations. In a wide ranging report which only briefly discussed the problem of secondary boycotts, the Committee recommended that the law provide an effective avenue of recourse for a trader directly affected by a boycott, by allowing him access to an independent deliberative body. The Committee was not satisfied that satisfactory procedures for solving these matters were available at that time. The Committee had no firm view as to whether such procedures for recourse should be established under the Trade Practices Act or the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Following this report, the Fraser Government added Section 45D to the Trade Practices Act in 1977. As enacted, Section 45D went far wider than prescribing only those price maintenance activities that were of prime concern to the Swanson Committee. Unlike other provisions of Part IV of the Act, Section 45D is not solely concerned with competition. Indeed the Section was so widely drawn that its main operation is in respect of industrial action which often has little, if any, effect on competition. In fact one test for the Section- substantial lessening of competition-has been little used. During the entire period of its existence, Section 45D has not been widely accepted as a provision concerned with competition-rather it has become more a weapon directed at the industrial relations activities of trade unions under the guise of competition policy. The Fraser Government amended Section 45D in 1978 and 1980 to broaden its application against union activities. In addition, during 1980, Section 45E was introduced into the Trade Practices Act. Section 45D commonly operates to prohibit boycott situations arising from a refusal by employees to handle goods intended for a third party for the purpose of pressuring the third party to accede to certain demands. Section 45E supplements that provision by prohibiting contracts, arrangements or understandings between a union and another person to prevent or hinder the supply of goods or services to, or their acquisition from, a third party. At the same time, the Conciliation and Arbitration Act was amended to permit the Commission to play a conciliation role in relation to disputes involving secondary boycotts. The relevant provisions are contained in existing Division 5A of Part III of the Act, which is to be repealed. Under these provisions, where there has been a contravention of Section 45D or 45E of the Trade Practices Act and an injunction has been applied for in the Federal Court of Australia in relation to that contravention, the dispute concerned may be notified to the Commission. The Commission is empowered to conciliate, if the dispute involves a federally registered union, or a member or officer of the union, or work under a Federal award. This was a more realistic assessment of how secondary boycott disputes are resolved. It suffered, however, from the destabilising effects of the contemporaneous proceedings before the Federal Court under the Trade Practices Act. Sections 45D and 45E have been the subject of considerable controversy since their introduction. It is the Government's view that these provisions should not have been enacted in the Trade Practices Act. The essential concern of the trade practices legislation is to promote fair trading and free competition. On the other hand, the real purpose of Sections 45D and 45E is to prohibit union activity which usually has little or no detrimental effect on competition or fair trading. In the context of legislation dealing with trade practices matters , the sections provide unrealistic sanctions to be applied against unions in relation to their industrial activities. The Government's position is absolutely plain-the Government does not, in any way, condone the industrial tactic of a secondary boycott. However, the Government does not believe that such action is so different in nature to other forms of union and employee action in support of their industrial claims that it should be singled out to be dealt with under the Trade Practices Act, rather than through the established industrial channels. The principal objective of any regulation in this area must be the speedy, fair and effective resolution of the underlying dispute. The Government believes that this will not be achieved by the legislative prohibition of secondary boycott activity. Indeed, provisions such as Sections 45D and 45E may only serve to exacerbate a dispute and resort to them may result in a worsened industrial relations climate not only between the parties, but in the relevant industry as a whole. The special characteristics of industry disputes demand that they be handled by expert bodies under our industrial machinery rather than under trade practices legislation which is not designed to resolve the underlying issues which give rise to the boycott activity. The Government is concerned about the possible effect of the remedies of penalties and damages which are available under the Trade Practices Act for contraventions of Sections 45D and 45E. These are potentially highly disruptive to Australia's industrial relations. Their application, where boycotts occur, is unlikely to lead to the effective or satisfactory resolution of the dispute. Indeed it is worth pointing out that pecuniary penalties under the Act have never been imposed. In addition, damages are not the principal objective of the parties where proceedings are instituted. Practical experience has shown that the remedies provided under the Trade Practices Act have not been effective in the way which is often claimed. The only remedy which has been seriously pursued has been the granting of an interim injuction to seek to force a union to lift its bans before, or during, negotiations on the issue at the hearing of the dispute. Yet when the evidence is examined, there is not much reason to conclude that the injunctive process has been particularly speedy or that using this legal remedy will help to resolve a dispute. In some cases, the issuing of an injuction under the Act has even led to a worsening of the dispute. To illustrate this, I will refer to the applications of which the Government is aware that were made under Sections 45D and 45E in relation to secondary boycotts involving unions. We know of 78 such applications. Periods of 2 weeks and more betwen the imposition of bans and the application for an injuction are quite common. This occurred in 38 of the 64 cases for which relevant information is available. The Government is most concerned about the delays in resolving boycotts. It is hardly sensible that these legal remedies under the Trade Practices Act are available in relation to secondary boycotts, if no action is taken to resolve the disputes before those remedies have to be called upon. Once injunctions are granted, their effect on the boycott dispute has varied considerably. The Department of Employment and Industrial Relations has examined the 25 boycott disputes involving unions which have occurred since the beginning of 1983. Interim injunctions were granted in relation to 15 of these disputes. In 5 of the cases where injunctions were granted, action under the Trade Practices Act actually led to an escalation of the dispute through, for example, the widening of bans or the extension of their duration. In 9 cases, including those I have just mentioned, the injunction appeared to have little or no direct impact on the secondary boycott action. Bans have continued, for example, for periods ranging from 5 to 25 days. The injunctions appear to have been of direct effect in only 3 of these 15 cases. In none of these were damages granted or penalties imposed and no permanent injunctions have been granted. I have argued to this stage that action under the Trade Practices Act in respect of secondary boycott disputes is neither the most appropriate course for resolution of the dispute nor necessarily a particularly quick or effective course of action. Following our repeal of these Sections, the Government is not proposing to leave a void in the handling of such disputes. Let no-one underestimate our concern at the impact of these disputes. What the Government is proposing is an alternative mechanism whereby such disputes can be dealt with , in the first instance, through the established industrial relations machinery. Such a course of action will ensure that boycott matters are dealt with effectively and speedily through the tribunal best qualified to deal with them. Earlier this year, the Attorney-General and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations issued for public comment a discussion paper on the application of the Trade Practices Act to trade unions. That document examined these issues and outlined the Government's views. Many responses were received to the issues canvassed. The Government has carefully considered all the views expressed by employers and their representatives, as well as by some State goverments, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and individual unions. Extensive discussions have also been held within the National Labour Consultative Council on the substance of the Government's proposals. It is clear that employers and their organisations are seriously concerned about the resolution of secondary boycotts. In essence, the position of employers is that the remedy of injunctions is required to protect them from secondary action by trade unions. They seek the retention of this remedy under Commonwealth legislation. It has been suggested that it be introduced into the Conciliation and Arbitration Act in addition to what the Government has proposed. At the same time, there is widespread acceptance that the Commission should be able to seek to resolve these disputes. Nonetheless, the Government's consideration of the responses to the Green Paper and its examination of the operation of Sections 45D and 45E have led us to the conclusion that the retention of a statutory legal remedy for secondary boycotts is not warranted. Whatever the effect of proceedings under Sections 45D and 45E may have been in the years immediately after their introduction, and I have to say that it is simply not clear that they were generally effective then, it is apparent that unions have paid far less regard to them in recent years. As mentioned, in some cases the issuing of injunctions under the Trade Practices Act has even exacerbated disputes. The Government does not believe that the retention of similar remedies under Commonwealth law will help to resolve boycott disputes. Our emphasis is not upon prohibition and sanctions but on the settlement of disputes where they occur. Experience has shown that by far the greatest number of secondary boycott disputes involving unions arise in relation to industrial issues. The best way to deal with such disputes is to provide for them to be brought before an industrial tribunal. Accordingly, the Government proposes that, upon the repeal of Sections 45D and 45E, the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission should be able to dealwith such disputes where a federally registered union or its members, or work under a federal award is involved. We believe this should also apply where these boycott disputes do not concern strictly industrial issues. The Commission should be able to bring the parties together to see if they can settle their differences. We propose to allow the Commission to conciliate in relation to these disputes. This is similar to what exists at the moment, but with a significant improvement . Instead of the delays under the present arrangements which require the initiation of Federal Court proceedings under Section 45D or 45E, anyone involved in or affected by a boycott dispute will be able to notify the Commission immediately, and the Commission will also be able to act of its own motion. These matters should be dealt with as quickly as possible by the Commission and provision is to be made to ensure that this will be done. The legislation will enable the Commission to deal with boycott disputes in relation to both industrial matters and non-industrial issues. Industrial matters will be the same as those which the Commission can deal with in its normal jurisdiction except that they will not require a particular employment relationship. Security of employment which sometimes gives rise to boycott disputes will be included as an industrial matter for the purposes of the Commission's jurisdiction under this legislation. We do not believe that the Commission should be asked to deal with boycott disputes over non-industrial issues if it cannot play any useful part in their resolution. Provision will therefore be made to require the Commission to make a threshold judgement as to whether it will be able to resolve the dispute or bring about an end to the industrial action. It may be unrealistic, for example, to expect the Commission to play a role in overcoming a boycott which has an explicitly political basis, such as a ban in protest against aspects of Government policy. There have been some suggestions that in lieu of remedies like those under the Trade Practices Act, the Commission should be able to arbitrate in secondary boycott disputes in a binding and enforceable way. We do not consider this necessary or appropriate. Where a secondary boycott is imposed, as is often the case, in support of claims in an industrial dispute within the Commission's normal jurisdiction, the Commission will be able to arbitrate, if that is required, in relation to those underlying claims. This is because the Commission will be able to use the arbitral powers under the Act that are available in industrial disputes. To facilitate this, provision will be made to allow the joint hearing of an industrial dispute and an associated boycott dispute, where that is appropriate. In some cases, of course, secondary boycotts are ancillary to industrial disputes which can be dealt with by industrial tribunals. However, if there is not an industrial dispute involving an employer and employee relationship, the only formal procedure at the Federal level to resolve the dispute is the unsatisfactory mechanism of existing Division 5A. In other cases, the Commission would, if it had to arbitrate, be required to deal with issues which are simply not suitable to be dealt with under its award making powers. An example is where there is a dispute over marketing or pricing arrangements which arises through union concern over employment for its members. An area like this involves considerations which the Commission could not realistically be expected to deal with by decisions which could be enforced under the Act. There are other problems. An arbitrated decision could have the direct effect of putting a company which was the target of a boycott out of business entirely or depriving that company of a substantial share of a market. Its enforcement would present difficulties and might well destabilise employment in that market. It would also be undesirable if enforceable arbitrated decisions over these wider issues which would not involve direct employer and employee relationships were to conflict with other Commonwealth or State laws, reflecting, for example, competition policy considerations or marketing arrangements. On the other hand, if such laws were to be overridden by arbitrated decisions, this could actually encourage secondary boycotts as a mechanism to circumvent those laws. Nonetheless, there may be some place for arbitration in situations where the parties are close to agreement. We will enable the Commission, therefore, to be able to arbitrate with the agreement of the parties. However, its decisions will not be enforceable or reviewable under the Act. In addition, these decisions, like agreements to settle boycott disputes reached through conciliation under our proposals, will be subject to the general law. By way of example such a decision or agreement may require authorisation under the Trade Practices Act where it would otherwise contravene a competition provision of that Act. In providing for more effective machinery to deal with boycott disputes, we are not proposing to restrict access to common law remedies in relation to secondary boycotts, except in one important respect. The exception concerns injunctions which may be sought where an action in tort is taken in relation to a secondary boycott. We believe that the granting or enforcement of an injunction while a matter is before the Commission may destabilise the efforts of the Commission to resolve the dispute. Indeed, as I have already said, we see this as an important defect in the existing legislation. We are proposing, therefore, to restrict such action where the Commission is dealing with a dispute involving a secondary boycott. This restriction will not apply to injunctions which prevent personal violence or the damage or destruction of property. Employers will also be able to pursue action for compensatory damages. This proposed restriction is to be strictly limited to the period in which the Commission feels that it is likely to bring about promptly the end of the boycott or the settlement of the dispute. If it concludes at any time that this is not likely, a party to the proceeding will be able to obtain a certificate to that effect from the Commission which will end the restriction on the injunction. The Commission will also be able to recommend the lifting of industrial action connected with a boycott dispute and, consequently, to take into account any lack of compliance with such a recommendation when considering the issuing of a certificate. I have already mentioned the delays which frequently occur in seeking injunctions under Sections 45D and 45E. Similar delays can be expected in relation to common law proceedings, if they are used. Under our proposals, during the period before the initiation of proceedings, conciliation will be able to take place before the Commission. As I have indicated, the absence of such an arrangement is a serious deficiency under the existing provisions. A further important point is that there is no reason why an employer affected by a boycott should not be able to prepare his case for a common law remedy while Commission proceedings are underway. If that party is suffering serious harm through the continuance of the boycott, there will be no obstacle to that party immediately applying for an interim injunction when a certificate is issued by the Commission. In a case where the situation was extremely serious for the applicant, this could conceivably happen within a matter of hours of the granting of a certificate. This does not mean that the Government believes that resort to the common law would prove any more effective than the remedies under the Trade Practices Act have been. In our view, common law remedies are unlikely to play a useful role in the resolution of disputes involving secondary boycotts . Another important aspect of our approach is reflected in the Trade Practices Amendment Bill. I refer to the provision in that Bill which is designed to maintain an across-the-board prohibition of price maintenance activity. Successive governments have accepted that the prohibition under the Trade Practices Act on resale price maintenance should not be subject to any exemption . It has also been accepted that any action to promote resale price maintenance should be prohibited. The prohibition on price maintenance activity extends to trade unions which are generally not suppliers of goods and therefore cannot engage in resale price maintenance themselves. However, they are capable of bringing about that result through their activities. Our concern is that the repeal of the secondary boycott provisions of the Trade Practices Act may leave a gap in the prohibition on such price maintenance activity. To ensure that this does not occur, we are proposing the amendment contained in Clause 12 of that Bill. I now turn to the main provisions of the Bill. Clause 3 of the Bill establishes the new arrangements whereby the Commission will be able under proposed Sections 88DA to 88DN to deal with boycott disputes. These provisions will comprise a new division 5A of Part III of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act when Sections 45D and 45E are repealed. Proposed Section 88DB identifies the types of boycotts which will be able to be dealt with by the Commission. These boycotts are similar to what is covered by existing Sections 45D and 45E. Proposed Section 88DC enables a wide range of persons to notify the Commission of the existence of an impending, probable or actual boycott dispute. Under proposed Section 88DD, the President is to refer the dispute to a Member of the Commission. This can also be done where the Commission itself becomes aware of a boycott dispute without formal notification. The Commission must then commence within 48 hours proceedings to determine whether there is a boycott dispute within its jurisdiction and if so whether it involves an 'industrial matter' as defined. The Commission has to make a written finding of the dispute. If the dispute does not concern an industrial matter, the Commission can only deal with it if it certifies in writing that it is satisfied it will be able to bring about a prompt cessation of industrial action, the abandonment of the boycott or the settlement of the dispute. I draw the attention of Honourable Senators particularly to proposed Section 88DE. This provision requires the Commission to deal with a boycott dispute expeditiously. This reflects the Government's concern that boycott disputes should receive the active attention of the Commission without delay. In some circumstances a boycott dispute may relate to some other industrial issue before the commission. Proposed Section 88DF enables the President to allow a boycott dispute to be dealt with jointly with such related matters. The Commission as so constituted would, of course, be required to deal no less expeditiously with a boycott dispute in joint proceedings. Proposed Section 88DG provides for the form of arbitration which I mentioned earlier, by consent of the parties, and with their agreement to abide by all decisions reached by such arbitration. Proposed Section 88DH defines the parties to proceedings under the proposed Division. Honourable Senators will note that all directly involved parties may be represented, as well as a Minister. Other interested persons will be able to seek leave to intervene in the usual way. Proposed Section 88DJ provides for the prohibition on the granting or enforcement of injunctions in connection with actions in tort against any persons engaging in a boycott dispute. Proposed Section 88DK requires the Commission on application, or of its own motion, to certify that it cannot bring about promptly the abandonment of the boycott or the settlement of the dispute. When a certificate is issued, the restriction on injunctions will end. An unsuccessful applicant will be able to re-apply for a certificate to a Full Bench or to the Member dealing with the dispute. I have already mentioned that the Commission will also have to take into account the extent of compliance with its recommendations in the proceedings. This package of provisions provides a comprehensive mechanism by which secondary boycott disputes can be dealt with effectively and speedily. By removing the provisions prohibiting boycotts from the Trade Practices Act, and establishing new machinery in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to deal with boycott disputes, the Government is ensuring that such disputes are dealt with in the forum which is best equipped to achieve a satisfactory resolution to the industrial relations issues which underlie most disputes. Finally, I refer to other provisions of the Bill which are of a more technical nature. They concern the financial accounting and reporting requirements under Part VIII AA of the Act for registered organisations and their branches. It is proposed to provide less onerous and costly requirements for small organisations and branches. This principle has the support of members of the National Labour Consultative Council. The proposed amendments will not, however, prejudice the proper financial administration of these bodies. Clause 5 of the Bill enables organisations or branches whose annual incomes do not exceed $10,000 to apply to the Industrial Registrar for a certificate of exemption from certain of the existing financial and reporting requirements of Part VIII AA of the Act. An organisation or branch which obtains a certificate will be exempted from the current requirements in relation to the preparation of accounts, their supply and presentation to members and their filing with the Registrar. Instead the new requirements that are to apply will be more appropriate to the type of organisation or branch concerned. The organisation or branch will be required to prepare its accounts and other statements for the financial year in accordance with less onerous requirements that will be prescribed by Regulation. The accounts and statements of the organisation or branch are to be presented to a meeting of members. Members of the organisation or branch will be able to obtain free of charge copies of the accounts on request. The accounts and statements and the Auditor's report are to be filed with the Registrar within 90 days after the date of the Auditor's report. I would point out to honourable senators that, in all other respects, the existing requirements of Part VIII AA will continue to apply to organisations or branches with a certificate. Thus, the rights of individual members to seek further information concerning the accounts or to ask the Registrar to investigate the accounts will continue to apply. Likewise the powers and duties of the Registrar to investigate any deficiencies and to require rectification will also continue to apply to such organisations and branches. I commend the Bill to the Senate. TRADE PRACTICES AMENDMENT BILL 1984 This Bill is introduced in conjunction with the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 for the legislative purpose already outlined in the second reading of that Bill. The purpose of this Bill is to repeal sections 45D and 45E of the Trade Practices Act 1974, clearing the way for the commencement of new provisions in the other Bill which will enable the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to settle secondary boycott disputes. Pricing and marketing agreements reached under those new provisions will be made subject to the Trade Practices Act. Certain transitional measures must also be introduced and necessary consequential changes made. Transitional Provisions No new proceedings may be instituted concerning conduct prior to the repeal of sections 45D and 45E. However, proceedings already instituted will be unaffected . Appeals also will not be affected. Section 80AA is repealed but that section will continue to apply to enable an injunction granted before repeal to be stayed to facilitate conciliation. Price Maintenance Activities by Non-Suppliers Proscriptions on price maintenance behaviour have existed since 1971 but have been limited to conduct by suppliers only. Governments of all persuasions have recognised since that date that resale price maintenance is inherently bad. Non suppliers are capable of effecting the same detriment of competition through secondary boycott activity although they may have no commercial objective. Accordingly, the Government has decided that resale price maintenance activities by non-suppliers should be subject to injunction. Conciliation resulting in Marketing and Pricing Agreements The Government's position is clear: secondary boycotts are a symptom of industrial disputation arising out of industrial demands and the reaction to them. What, however, may appear to be a matter of industrial disputation can lead to arrangements which are essentially commercial. Marketing and pricing agreements between employers and unions would fall into this category. If they are anti-competitive the Government sees no reason why they should not be dealt with under the Trade Practices Act. The Government also considers it to be necessary to prevent the new provisions in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act from being used as a 'back door' to avoid the Trade Practices Act. Accordingly, the Bill makes clear that conciliation resulting in legitimate industrial agreements shall fall outside the Trade Practices Act but that marketing and pricing agreements will continue to be subject to that Act. Such agreements may, of course, be capable of authorization by the Trade Practices Commission on public benefit grounds pursuant to the Trade Practices Act. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Ryan) read a first time. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(4.05) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to approve an agreement between the Federal and Tasmanian Governments relating to the future of the Bass Strait sea passenger service. This agreement is a milestone, marking the beginning of an improved Bass Strait sea passenger service which will greatly assist the Tasmanian economy and people. The Government's approach to the future of the service has always been to achieve a solution which best meets the needs of Tasmania. The Bill is a very simple piece of legislation containing four standard clauses . It brings into effect the agreement which forms the Schedule to the Bill. It provides for payment of a grant to the State in accordance with the agreement. Moneys for the purpose are included in Appropriation Bill No. 2. The agreement is a straightforward document setting down the terms and conditions of a grant of financial assistance to the State. The grant will assist the State in meeting the capital costs of acquiring the vessel Nils Holgersson and putting it into the Bass Strait service. It will also assist the State Government to make necessary terminal alterations in Melbourne and Devonport. A total of $26m is to be provided to the State for this purpose. As explained in the agreement approximately $958,000 was provided in June 1984 to allow the State to enter a provisional purchase contract for the vessel. The remainder is provided in this year's Budget. For its part the State, in return for the financial assistance, has agreed to provide the Bass Strait sea passenger service for a period of not less than 10 years. It will have full operational and financial responsibility for conducting the service. This is a major feature of the agreement. Henceforth the State Government will be the master of its own destiny as far as the Bass Strait sea passenger service is concerned. Successive State Governments have consistently argued that the sea passenger service should be improved. They have often complained that the standard of service and facilities provided are not appropriate. This agreement allows the State Government to tailor the service to meet the needs it perceives for the service. Tasmania is the major beneficiary of the service. The Tasmanian Government, which is closer to the service, should have the ability to decide how the service should be conducted. This includes the type and standard of facilities as well as fares and charges. This is consistent with our overall approach to the question of a successor to the 'Empress of Australia'. Our aim has been to achieve a solution which best meets the needs of Tasmanians. The previous Government made very little effort to address this question. When we came to office we found there were no well developed proposals aimed at ensuring the continuation of this important link between Tasmania and the mainland. Over the 7 years it had been in office the previous Government had consistently avoided the problem of the long-term future of the service, hoping a commercial solution would come forward. We have worked quickly with the full co-operation of all parties involved to address this problem. No doubt many people would be disappointed to see the end of the Australian National Line's direct 25 year involvement in Bass Strait sea passenger services , however selection of the operator of the vessel is a matter for the Tasmanian Government. It is not readily appreciated that the Line has had a very difficult job to do in recent years. It has had to operate an outdated ship with the bare minimum of financial assistance. This has been in the face of a lot of criticism beyond the Line's control. It has not been possible to meet that criticism with the 'Empress' still in service in the absence of leadership of real interest from the previous Government. The agreement would also not have been possible without the Line's involvement. The Line's officers worked closely with the Tasmanian Government in its initial investigations that led to the identification of the ship finally selected by the Tasmanian Government. This agreement marks an end and a new beginning. It brings to an end the long period of uncertainly about the future of the Bass Strait sea passenger service. It marks the beginning of a new service with vastly improved capacity, facilities and promise. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had made the amendment requested by the Senate to this Bill. Bill (on motion by Senator Ryan) read a third time. Senate adjourned at 4.07 p.m. The following papers were presented: Australian Telecommunications Commission- Erratum to Service and Business Outlook for 1984-85, dated August 1984. Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 259. Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 271. Customs Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 Nos 260, 261, 262, 263. Dairy Products (Export Inspection Charge) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 267. Defence Act-Determinations 1984- No. 38-Child Allowance. No. 45-Special Action Forces Allowance and others. No. 46-Special Gratuities and Annuities for Honours and Awards. Dried Fruit (Export Inspection Charge)-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 268 . Fish (Export Inspection Charge) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 270. Grain (Export Inspection Charge) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 269. Health Insurance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 265. Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Grants) Act-Price Determination, dated 30 September 1984. Public Service Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 272. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Ordinances 1984-No. 51-Nurses Registration (Amendment). Shipping Registration Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 273. Superannuation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 264. Wool Industry Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 266.